INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
The Trump administration new cyber strategy out this week isn''t much more than a stringing together of previously considered ideas.
In the
40-page document, the government set out its plans to improve cybersecurity, incentivizing change, and reforming computer hacking laws
Election security about a quarter of a page, second only to &space cybersecurity.
The difference was the tone
Although the document had no mention of &offensive& action against actors and states that attack the US, the imposition of &consequences&
was repeated.
Our presidential directive effectively reversed those restraints, effectively enabling offensive cyber-operations through the
relevant departments,& said John Bolton, national security advisor, to reporters.
Our hands are not tied as they were in the Obama
administration,& said Bolton, throwing shade on the previous government.
The big change, beyond the rehashing of old policies and
principles, was the tearing up of an Obama-era presidential directive, known as PPD-20, which put restrictions on the government
Those classified rules were removed a month ago, the Wall Street Journal reported, described at the time as an &offensive step forward& by
an administration official briefed on the plan.
In other words, it&ll give the government greater authority to hit back at targets seen as
active cyberattackers — like Russia, North Korea, and Iran — all of which have been implicated in cyberattacks against the US in the
recent past.
Any rhetoric that ramps up the threat of military action or considers use of force — whether in the real world or in
cyberspace — is all too often is met with criticism, amid concerns of rising tensions
This time, not everyone hated it
Even ardent critics like Sen
Mark Warner of the Trump administration said the new cyber strategy contained &important and well-established cyber priorities.
The Obama
administration was long criticized for being too slow and timid after recent threats — like North Korea use of the WannaCry and Russian
Some former officials pushed back, saying the obstacle to responding aggressively to a foreign cyberattack was not the policy, but the
inability of agencies to deliver a forceful response.
Kate Charlet, a former government cyber policy chief, said that policy
&chest-thumping& rhetoric is forgivable so long as it doesn''t mark an escalation in tactics.
I felt keenly the Department frustration over
the challenges in taking even reasonable actions to defend itself and the United States in cyberspace,& she said
&I have since worried that the pendulum would swing too far in the other direction, increasing the risk of ill-considered operations, borne
more of frustration than sensibility.
Trump new cyber strategy, although a change in tone, ratchets up the rhetoric but doesn''t mean the
government will suddenly become trigger-happy overnight
While the government now has greater powers to strike back, it may not have to if the policy serves as the deterrent it meant to
be.
Facebook, Twitter: US intelligence could help us more in fighting election interference
