Григорий Асмолов (pustovek) wrote,
Григорий Асмолов

Новая стратегия США по кибербезопасности и позиция России.

Не мог отказать себе в удовольствие и заглянуть в 9:30 утра на брифинг представителя Госдепа по кибербезопасности господина Кристофера Пеинтера относительно новой киберстратегии США обнародованной наконец Белым Домом. Я также не мог отказать себе в удовольствие задать ему вопрос, как это стратегия соотносится с российскими позициями и инициативами по этому вопросу. Ответ господина Пеинтера был достаточно предсказуем - плохо сочетается, то есть совсем не... Что собственно и следовало ожидать. Холодная война в киберпространстве, вернее вокруг него, потихоньку продолжается...
Прочитать мой вопрос и ответ господина Пеинтера по-английски можно под катом:

Question: There is an ongoing discussion between the United States and Russia about the question of international treaty for cyber security. My question is how the new strategy addresses the idea of making an international treaty for cyber security?

MR. PAINTER: So I think we’ve been very clear that we have the Budapest Convention, which deals with cyber crime. That is, we think, the most important instrument. That is an example, for instance, of a norm. One of the principles we set out in the strategy is protection from crime, and the norm is the legal framework that gets you there, and that’s what the Budapest Convention does. And more countries are joining, are acceding to the Budapest Convention all the time.
We don’t believe you need a – or this is – the time is ripe for a treaty to deal with, in the case you’re talking about, cyber weapons, so-called cyber weapons. There are lots of reasons for that. First, as the strategy sets out, we need to have the discussion, we need to build the consensus about what the rules of the road should be in cyberspace, what those norms, as we call them, are. That’s an ongoing process. We’re in the early days in having that discussion. That includes, what are the – how states should behave with respect to each other. It also includes confidence-building measures to make sure that you de-escalate and you don’t misperceive what’s going on. But it also – but we have to have that conversation first.
The other problem with trying to think about a global treaty in this area is, what really is a cyber weapon? I mean, there – these are dual-use technologies; they’re used for all kinds of different things. There is a serious issue with respect to attribution in cyber space, there’s not real verification. All of these things, I think, make a treaty not make sense at this time, and that’s been our position for some time and I think that’s carried forward clearly in the strategy.
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded