Governing Cyberspace during a Crisis in Trust
Summary
TLDR网络安全领域存在一个悖论:一方面我们推动财富创造和经济繁荣,另一方面我们通过连接一切到互联网中,构建了经济脆弱性。制定网络安全政策的难点在于其跨越经济、安全和国际稳定三大支柱。当前的治理结构滞后于技术发展,导致国家利用灰色地带进行侵略性网络行动,侵蚀了个人和国家层面的信任。为应对这一挑战,CIGI召集了企业高管、学者和政策制定者,展开重要的全球对话,旨在重建网络空间中的信任。
Takeaways
- 🤔 网络安全存在悖论:一方面推动财富创造,另一方面却带来经济脆弱性。
- 💻 网络安全政策制定的困难在于,它横跨经济、国家安全和国际稳定三个支柱。
- 📜 联合国宪章虽然是网络空间治理的起点,但其诞生于1940年代,无法完全应对现代技术挑战。
- ⚔️ 国家在网络空间中的行动处于灰色地带,既具有攻击性和对抗性,但不完全符合现代国际法的标准。
- 🌍 由于全球规则的滞后,国家利用这一灰色地带采取激进的网络行动。
- 😟 信任的消退发生在两方面:个体层面和国家层面。
- 📰 由于频繁的网络安全事件,个体层面的技术信任感正在减弱。
- 👁️ 国家层面的信任也在被侵蚀,主要体现在外国势力干涉选举和知识产权盗窃上。
- 🤝 CIGI召集了一群专家,试图解决网络空间中的信任问题。
- 🎯 CIGI采取了不同的方式,邀请了公司CEO、学者和政策制定者,希望开展有意义的国际对话,重建网络空间中的信任。
Q & A
问题 1: 网络安全中的悖论是什么?
-网络安全中的悖论在于,一方面我们推动财富创造和经济繁荣,另一方面我们通过将一切连接到互联网,建立了经济脆弱性。
问题 2: 网络安全政策的制定为何困难?
-网络安全政策的制定困难在于治理结构通常分为经济、安全和国际稳定三个方面,而网络安全跨越了这三者。
问题 3: 联合国宪章如何影响网络空间的规则?
-联合国宪章规定了国家之间使用武力或威胁使用武力的行为,但它是在1940年代制定的,面对当今的变革性技术显得过时。
问题 4: 国家如何在网络空间中操作?
-国家在网络空间中操作时处于一个“灰色地带”,这种行为虽然是侵略性的,但不一定符合传统国际法对国家行为的定义。
问题 5: 为什么当前的治理结构被认为是过时的?
-当前的治理结构被认为是过时的,因为它无法应对现代技术和国家在网络空间中采取的复杂且具有侵略性的行动。
问题 6: 信任的衰退在个人层面表现如何?
-在个人层面,信任的衰退表现为人们对技术的互动方式发生了变化,媒体中频繁报道的网络攻击事件让人们对技术产生不信任。
问题 7: 国家层面的信任衰退是如何表现的?
-在国家层面,信任衰退表现在外国对选举的干预、知识产权的盗窃等行为上,这些行为破坏了国际体系中的信任。
问题 8: CIGI组织的专家组与其他智库有何不同?
-CIGI的专家组与其他智库不同之处在于,他们邀请了实际在网络安全领域工作的企业CEO,以及学者和政策制定者,以推动国家和国际对话。
问题 9: 现行全球规则的不足对网络安全有什么影响?
-现行全球规则的不足导致了个人和国家层面的信任衰退,这给网络安全带来了重大挑战。
问题 10: 为什么恢复对网络空间的信任至关重要?
-恢复对网络空间的信任至关重要,因为信任的缺失会导致技术互动的减少,并削弱国家间的合作与安全。
Outlines
💻 网络安全的双重矛盾
网络安全存在一个矛盾:一方面我们致力于创造财富和经济繁荣,另一方面,我们通过将一切连接到互联网,建立了经济脆弱性。政策制定的难点在于,传统的治理结构通常从经济、国家安全和国际稳定三方面考虑,但网络安全横跨这三大支柱。
🌐 网络安全与国际法的脱节
讨论网络空间规则时,可以从《联合国宪章》入手,该宪章规定了国家间使用武力或威胁使用武力的行为。然而,宪章是20世纪40年代起草的,无法应对2019年及未来的变革性技术。国家在网络空间中处于灰色地带,采取激进行动,而现有的国际法律框架难以应对这些行为。
⚖️ 信任危机的双重层面
全球规则的落后导致了信任的削弱,分为两个层面:个人层面和国家层面。个人越来越不信任技术,尤其是面对像Facebook、Cambridge Analytica等数据泄露事件。国家层面则出现了选举干预和知识产权盗窃,侵蚀了对体系的信任,这对全球安全构成了重大威胁。
🤝 CIGI的应对举措
为了应对信任危机,CIGI召集了专家,包括公司CEO、学者和政策制定者,致力于展开关于网络空间信任的重要对话。他们希望通过这种多方参与的方式,找到重建网络空间信任的有效途径,推动国际和国家层面的讨论。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡网络安全悖论
💡经济脆弱性
💡治理结构
💡联合国宪章
💡灰色地带
💡信任侵蚀
💡国家间信任
💡混合战争
💡知识产权盗窃
💡个人隐私
Highlights
Cybersecurity creates a paradox: it drives wealth creation and economic opportunity, but also builds economic vulnerability by connecting everything to the internet.
Cybersecurity policy faces challenges due to its intersection with economics, national security, and international stability.
Cybersecurity issues now transcend traditional governance structures, running between economics, national security, and international stability pillars.
The UN Charter, drafted in the 1940s, governs the use of force between states, but it is outdated in the context of today's technology.
States operate in a 'hybrid zone' in cyberspace where their actions are aggressive and adversarial but do not meet traditional thresholds of international law.
There is a growing concern about how states use the grey areas in cyber governance to conduct aggressive cyber actions.
The global rules governing cyberspace are still in their infancy, leading to a waning of trust at both individual and state levels.
Individuals are losing trust in technology, as exemplified by scandals like Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, leading to changed behavior in how they interact with technology.
Trust at the state level is eroding as foreign adversaries meddle in elections and steal intellectual property, undermining trust in the system.
The erosion of trust in cyberspace is seen as one of the most dangerous developments.
CIGI convened a group of experts from companies, academia, and policy-making to address the trust issue in cyberspace.
The aim of CIGI’s initiative is to start a national and international conversation on building trust in cyberspace.
Bringing in CEOs of companies that operate daily in the cyber domain was a unique approach taken by CIGI to address cybersecurity challenges.
The inadequate and antiquated cyber governance structure has allowed aggressive cyber actions to flourish in the grey zone between legal thresholds.
CIGI hopes their efforts will lead to improved national and international cybersecurity policies and practices.
Transcripts
There’s a paradox in cyber security.
On the one hand we’re trying to drive wealth creation
and economic opportunity and prosperity,
on the other hand what we’re doing is building economic vulnerability
into our model because we’re connecting everything that we can
to the internet.
The difficulty when it comes to making cyber security policy
is that when we think about our governance structure,
we usually do it in one of three ways.
We look at economics on the one hand,
we look at national security on the other hand
and we look at international stability as a third and final pillar.
The problem with that, of course,
is now cyber security runs between all three of those pillars.
So when I think about the rules that govern cyberspace,
one of the starting points is actually the United Nations Charter.
And that governs the use of force
— or the threat of the use of force —
between states.
The problem, of course, is that the UN Charter was drafted in the 1940s.
and we’re sitting here today in 2019
dealing with transformative technology.
So when you think about the way
that states are operating in cyberspace
the problem is they’re operating in this hybrid zone
where it’s certainly aggressive, it’s certainly adversarial
but it doesn’t necessarily meet the traditional thresholds
that we see in modern international law
as it relates to the conduct between states.
So what we’re seeing is states being able to use that grey area
to effectively undertake aggressive cyber action
and cyber security knowing that the current governance structure
is a little bit inadequate and antiquated.
The fact that the global rules are still in their infancy
has led to a waning of trust in two important respects:
one at the individual level and the second at the state level.
So with respect to individuals,
it’s hard not to see individuals changing the way
that they’re interacting with technology because
you can’t pick up a newspaper without
there being a story about the greatest exploit that just happened.
Think of Facebook, think of Cambridge Analytica.
So we’re starting to see an erosion of trust at the individual level,
which is deeply problematic.
But even more so
we’re seeing an erosion of trust at the state level.
We’re looking at foreign adversaries meddling in elections,
we’re looking at people stealing intellectual property,
which erodes trust in the system,
and that is the most dangerous thing that we’re seeing.
CIGI wanted to convene a group of experts
to deal with this issue because of its importance
and we took a bit of a different tack
than most other think tanks.
We brought in CEOs of companies
that are actually working day to day in this space.
We brought in academics and policy makers
to convene what we’re hoping will be
an important national and international conversation
to be able to get trust in cyberspace right.
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)