When All You Have Is a CyberHammer, You Have to Expect to Go to War against Nails

There are two things about this NYT article describing Obama’s new cyberwar policy that deserve note.

A secret legal review on the use of America’s growing arsenal of cyberweapons has concluded that President Obama has the broad power to order a pre-emptive strike if the United States detects credible evidence of a major digital attack looming from abroad, according to officials involved in the review.

[snip]

The rules will be highly classified, just as those governing drone strikes have been closely held.

First, according to the WaPo, the government has conducted a search of any and all government officials who have had contact with the lead author of the story, David Sanger.

Investigators, they said, have conducted extensive analysis of the e-mail accounts and phone records of current and former government officials in a search for links to journalists.

Frankly, I think the WaPo is naively ignoring the real possibility, given the updates to DOJ’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, that DOJ has accessed Sanger’s email records directly.

Nevertheless, however they’ve gotten that information, the government now has a pretty good idea who speaks to David Sanger. Presumably, folks who talk to Sanger — particularly those privy to secret workings of the White House — are cognizant of this fact.

From that I assume it’s likely — though by no means certain — that the Administration is not that unhappy about having an article boasting about its aggressive cyberwar stance, even while noting that the details of it will be remain legally classified.

Meanwhile, I’m struck by this claim.

Mr. Obama is known to have approved the use of cyberweapons only once, early in his presidency, when he ordered an escalating series of cyberattacks against Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities.

Sure, there’s only been the one attack (or rather the serial set of attacks) on Iran.

But I’m struck — particularly in the wake of DOJ’s filing making it clear they’re investigating WikiLeaks as a spy, while refusing to tell us what laws it is using to conduct that investigation — that there has been a rather notable cyberattack whose author we don’t know: the DDOS attacks on WikiLeaks as it first started to release the WikiLeaks cables, and then again last summer (a group called AntiLeaks claimed credit for the second one).

As Jack Goldsmith and Thomas Rid both point out, the Administration appears to be badly fumbling cyber defense (largely because the private sector doesn’t want to play along and the Administration isn’t prepared to make them), but they are very aggressively pursuing cyberoffense. Perhaps, as Goldsmith suggests, this leak to the journalist whose contacts are being monitored is intended to deter attacks on the US (though I’m not sure how a story in a newspaper that the Chinese have hacked is going to scare the Chinese from doing what they have been doing for years).

But if the US is so intent on bragging about its offensive capability, isn’t it time we learned the scope of that offensive capability? Shouldn’t we finally know whether the government took down a publisher’s website?

Tweet about this on Twitter8Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook6Google+2Email to someone

6 Responses to When All You Have Is a CyberHammer, You Have to Expect to Go to War against Nails

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel Thought of marriage equality coming to SC gives me even more glee than marriage equality in UT, & used to live there. http://t.co/tdUSgTS2Zy
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @natnicol Really, entire bar comes down to whether you can keep necessaries away from proctor isn't it? Hell I could pass that! @sarahjeong
4mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @TyreJim I've only started with them. But them, I'm half-way to dead and still have only a radiation tattoo. @sarahjeong
10mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @TyreJim If her Tor sticker were the one the NSA uses, with the hairy "terrorist" dude, that'd be lethal too. @sarahjeong
14mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Bibi likely thinking to himself, "Ha! That windsurfer had to have a girl defend him."
16mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @carimachet @kevinjonheller But don't blow shit up my ass and tell me what and how to think on legal issues.
16mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @sarahjeong Sure you will! YOu're missing the "National Security Agency Monitored Device" one, which is the real sticker of death. @TyreJim
16mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @carimachet @kevinjonheller Would IHL if applied properly make a difference? Along with other modalities, of course. Is it currently, no.
17mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @carimachet @kevinjonheller No, I will not argue your point because you are egregiously mischaracterizing what Kevin has opined.
18mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @TyreJim Was thinking that myself. Going into the bar exam and not prepping to litigate the meaning of "excessive." @sarahjeong
21mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @carimachet @kevinjonheller I have known, seen and read Kevin for quite a while now and think you are terribly mistaken.
23mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ryanjreilly Getting pretty close to every time now, albeit some a little more shaded than others.
24mreplyretweetfavorite
February 2013
S M T W T F S
« Jan   Mar »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728