The threats which were perceivable 20 years ago differ greatly from our ever increasing

Transcription

1 1 Introduction The threats which were perceivable 20 years ago differ greatly from our ever increasing interconnected world of the present. With these new found risks there becomes the need for a different form of security from the state. Due to the escalating abilities of cyberspace the threat of cyber attacks and cyber terrorism are progressively more present. Governments, mainly those residing in the West, have made cyber security a top priority in their most recent platforms. President Obama has even gone so far as to say that cyber terrorism is the country s biggest threat. And while there is no denying that the post-9/11 climate has changed the way that security is perceived throughout the world, there is the concern that the governments new found mandate of enhanced cyber monitoring has over stepped the boundaries of a governments jurisdiction. The question then becomes, at what point is it acceptable for a government to forgo the rights of citizens in the name of security? Is it ever acceptable? Furthermore, how real is the perceived threat of cyber terrorism? Are we as susceptible as the government would have us believe, or is it the fear mongering strategy being revisited in order to ensure blind compliance by citizens. In the subsequent sections, the agendas of both Canada and the United States will be explored with respect to cyber security. And, the arguments which relate to why increased cyber security is a positive thing as well as a negative thing will be explored. Canada and the United States While most modernized countries have policies in place to maintain their cyber security, and are not exclusive to Canada and the United States, it is beneficial to look at these two countries to understand the scope of cyber security. Both Canada and the United States have relatively large programs pertaining to cyber security. The United States program functions

2 2 through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and by extension the National Security Agency (NSA). Further, the DHS does not function alone but also uses other levels of government and the private and public sectors. Post-9/11 the United States enacted several outsized programs, mainly through the NSA, and have been heavily criticized for such programs. President Obama has declared that the cyber threat is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation and that America s economic prosperity in the 21 st century will depend on cyber security. The White House The issues which arose from Edward Snowden releasing statements pertaining to the NSA and their unjustified gathering of citizen s information has put the United States security policies into question. However, regardless of the backlash that the government has received they still continue to operate as a protectionist state, allowing for programs which are seemingly unconstitutional in the name of security. Disregarding this, several countries have followed suit, naming cyber security the largest threat to national security, and are putting in programs similar to those in the United States. Canada is an example of one. The cyber security program in Canada is run through the federal government and more specifically by the Minister of Public Safety. Like the United States, Canada works with the provinces and territories and the private sector to implement and maintain cyber security. While not as developed as the United States, under the National Strategy and Action Plan for Critical Infrastructure, Canada is hoping to enhance their abilities. The main concerns in Canada are cyber threats from military services in foreign states and cyber terrorism. The programs in place in the United States, and what would most likely be emulated in Canada, call for the mass

3 3 surveying of internet use by citizens (i.e. s, search history ect.). This of course leads to questions about privacy rights and whether the government has the right to put in place such policies. However, the government would argue that the security threat is so great; it is worth the dismantling of some privacy rights. The following section will look at both sides, why the call for increased security is necessary and why it is too detrimental to privacy rights. Too Much Security? The current director of the NSA, General Keith Alexander has not only appealed to the public through the threat of cyber terrorism and crime but has attempted to convey support for NSA programs by appealing to their wallets as well. Alexander warned that cyber attacks are causing the greatest transfer of wealth in history. He also mentioned a McAfee estimate that the global cost of cybercrime is $1 trillion. That s our future disappearing in front of us. General Keith Alexander These frightening statistics also indicate that American companies could lose upwards of $250 billion per year just based on theft of intellectual property. With this considered, the security given by governments in cyber space not only seeks to secure our information but money as well. Furthermore, Eugene Kaspersky, founder of Kaspersky Lab Security Company states that a cyber terrorist attack is only a matter of time. At a time the thought of a cyber terrorist attack was not perceivable, however, the threat today is very real. Kaspersky states that the technology

4 4 exists and he is just waiting for a terrorist organization to strike. This may in fact be the case; however, many would argue that this kind of fear mongering language simply allows governments to create outsized security programs such as the NSA s. When Edward Snowden leaked NSA documents just last year he called into the question the validity of the NSA program and did the same thing the government had been doing in reverse. Instead of stating that we needed security do to outside threats, he argued that we in fact have too much security and need to be protected from the very government who claims to be looking out for our best interests. One of the leaked documents revealed that the US government has programs in place to spy on hundreds of millions of people s s, social networking posts, online chat histories, browsing histories, telephone records, telephone calls and texts nearly everything a typical user does on the internet. So herein lies the question, is the magnitude of this program needed? Or it is an infringement of rights and should be dismantled? It is clearly not a black or white issue and dependent on what side of the argument you are on, it can easily be seen from both sides. Questions to Consider: 1) Is security worth the invasion of privacy by government institutions? Furthermore, is the argument of if you have nothing to hide then why are you scared, valid here? 2) If there were to be a reform to way governments conduct security what would be the most effective way? Why would this new way be better than the previous? 3) Is terrorism an applicable argument for increased cyber security? Or is it simply a buzz word which solicits compliance from citizens?

5 5