Introduction
Cyber-threats and warfare is an issue not only in the United States but also in the rest of developed nations. According to Cavelty (2008), “the threat posed by cyber-threats calls for greater understanding of the context in which they occur”. The author supposes that in order to get an insight into the cyber-threat and warfare, we need to understand the concept of what he refers to as ‘information revolution’. There are vast problems faced by the information industry in form of cyber-crimes and hacking, subjecting the information techniques to cyber-threats and warfare. This has created a new modern warfare prompting a number of nations to formulate policies geared towards combating such attacks. In a bid to protect the international community which lacks an international law to curb cyber-threats and warfare, it is therefore logical for United States and other nations to adjust their native law to deal with this new challenge. It has become generally impossible for cyber-crime offenders to be charged with violation of business ethics in regard to cyber-crimes due to lack of legal guidance on matters pertaining this issue. This paper focuses on the need to re-assess the state of information system and come up with recommendations that would make this achievable. This will follow after brief information on what these threats are and their repercussions in the information industry.
Cyber-Threats and Warfare and investigation approaches
The question on whether the investigations in these areas of cyber crime and terrorism to remain incident driven or to adopt strategic approach are still is of great concern to the security agencies and the general public as a whole. However, it is prudent to note that governments and all security agencies should be vigilant at all times. Towards this it is good to adopt investigations which have got strategic approach. This will ensure that the government and all the security agencies are better prepared to control these crimes.
Ways in which crime analysis and investigative practice achieve positive outcomes with terrorism and cyber crime
Research and investigation are fundamental in the fight against terrorism and cyber crime. Towards this, data collected on the prevalence of these crimes, their occurrences possibility are normality used to tighten security measure before the crime is done. For instance, there are policies which govern internet financial transaction which protect the people from being coned.
The second way in which investigations are yielding positive results is that security agencies use the data from investigations to plan security measure which not only protect the people but also destroy the criminals and their criminal activities. In this regard, the security agencies are able to find out the hide out of criminals and destroy them before they strike.
The demand for better human security and human rights is in higher demand now than ever before and the international community needs to undertake a new paradigm of human security. This is because security has continued to change since the advent of state security in the 17th Century. Today’s global trade, movement of goods and services are interlinked to the aspect of human security. Human beings as a race share a planet, a biosphere and exist because social fabric that put the different races, colors, religions, beliefs and backgrounds together. This is because the security and fundamental rights of a single member of the human community, security of a nation, a region or state is influenced by the decision of others. According to Bruno (2008), “The objective of human security is to safeguard the vital core of all human lives from critical pervasive threats, in a way that is consistent with long-term human fulfillment”. This paper takes a comprehensive and critical analysis of human right at the international perspective and further looks on the improvements which have been made on the issue. I strongly believe that much of improvements have been made on human rights protection world wide, however much of these improvements need to be made According to Bruno (2008), “the most published hacks in the computer industry was the attack on Estonia paperless government but this is just a reflection of what happens behind the scenes without being noticed”. The author reports that Cyber Defense Agency’s president and information systems expert, among others are concerned about this issue. The United States, Israel, Pakistan, and India have been responsible for attacks on adversaries with China been the most notorious. Through hacking it is now possible to retrieve crucial government data and this causes ripples among US, Britain, France, among other nations. The motive of China hacking has shifted from protecting networks from possible attacks to the new phenomenon of offensive mitigations of against adversary webs. China on the other hand has shifted the blame from their government and blames the practice on individual rogue citizens. Today the larger international community accuses the Chinese launching new tactics of effecting complex cyber attacks.
On the other hand, the US has also been a victim of offensive cyber-warfare. Bruno (2008) asserts that defense analyst; William Arkin, confesses the ability of the US administration of accessing their foes’ computer networks and explore their communication system so as to alter digital information. There was leaked information that Network Attack Support Staff formation in 2004 was a measure to realign the forces’ ability for cyber attack. A senior military officer explained that the move was aimed at creating an interface between intelligence department and the combatants’ commanders. The US military has launched systems that are able to penetrate and jam networks of others; for instance, the airborne Suter system that can invade other territories’ communication systems and even take over. This makes it possible for the radar system of a particular territory being unable to detect an approaching aircraft.
The tactics employed by computer hackers are not complex but have the ability to bring down an entire system’s administration. Hacking that brought down the Estonian network down started with a number of messages directed to government servers. This tactic harnesses a large pull of interconnected information system and bombards a potential target network with requests while on the other hand making it impossible for location of the attacker. This made it possible for the hackers to take charge of a number of computers and directed the information to the administration’s servers without the knowledge of their users. Though this tactic was a simple one, it was almost untraceable. In addition, there is a tactic that involves a malicious program attached to a computer to store information without the knowledge of owner. This software then sends the stored information to PCs at the Pentagon mainframes. The most feared cyber-crimes through are those directed at crucial infrastructural systems; for instance the control systems of banks, nuclear plants, among others. The ability of hackers to penetrate the electronic systems of industries makes it possible for them to shut down operations.
“These threats posed by cyber-crime are real and bear great consequences to the infrastructure making; and, is a major concern for the US administration” Valivev, 2007). Despite the threats and vulnerability of information systems, there has been laxity in curbing the threat until recently that it has been perceived by the intelligence communities and the security system as a real problem. The challenges of dealing with cyber-crimes start right from the definition of cyber-threat. This coupled with the adverse economic losses that could arise from electronic hacking and security uncertainty due to breaching of security regulation by hackers calls for effective measures of dealing with cyber-threats and warfare. Stolfo, Bellovin and Hershkop (2008) concurs with this statement by asserting that the impacts of hacking to the financial industry are great and real following a workshop organized by joint event by the Dartmouth College and Information Security Departments; Columbia University.
Recommendations for Curbing Cyber-Threats and Wars
To curb cyber-threats and warfare, the US, EU and NATO worked together in order to come up with an agreement that would create standards of cyber-defense. According to Cordesman (2002), “the 41-nation Council of Europe drafted a pact that was endorsed by the US. This document was drafted in and released in 2000 seeking to address the issues arising from cyber-crimes”. The United States took part in the drafting the document for almost two years and after the convention was to be further scrutinized by Steering Committee on European Crime Problems then handed over to Committee of Ministers. The document was later to be opened before the member states and the US as an observer nation for signature. The draft contained a number of recommendations for dealing with cyber-threats and warfare five of which are discussed below.
The first recommendation made in the document is that each party will adopt legislative measures and other measures that would make partial or whole intentional access to computer systems punishable under domestic law. The recommendation further stipulates that the domestic law considers it an offense any infringement to security measures, or accessing a computer system that is connected to another information system. In relation to establishment of domestic law, the US has taken steps to institute law that criminalizes cyber-crime offenses with perpetrators considered at par with terrorists. This is because according to Linden (2007), Cyber terrorism entails the use of cyberspace to instigate terrorism attacks against computer systems and access to information data that can intimidate or coerce an administration’s duty of delivering its social, economic, or political obligations. These actions as noted by the author can result to loss of life, severe economic loss, contamination, and plane crashes; hence, cyber-crimes is equivalent to terrorist attacks.
The House of Representative and the Senate passed legislation that would target to subject offenders to life imprisonment for risking lives of citizens by via manipulation of computer systems. These measures were contained in the 2001 Cyber Security Enhancement Act (CSEA). Under the same legislation, all business entities are required to be sufficiently equipped with security architecture properly layered and tranched. “Whenever a layer or tranche is violated, the entire source of valuable database and control capabilities are to be critically looked into for compromises” (Intelligence Unit, 2004). All reforms in legislation begin with policy setting to address the current state of affairs; for instance the setting up of US Federal Trade Commission to curb new spamming besides building evidence, and adoption of new efforts through offering training, (Internet Society). This legislative measures set by the United States, European and other developing nations is the first step towards restoring sanity in the cyberspace; therefore, I regard this recommendation the mostly crucial in curbing cyber-threats and warfare.
Secondly, the all Party to the agreement is to adopt legislative measures and other measures that would make it necessary to establish competent administrators with powers to curb cyber-threats and warfare. These authorities are to be given power to carry criminal investigations and hearings in search of offenses and while on duty, the authorities should have right to access computer systems. The information retrievable by the established authority include partial or whole access to computer systems and data contained therein, and to access a computer-data base medium provided the system is in its territory. According to Intelligence Unit (2004), “the threats of cyber-crimes can be curbed by through collective defenses but would outsmart offenders’ ability to initiate a cyber-crime.” The defense mechanism has been concerned with securing trade channels and pathways to markets. According to Fischer and Nickell, (1999),
The world trade today is driven by digitally transacted money/e-money in tune of trillions of Dollars; the need for establishing counter-attack forces to curb is eminent to secure the safety of money transmitted digitally. The counter-attack forces must get government backing to deal with rogues and politically backed computer attacks emerging from espionage or otherwise across the globe.
In addition to the second recommendation above, counter-attach measures can be instigated through mobilization of resources; for instance, investment on interoperable channel of distribution of management knowledge. Through proper analysis system it will be easy to share data among different intelligence bodies in search of cyber-crime offender. Investment in public intelligence world wide is crucial in the sense that the breeding ground of cyber-crimes is cyber cafes that are under permanent watch of the local citizens. This measure calls for the redistribution of expertise and proficiencies of counter cyber-crime and warfare technologies through creation of national centers dealing with digital defense. “The redistribution of expertise and proficient cannot be achieved with laxity in sharing cohesive ability to counter cyber-threats and warfare” (Sachar, 2004). For sustainability of reliability of future counter-attack forces, focus has to be laid in SME systems at times of complex cyber-crime offences or malware attacks. The effectiveness of the second recommendation will depend on the developing a transnational strategy with global appeal other that the drafted document by the Convention to protect the US, UE and other developing nations. “This is due to the fact that cyber-crime is initiated in the cyberspace available to all citizens in every corner of the world” (Gercke, 2010). Therefore the objective of the Convention’s resolutions should move towards enticing the global sphere.
The third recommendation that is vital to curbing cyber-crime is the establishment of inter-Parties legislations that would allow a Party within its jurisdiction to set domestic law that would allow another Party to access information, without prior request, that it considers vital in unraveling a cyber-crime offense in its territory. Upon such agreement, there is exercise of mutual cooperation between or among Parties under the chapter of this recommendation. According to CCRC (2005) “the achievement and viability of inter-States’ cooperation was highlighted following UN’s 6th workshop dubbed “Measures to combat computer-related crime.” The workshop listed among others recommendations, that nations develop further international cooperation at all level. The UN (United Nation) given its international character called for coordination of internal mechanisms proposed by the General Assembly, to aid intergovernmental duties aimed at protection of cyberspace to shield it from the activities of cyber-crime offenders. In addition, the workshop recommended that all nations review their legislative laws to adapt accordingly to a given nature of cybercrime. “The proposals by UN was effected when India resolved to enact 10 years imprisonment of cyber-crime offenders and a further $14,300 penalty on breaking into computer networks” (Chakraborty, 2009).
Fourthly, the Convention recommended extradition between States for cyber offenses as established in the Articles 2-11 of the document; as long as they are the crimes are punishable under the legislative laws of the two Parties. The provision provides that where extradition treaty or an alternative legislation contradicts each other in regard to penalty for extradition, the minimum penalty applies as contained in the treaty or reciprocal alternative would instead be considered. According to Yar (2006), this was a just move given the repercussions of the 9/11 attack in the US. Following the attack, the US administration had to seek for international cooperation in dealing with cyber-terrorists who castigated the attacks. It was on the basis of international legislation between the US government and Afghanistan that made the launch of search of suspected terrorists believed to be in the territory. (Harsh), concurs with this view by asserting that Information Technology Act should be applicable to all persons irrespective of nationality as long as the rules are broken.
Lastly, “the Convention recommended that mutual assistance be given by Parties in relation to real-time traffic data collection evident in some specific communications within a territory and is transmitted with the aid of computer system” (Siegel, 2008). For effective governance of this provision, the authenticity of domestic law will play an important role in defining conditions and procedures deemed necessary. As a reactionary measure, States have taken steps to involve the corporate world in providing cyber –crime counter attack measures by providing tools and services that would provide surveillance and censorships. “Among the corporate bodies that have so far aided in this measure include China and US firms; for instance Cisco, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, among others” (Deibert, 2008).
Conclusion
From the investigations above, it is evident that cyber-threats and warfare are serious global challenges that the modern world faces. Recommendations have been made but the effects of such legislations are yet to be experienced. National administrations should pull together ideas in a way to tackle the challenges of cyber-crimes in collaborative way. It however noted that the efforts of the Convention are just but the beginning of a long way to go. They will ensure that cyber-crimes are checked. This war will be won when al stake holders come together and with persistent and rigorous measures, it is possible that the adverse effects of cyber-crimes will finally be put to rest.
References
Bruno, G., Council on Foreign Relations (2008). The Evolution of Cyber Warfare. Web.
Cavelty, M. (2008). “Cyber-security and threats politics: US efforts to secure the information age.” CSS studies in security and international relations. Sidney: Routledge
CCRC Staff, (2005). Computer Crime Research Center: UN recommendations on fighting cybercrime. Web.
Chakraborty, A. Dhaka plans 10 years’ jail for cyber crime, Simple Thoughts, 2009. Web.
Cordesman, H & Cordesman, J. (2002). Cyber- Threats, information warfare, and critical infrastructure protection: defending the US homeland. New York, NY: Greenwood Publishing
Deibert, R. (2008). “Access denied: the practice and policy of global internet filtering.”
Dr. Gercke, M (2010). ITU Cybercrime Legislation Resources: London: ITU Publication on Understanding cybercrime-A guide to developing countries. Web.
Fischer,J.F. and Nickell, J.(1999).Crime science: methods of forensic detection. New York: University Press of Kentucky
Harsh. Cyber Crime- an overview and the measures. 2010. Web.
Information revolution &global politics. Massachusetts: MIT Press
Intelligence Unit, Computer Crime Research Center (2004). How real is the threat of cyber terrorism? 2010. Web.
Linden, E. (2007). “Focus on terrorism.” Focus on terrorism volume 9. New York: Nova Publishers
Sachar, P. (2004).Securing Electronic Business Processes: Highlights of the Information Security Solutions Europe 2003 Conference. Sidney: Springer
Siegel, L.J. (2008).Essentials of Criminal Justice. Sidney: Cengage Learning
Stolfo, S., Bellovin, S. & Hershkop, S. (2008). “Insider attack and cyber security: beyond the hacker.” Volume 39 of advances in information security. Michigan: Springer
Valivev, A. (2007). Urban terrorism [sic]: do terrorists target cities and why. New York: University of Louisville
Yar, M. (2006). “Cybercrime and society.” Criminology series. Washington, DC: SAGE.