網路安全與美中關係：理論的分析 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)International Master’s Program in International Studies National Chengchi University 國立政治大學國際研究英語碩士學位學程. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. 立 Cybersecurity and United StatesChina Relations: A Theoretical Perspective y. Nat. n. er. io. sit. 網路安全與美中關係： al iv n C 理論的分析 hengchi U JUAN MANUEL DE LA TORRE DAVILA Advisor: Dr. LU, YEH-CHUNG. July, 2018 DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(2) Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................IV 摘要 .........................................................................................................................................V List of Figures .......................................................................................................................VI Chapter 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research motivation and Background ........................................................................................1 1.2 Research questions and design of the research ...........................................................................8 1.3 Research limitations ..................................................................................................................10 1.4 Structure of the Thesis ..............................................................................................................10. 政治大 2.1 The current environment in 立 IR and the transformation of the security concepts ......................13. Chapter 2 Literature Review ............................................................................................... 13. ‧ 國. 學. 2.2 Understanding the Cyber Space and Cyber Security ................................................................15 2.2.1 Definitions of Key Concepts .................................................................................................17. ‧. 2.2.2 Neorealism ............................................................................................................................18 2.2.3 Liberalism .............................................................................................................................21. Nat. sit. y. 2.3 Development of the United States-China relations in the 21st century ...................................23. er. io. 2.4 Summary ...................................................................................................................................25. al. Chapter 3 The US and China on Cybersecurity: One issue, two different approaches . 26. n. iv n C 3.1 The United States and China: Domestic experiences on cybersecurity ....................................27 hengchi U 3.1.1 The United States ...................................................................................................................27 3.1.2 China ......................................................................................................................................33. 3.2 The evolution of the concept of Cybersecurity .........................................................................38 3.2.1 The United States approach to Cybersecurity ........................................................................38 3.2.2 China’s approach to Cybersecurity ........................................................................................40 3.3 Summary ...................................................................................................................................44. Chapter 4 Thinking bilaterally: How does the US and China address each other?....... 45 4.1 The International response: Do they listen to what some International Organizations say? ....45 4.2 United States and China Cybersecurity Dialogue .....................................................................47. II. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(3) 4.3 Challenges and Opportunities for the US and China regarding Cybersecurity ........................57 4.4 Summary ...................................................................................................................................60. Chapter 5 Walking towards the same goal: finding ways to avoid further conflict ....... 62 5.1 The United States and China: how to arm the cyber puzzle .....................................................62 5.2 The role of leaders in reaching agreement in trying to set up some rules for the cyberspace. .66 5.3 The Process of Negotiation: Why did they decide to agree in such a conflictive matter? ........68 5.4 The 2015 agreement in perspective ..........................................................................................72 5.5 Summary ...................................................................................................................................74. Chapter 6 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 76. 政治大. 6.1 Future of the cyber world and IR: the case of the United States and China .............................81. 立. Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 83. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. III. i n U. v. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(4) Abstract. The rapid development of technology in the 21st century has dramatically changed the way actors in the international system interact, the internet and the threats challenges brought by it have created lack of understanding regarding the implications it has for security. Given this context, this thesis analyzes the impact of cybersecurity in United States-China relations using two of the main theoretical frameworks in international relations: neorealism and liberalism. Neorealism’s offense-defense balance concept contributes to an understanding of the logic. 政治大. behind cyberattacks, while liberalism observes that there is a possibility to overcome conflicts by. 立. peaceful means, even in the cyberspace.. ‧ 國. 學. The importance of cybersecurity as a new threat in international relations has created unusual challenges for states around the world. In the case of the US and China, cybersecurity. ‧. has generated, in a short period of time, more friction and engagement between the two countries than any other historical issue. Cybersecurity attacks in recent years have increased uncertainty. Nat. sit. y. in US-China relations, contributing to a deficit in economic and political trust between these two. er. io. nations, nevertheless, why do these states still have reached an agreement? I suggest that the main reason behind this decision is the desire to avoid economic sanctions, nevertheless,. n. al. Ch. neorealism and liberalism offer different reasons.. engchi. i n U. v. By answering four research questions the author gives insightful information about each country’s view on cybersecurity. Furthermore, with the theoretical framework, I explain why they have reached such an agreement and what are the opportunities and challenges for the United States-China relations regarding cybersecurity. Finally I explain why all these actions have led to a “digitalization” of the practices of Foreign Policy of states such as the United States and China. Key Words: Cybersecurity, Cyberpower, Cyberspace, Cyberattacks.. IV. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(5) 摘要發展迅速的科技⼤⼤改變21世紀國際體系中的互動⽅式。根據此背景，本論⽂將使⽤兩個主要理論架構來分析網路安全對中美關係的影響，新現實主義的攻防平衡理論助於了解網路攻擊背後的邏輯，⽽⾃由主義認為可以利⽤和平的⼿段解決衝突，甚至在網路空間中。網路安全的重要性作為⼀個在國際關係的新威脅已經帶給許多國家不同尋常的挑戰。就美國和中國⽽⾔，網路安全在短時間內產⽣摩擦和衝突比兩國之間其他的歷史議題還更嚴重。近年來網路攻擊更加劇中美關係的不確定性，導致兩國之間在經濟和政治上互信不⾜，儘管如此，為何這兩個國家仍然達成協議︖研究者認為這⼀協議背後主要原因是為了避免經濟制裁，對此，新現實主義和⾃由主義各有不同的觀點。研究者藉著回應四個研究問題，對中美雙⽅在網路安全的看法，提出具洞察⼒的⾒解。除此之外，在理論架構下，研究者解釋了他們會達成此協議的原因，以及中美關係在網路安全上會⾯臨哪些機會和挑戰。最後，作者說明這些⾏為導致美國和中國等國外交政策「數位化」的原因。. 學. ‧ 國. 立. 政治大. 關鍵字：網路路安全、網路路強國、網路路空間、網路路攻擊. ‧. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. V. i n U. v. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(6) List of Figures Figure 3.1 Annual number of data breaches and exposed records in the United States from 2005 to 2017………………………………………………………………………………….………..29 Figure 3.2 Cyber incidents, and rates, by industry………………………………………………32 Figure 3.3 Types of cybersecurity incidents encountered by users in China……………………35 Figure 3.4 Alleged Chinese attacks on the United States……………………………………….37. 政治大. Figure 3.5 Key Actors in Cybersecurity Policies in China……………………….……………..41 . 立. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. VI. i n U. v. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(7) Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Research motivation and Background “Cyberspace challenges all historical experience (…) when individuals of ambiguous affiliation are capable of undertaking actions of increasing ambitions and intrusiveness, the definition of state authority may turn ambiguous” (2015) stated Henry Kissinger in his book World Order. In just two sentences we can clearly see that we have entered a new and complex era in the history of the World.. 立. 政治大. Although the “Year Zero” in the battle over cyberspace took place not so long ago its. ‧ 國. 學. consequences have multiplied exponentially with time. Adam Segal states that the Year Zero in. ‧. the battle over cyberspace is from June 2012 to June 2013 “It was by no means the first year to. y. Nat. witness an important cyberattack” ( Segal, 2016) acknowledged the author.. er. io. sit. As years pass by, the world has become more and more interconnected, creating the perfect environment for the proliferation of this attacks all over the world. Boundaries seen from. al. n. iv n C the perspective of the Peace of Westphalia losing importance, in the cyber era, it h e naregslowly chi U doesn’t really matter where you are, you can think from one side of the world and perpetuate your plan on the other side of the globe simultaneously. During the Cold War only countries with enough money to invest and create nuclear bombs were allowed to participate in the international concert. Everyone pretty much knew the other countries’ capabilities, should any of them use the weapons the others would know their identity even before the missiles landed. Everyone was going mad after the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine. 1. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(8) But now, and especially since June 2012, the reality has changed dramatically. Almost any county or even groups of people can launch a digital assault targeting either governments or companies across the world, being not only a faster way to reach your enemy but also cheaper and anonymously. There are only two countries considered to be the only two real cyber superpowers: The United States and China. According to Segal (2016) there are four main characteristics a country has to fulfill in order to be called a superpower in the case of cyber powers: first they must have. 政治大. a large or technologically advanced economy, second they are required to have public institutions. 立. capable of leading the public sector, third a powerful military and intelligence agencies and. ‧ 國. 學. fourth have had enough experience regarding cybersecurity.. Both the United States and China, according to the United Nations specialized agency for. ‧. ICT,s, The Telecommunication Development Sector, have the largest numbers of web users in. y. Nat. io. sit. the globe. China in the first place with 750M and The United Staes second with 250M. Besides. n. al. er. their numbers, they also have competitive technology companies. Both Beijing and Washington. Ch. have identified cybersecurity as a strategic priority.. engchi. i n U. v. China joined the internet in 1994 and since then the cyberspace has represented a new source of disagreements and tensions with the United States. When describing the bilateral relation in terms of cyber-relations there are four main stages in it. The first stage of relations, according to authors such as Zhao Weibin, started in 1994 when China joined the internet until 2010 when Google withdrew from China. During this stage, many companies from the US like Microsoft, Google, and Cisco established operations in China.. 2. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(9) The second stage went from 2010 until 2013 when Edward Snowden exposed the US’ PRISM project, which the NSA uses to gain access to communication of users of nine popular Internet services: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook among other online companies. It was during this period in which the differences between the two countries approach to internet widened even more. The United States supports Internet freedom while China emphasizes cyber sovereignty. It was during this stage that the “Year Zero” as discussed earlier in this chapter, happened. The accusations against China over cyber espionage augmented exponentially.. 政治大. The third stage was from 2013 to 2017, with the WannaCry ransomware attacks. This. 立. stage is composed of mutual suspicion, competition but also cooperation. This stage is quite. ‧ 國. 學. important, historically the United States had a relative advantage in the cyber relation given the fact that they had more experience with it, but with Edward Snowden’s leakage of US. ‧. intelligence, China could consider themselves to be at a more equal stage. During this period. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. the cyber issues.. sit. there were increased talks between President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping regarding. Ch. i n U. v. The fourth stage is the one currently going on, and researchers argue that it will be,. engchi. hopefully, marked by enhanced cooperation and coordination (Weibin, 2017). With such an unknown future for two important countries in the world like this, a theoretical perspective would help us identify commonalities and expectations for the future in an important area such as cybersecurity. Security in the field of International Relations is a concept that has shaped the way states interact with each other since Westphalia and probably even before that, nevertheless the definition of the concept and the implications that it has in policy making fluctuate according to 3. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(10) the current situation in the world. David Baldwin (1997) for example notes that: “security is an important concept, which has been used to justify spending civil liberties, making war, and massively reallocating resources”. Twenty years later it seems that his words are still accurate. The definition of security is often, if not always, entailed with threats. During a long period of time, a threat was merely related to military power, the number of soldiers, and even the size of the territory, Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde (1998) defines this as “the traditional military-political understanding of security. In this context, security is about survival”, this is. 政治大. related to the fact that states were the only and most important players in the international arena,. 立. and the ultimate goal was to obtain power in a system were every actor is pursuing their own. ‧ 國. 學. national interest.. John Baylis (2008) argues that traditionally most of the researchers have come to the. ‧. conclusion that security “is a contested concept (…) it implies freedom from threats to core. y. Nat. io. sit. values but there remains a major disagreement about the primary focus of enquiry should be on. n. al. er. ‘individual’, ‘national’, or ‘international’ security”. As previously discussed, these views tend to. Ch. i n U. v. focus at the national level mostly, defined largely in militarized terms. Nevertheless, as time. engchi. passes and new issues appear, authors such as Barry Buzan (1983) proposed an expanded concept of security by adding political, economic, societal, environmental as well as military aspects. The disagreement on defining the word makes security a dependent term that has to be always related to a time context, a specific area, and specific actors, that can either be national international or individual. Political and scientific concepts, like security, are used within a complex context (Koselleck & Presner, 2002).. 4. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(11) Concepts as security reflect the reality of the time when they are used since they are influenced by perceptions and interpretations of events (Brauch, 2008). In the last century with the end of the Cold War, “a major reconceptualization of security has been triggered”(Brauch, 2008) we came from an era where the two antagonist states: The United States and the Soviet Union knew almost exactly the military capabilities and intentions of the other and vice-versa and ergo knew what to expect and how to react. This view of security is a really traditional and sometimes called Hobbesian view of security that was replaced by a more wide range of threats and security issues in the world.. 立. 政治大. Barry Buzan (2008) identifies four main stages in the view of security. The first one is the. ‧ 國. 學. European Classical Great Power era which he notes happened from 1648 to 1945, a period in which basically the great powers were fighting against each other. War amongst great powers. ‧. was a key institution of international society (Bull, 1977: 184-99) and also, colonization was a. y. Nat. io. sit. fundamental source of power and income to great powers. The Cold War was a turning point. n. al. er. from this classical view of security, first, because the power structure went from being multipolar. Ch. i n U. v. to bipolar, second, there was an ideological competition among the poles, third there were new. engchi. inventions such as the nuclear weapons and fourth there was a process of decolonization. The end of the Cold War can be considered as the third stage because two of the defining features of the previous stage culminated: the bipolar system and the ideological competition. On 11 September 2001, the al-Qaeda attacks brought the third stage to an end, and it is exactly when the fourth stage started. This fourth stage brought war back to the centre stage given the fact that it was the first time in history that NATO invoked article 5.. 5. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(12) Nowadays the range of threats and issues has widened even more. There has been an increasing number of terrorist attacks around the world, health and pandemic issues have arisen, massive migrations, environmental challenges, energy security, and with the information revolution that the Internet has brought, cybersecurity issues and its implications for international security. According to the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community of 2017, Cyber threats appear at the top of the global threat list that they did. “Cyber threats are. 政治大. already challenging public trust and confidence in global institutions, governance, and norms,. 立. while imposing costs on the US and global economies. Cyber threats also pose an increasing risk. ‧ 國. 學. to public health, safety, and prosperity as cyber technologies are integrated with critical infrastructure in key sectors”(Coats, 2017). ‧. The Internet has become an essential tool for the economy and society and as it grows,. y. Nat. io. sit. the whole economy and society, including governments, have become increasingly reliant on this. n. al. er. kind of infrastructure to perform their functions. The OECD notes that as this has happened, the. Ch. i n U. v. consequences and failures of it can directly impact society as a whole. Cyber threats are evolving. engchi. and increasing at a fast pace. When they started to appear online, hackers were focusing mainly on banks to steal money from them but now, the scope of their activities is broader, some of the most common are. “hacktivism” (Anonymous), destabilization (Estonia in 2007),. cyberespionage, sabotage (e.g. Stuxnet) and even military operations. (OECD, 2011) The United States Department of Homeland Security (USDHS) stated in 2016 that:"[T]here are 16 critical infrastructure sectors whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or 6. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(13) destruction would have a debilitating effect on [national security]. These sectors include: energy, defense, nuclear, transportation, food and agriculture, emergency services, communication, chemical, dams, finance, healthcare, information technology, commercial facilities, and government facilities" (USDHS, 2016) In order to respond to this threat, the United States Department of Defense considered, since 2011, cyberspace a domain of war similar to the physical dimensions of air, land, and sea (Brownlee, 2015) This phenomena has created uncertainty for International Relations scholars,. 政治大. on the implications of this information revolution for national and international security. There is. 立. a school of thought that argues that the state is still the key player in the arena, maintaining. ‧ 國. 學. (although adapting) its role as the supreme provider of security, even in cyberspace(Fountain, 2004). On the contrary, there is another one that says that this information revolution has. ‧. increased the importance of non state actors such as social movements, firms, transnational. y. Nat. io. sit. networks and even individuals, in this sense “these non-state actors may be challengers to, as. n. al. er. well as providers of, security”(Eriksson & Giacomello, 2006). Although they disagree on the. Ch. i n U. v. source of security, the general observation is that the information revolution makes security an. engchi. increasingly important concern in all sectors of society.. Considering the importance of the issue in the current transformation of the traditional security approaches all over the world and the impact a lot of scholars of International Relations are increasingly taking into consideration, it might be helpful to join the discussion and conduct a research of the approaches two of the most prominent states in the International Arena have used to deal with cybersecurity issues. It might be helpful to study how these two states react to this. 7. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(14) problem and their ability to adjust to this issue that is in constant movement and in constant transformation. China and the United States, as discussed before, are states with a huge economical and political impact in the world nowadays, so choosing them to analyze this issue could help better understand the situation and make better conclusions on how states address this issue. A closer study of these countries may help us illustrate how different or similar the policies of each country are, and see if what they’re doing is enough to keep up with the emerging threats. We. 政治大. have to keep in mind as well that a very distinctive history, culture, geography, political context,. 立. society, and institutional structures are present among these countries.. ‧ 國. 學. 1.2 Research questions and design of the research. ‧. 1. How the United States and China view cybersecurity?. y. sit. n. al. er. io. States and China?. Nat. 2. Why has cybersecurity become a national security priority for states such as the United. v. 3. In 2015 the United States and China reached a Cybersecurity Agreement, why did they decide to do so?. Ch. engchi. i n U. 4. What are the future challenges and opportunities for the US-China relations regarding cybersecurity?. For the purpose of conducting this research, two variables will be used to contrast with the hypothesis. The relation between the new cyber world and its cyber anarchic environment around the globe (IV), that has characterized and became an intrinsic tool for governments all around the. 8. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(15) world since the beginning of the twentieth century, and the Foreign Policy decisions (DV) of superpowers such as China and the United States domestically and bilaterally in relation to these changes will be central for this thesis. For the purpose of the study, the qualitative research method is the most appropriate approach. The anonymous nature of the cyberattacks makes it hard to collect statistical data to conduct a quantitative analysis, because it is almost impossible to know for sure the exact number of incidents. This research will use a combination of primary and secondary sources to. 政治大. address the questions. Foreign policy documents, official statements, and joint agreements will. 立. be of utter importance.. ‧ 國. 學. The hypothesis of the thesis is that the new cyber world and its cyber anarchic environment have produced a huge impact on the Foreign Policy Decisions on superpowers such. ‧. as the United States and China which resulted in a “digitalization” of the practices of Foreign. y. Nat. io. sit. Policy domestically and bilaterally, nevertheless bilaterally they are still skeptical of each other. n. al. er. on this matter but for some reason they still cooperate. This thesis will try to provide answers to. Ch. i n U. v. the questions posed above and try to prove the hypothesis true or false.. engchi. In order to prove this hypothesis right or wrong, the scope of the thesis will focus mainly in the bilateral relation of the United States and China starting in 2009 when President Obama came to power until 2017 when he finished his presidency. The starting point of this period aligns when the cyberattack issues became a real problem and triggered instability in the bilateral relation with actions such as the intellectual property theft or the expulsion of Google from China and it stops at the end of the Obama presidency because after, with Trump, the rhetoric towards China changed. 9. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(16) 1.3 Research limitations One of the research limitations of this research is conceptual. When defining most of the terminology to talk about cybersecurity numerous definitions can be found in the literature concerning the topic given the nature of the cyberspace and its impact. A lot of these concepts can be ambiguous since the area of research is still new. There is a long list of states that are concerned and that have to deal with cybersecurity. 政治大 will narrow the research and generalize the findings. 立. issues nevertheless only two very specific states have been selected to conduct this study which. ‧ 國. 學. Another research limitation is the little amount of specialized literature about the topic since its a relatively new one. Besides that, the research might be limited to the employment of. ‧. English written publication when analyzing China as the author is not able to read Chinese,. io. sit. y. Nat. especially in foreign policy issues such as this.. n. al. er. 1.4 Structure of the Thesis. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. The thesis consist of 6 chapters which are also divided into several parts to organize the information and accomplish the goal of the research. The first chapter is the Introduction, and it serves as the chapter to portray the motivations and background of the study. The questions guiding the research are discussed here together with the hypothesis. Another key element of this chapter is the description of the methods used to do the research, the research limitations are also denoted here.. 10. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(17) In the second chapter, the current environment in International Relations and the transformation of the security concepts is the first part discussed. Then, a part where I will define the relevant concepts for the thesis and how authors understand it. Since the thesis is a theoretical approach, in this next part I will use two of the main schools in International Relations to study what they have to say about cybersecurity. The third chapter provides an overview of the American and Chinese Cybersecurity Policies, respectively, first I briefly discuss the history of cybersecurity in their agendas and then. 政治大. I review their respective changing views on security and how they have both adapted differently. 立. the cyber approach in their policymaking process. To finish the chapter, I describe the actors. ‧ 國. 學. involved in the decision making process in each country, and how these countries have been interacting with the outside on this issue, asking whether the external world has or has not had an. ‧. impact in shaping their decisions.. y. Nat. io. sit. The fourth chapter describes the bilateral relation and how they address each other in this. n. al. er. matter, beginning by describing how the International Organizations respond to this issues then, I. Ch. i n U. v. describe directly the bilateral situation of the countries and how they have been dialoguing to. engchi. reach certain joint agreements. To finish the chapter I highlight the challenges and opportunities for the US-China relations on cybersecurity. The fifth chapter discusses the US-China talks on cyber issues, the role of Barack Obama and Xi Jinping towards agreeing to cooperate towards a single-goal: Setting up the rules of the internet. Then I talk about the process of negotiation and the minor agreements they achieved before the 2015 agreement. At the end of the chapter I will put this agreement in perspective: Has it had an impact? Has the number of attacks decreased or increased? 11. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(18) The sixth chapter, the conclusion, reviews the results obtained after the analysis of both countries. I will go back to the theoretical part to explain why they decide to cooperate in a realm such as cybersecurity, then the implications for the rest of the world and then the future of the issue with the new President of the United States Donald Trump. . 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. 12. i n U. v. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(19) Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 The current environment in IR and the transformation of the security concepts It is a well-known fact that with the invention of the Internet and its accessibility to almost everyone in the world, the world changed drastically. The former Vice President of the United States, Al Gore (as cited in Molyneux, 1999) once stated that “This is a revolution in. 政治大 are still valid nowadays. The 立 invention of the printing press changed the way people could communication technology unsurpassed since the invention of the printing press” and his words. ‧ 國. 學. communicate and pass information from one generation to another. Now, the Internet makes this task even easier since information, as messages, sounds, or pictures, can be delivered within. ‧. seconds all over the world. Besides that, the internet has become essential for a wide variety of. Nat. sit. y. sectors of the society such as banking, broadcasting platforms, online services, government etc.. n. al. er. io. Steve Molyneux (1999) says that such changes represent the perfect example of a move towards. i n U. v. a “Networked Economy” and an “Information Society”. This move shows the potential to affect. Ch. engchi. the lives of a lot of citizens and it also highlights a significant change in the range and diversity of traditional telecommunications and media services. The new information and communication technologies are transforming the lives of everyone on earth and ergo it is transforming the context in which international relations are conducted. The information revolution is a fact, what is left to discuss is what has been the impact of the information revolution on diplomacy, foreign policymaking, and even the way countries, or maybe non-state actors conduct war?. 13. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(20) Elizabeth C. Hanson (2008) claims that the impact of the technologies is so profound and persuasive that it is accurate to call this an information revolution. There are several significant changes, which represent a breaking point with the past,. the first one is the abundance of. information available and the wide variety of sources from which it can be obtained. At the same time, the time and costs of communicating have significantly decreased. These changes affect not only the lives of people around the world, but also governments: “their ability to control the information, the speed of decision making, the transparency of their actions, and the way they. 政治大. conduct their relations with other countries” (Hanson, 2008). 立. The most notable and striking example of this information revolution is the Internet. For. ‧ 國. 學. example, the World Bank (2017) measured the number of internet users who had used the internet in a period of three months via any electronic device such as computers, mobile phones,. ‧. personal digital assistants, games machines etc., and found out that this percentage has increased. y. Nat. io. sit. exponentially. According to this dataset, in 1990 0% of the population were using the internet,. n. al. er. ten years later in 2000 this number was 6.8% already, ten years after that the number increased. Ch. i n U. v. 325% compared to 2000, being 28.9% of the population in 2010. The most recent number is. engchi. from 2016 and it says that nowadays the percentage of the population using the internet is 45.9 being an increase of 575% compared to the year 2000. “The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had.” Erich Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, stated in 1997. The Internet is the technical infrastructure that makes the communications among people around the world possible. Basically, the internet is a way to connect computers. 14. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(21) altogether, either physically or wirelessly. The nature of internet communication makes it hard to apply rules and laws to it. Some authors say that the internet is a place with no laws. In the literature, there is a consensus about this facts, the problem and lack of it comes when agreeing on the implications of the information revolution in the security concepts. There are three main branches of this discussion: the first branch of researchers would argue that the state is still the principal actor in the International Arena, maintaining (although adapting) its role as the supreme provider of security, even in cyberspace. Another branch is the researchers that. 政治大. claim that the emergence of “virtual states” and network economies imply a decline of violence. 立. among states, and hence security plays a lesser role. The last approach acknowledges that this. ‧ 國. 學. revolution has increased the significance of firms, interest organizations, social movements, transnational networks, and individuals. For them, these new non-state actors may challenge as. Nat. n. al. er. io. sit. 2.2 Understanding the Cyber Space and Cyber Security. y. ‧. well as provide security. (Eriksson & Giacomello, 2006). v. Cyberspace and its underlying infrastructure are vulnerable to a wide range of risk stemming. Ch. engchi. i n U. from both physical and cyber threats and hazards. Sophisticated cyber actors and nation-states exploit vulnerabilities to steal information and money and are developing capabilities to disrupt, destroy, or threaten the delivery of essential services. A range of traditional crimes are now being perpetrated through cyberspace. This includes the production and distribution of child pornography and child exploitation conspiracies, banking and financial fraud, intellectual property violations, and other crimes, all of which have substantial human and economic consequences. (The United States Department of Homeland Security, Cyberspace Overview1) 1. See: https://www.dhs.gov/cybersecurity-overview. 15. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(22) As mentioned before, the cyberspace is everywhere, from the supercomputers being used to communicate from the offices of the NASA to the outer space to the pockets of millions of people around the world via mobile phones. Cyberspace has created the perfect environment for people to communicate in a cheaper, faster and in general more efficient way. Likewise, it has fostered business and even has created the environment for decentralized digital currencies to flourish, Bitcoin for example. We can assume that we are more dependent than ever to these digital infrastructures, which has become at the same time a source of new threats for national. 政治大. and individual security. The United States Government states that: “The architecture of the. 立. Nation’s digital infrastructure, based largely upon the Internet, is not secure or resilient (…) it is. ‧ 國. 學. doubtful that the United States can protect itself from the growing threat of cybercrime and statesponsored intrusions and operations” (United States National Security Council, 2010: 1).. ‧. Likewise, the German government also agrees that the attacks against information infrastructures. y. Nat. io. sit. have become more frequent and complex, “Cyber attacks are launched both from Germany and. n. al. er. abroad. Given the openness and extent of cyberspace, it is possible to conduct covert attacks and. Ch. i n U. v. misuse vulnerable systems as tools for an attack” (German Federal Ministry of the Interior, 2011:. engchi. 3). Roxana Radu (2012) argues that this growing dependence of individuals, groups, institutions, and organizations has transformed the types of security threats over the years. Besides all these issues, cybersecurity events bring new challenges. For example, not all cyber threats are detected, sometimes affected institutions don’t even realize they have been attacked. Furthermore, when detected chasing the source is another challenge, sometimes even more difficult to solve.. 16. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(23) From the literature reviewed so far for this thesis, there are some existing frameworks for understanding Cyber Security. Kremer and Müler (2014) recognize three different bodies of literature about cybersecurity. The first approach concentrates on the means and motivations of the actors involved, the second one focuses on the instruments used by the offenders in the context of the attack and this one does not really make a distinction between the different layers and dimension of threats for categorization. Nevertheless, he says that there is a problem with these approaches since none of them are neither distinctive nor conclusive.. 政治大. 2.2.1 Definitions of Key Concepts. 立. ‧ 國. 學. Cybersecurity: Cybersecurity is about the involvement of tools, policies, security concepts, security safeguards, guidelines, risk management approaches, actions, training, and technologies. ‧. that can be used to protect the cyber environment and organization and assets. Cybersecurity. sit. y. Nat. aims to ensure the attainment and maintenance of the security properties of specific entities such. n. al. er. io. as governments or companies in the public sector. (ITU, 2008). From the International Relations. v. perspective, Cybersecurity is the “ability to protect itself and its institutions against cyberthreats”(Choucri, 2012). Ch. engchi. i n U. Cyberpower: Kuehl’s definition of cyberpower is described as “the ability to use cyberspace to create advantages and influence events in other operational environments and across the instruments of power” (Kuehl, 2009) Also, Adam Segal says that there are a series of characteristics a country has to have in order to be considered a cyberpower: A cyberpower must posses economic and technological power, it must be able to work with the private sector, it must. 17. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(24) have an “adventurous and inventive military and intelligence agencies”(Segal, 2016) and as the last characteristic is an attractive narrative of cyberspace. (Segal, 2016) Cyberspace: Joseph Nye’s definition of cyberspace says that: “the cyber domain includes the Internet of all networked computers but also intranets, cellular technologies, fiber-optic cables, and space-based communications.” (Nye, 2011). It is useful given the fact that he defines it as a physical structure that has layers: “Cyberspace has a physical infrastructure layer that follows the economic laws of rival resources and political laws of sovereign justification and control” (Nye, 2011). 立. “An incident involving the compromise or disruption of corporate IT. 學. ‧ 國. Security incident:. 政治大. systems (computers or networks) or its intellectual property”(Romanosky, 2016) In order to better understand the concepts of Cyber Space and Cyber Security, it is helpful. ‧. to try to adapt the concepts and ideas of two of the main theoretical bodies in International. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. 2.2.2 Neorealism. sit. Relations: realism and liberalism.. Realist theory has three core ideas:. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 1.-Power and security are the most important things for a state. 2.-State is the only actor and unit of analysis in the International arena. 3.-States act rationally in order to satisfy its national interests. Realism assumes that world politics are merged in an international anarchic system, in which there is nothing above states, which are regarded as the most important and only actor. Ergo, International Relations are seen as a relation of anarchic states. These anarchical conditions lead,. 18. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(25) most of the time to the “security dilemma.” Their main goal is to project and defend their own interests in the system unilaterally, nevertheless, states are not equal and the system is hierarchical. (Jackson & Sørensen, 2007: 93) When studying security in the digital age, it seems that realist scholars do not see a need to revise their theories for understanding it. In this context, the state is still seen as the main and almost the only actor. When describing security, they maintain a narrow definition related to the militia, thus they deny that non-state actors exercise any degree of military power. The way they. 政治大. tackle the challenge of cyber threats is that they see it as epiphenomena, which may vary well. 立. affect the policies and domestic structures of states, but that does not undermine the anarchic. ‧ 國. 學. system of international politics, and ergo do not affect the primacy of the state as the supreme unit in the international system. (Eriksson & Giacomello, 2006). ‧. Although realism considers non-state actors and other forces beyond states to play a role. y. Nat. io. sit. in the international arena, it considers that these forces do not challenge the primacy of states and. n. al. er. state interest in international politics. Some authors say that realist tackle the challenge of the. Ch. i n U. v. information revolution by seeing them as epiphenomena, which they’ve used before to explain. engchi. challenges such as globalization. They also consider IT-related security threats as an economic issue, which does not affect the security of states. Nevertheless, there is a branch of neorealist thinkers like Stephen M. Walt that still consider the state a more or less rational actor but they also accept that this rationality can be somehow affected by domestic politics. Walt also considers that states tend to balance against threats rather than against power alone. Stephen M. Walt has an interesting theory to analyze threats. The balance-of-threat theory incorporates power, along with other factors such as 19. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(26) geography, offensive capabilities, and intentions within the more general concept of threat. This theory predicts that states will tend to ally against the most threatening state in the system. With this theory, he tries to explain why one state may balance against another state which is not necessarily the strongest but which is seen as more threatening on account of its proximity, aggressive intentions, or acquisition of especially potent means of conquest. Neorealism represents a modified version of realism, it focuses on the structure of the international system and its interdependence, this approach explains how states behave in the. 政治大. international system including how states seek relative or absolute power (Jørgensen, 2017) Fear. 立. and uncertainty are the key elements driving states goals in order to maximize their military. ‧ 國. 學. capability, economic capability, and other powers (Dunne, Kurki, & Smith, 2013). Kenneth Waltz, who is one of the most relevant authors for Neorealism, defines power. ‧. capabilities as a mixer of various elements “size of population and territory, resource. y. Nat. io. sit. endowment, economic capability, military strength, political stability and competence” (Waltz,. n. al. er. 1979: 131). All these elements are more on the tangible side of the variables mainly because they. Ch. i n U. v. are easier to quantify. For this author power brings four main advantages: it provides the means. engchi. of maintaining one’s autonomy in the face of force that others wield, greater power permits wider ranges of action, the more powerful enjoy wider margins of safety in dealing with the less powerful and have more about to say which games will be played and how, and fourth great power gives its possessors a big stake in their system and the ability to act for its stake (Waltz, 1979: 194-195) Neorealism depicts international politics as a competitive realm in which the fate of each state depends on its responses to what other states do. “The possibility that conflict will be 20. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(27) conducted by force leads to competition in the arts and the instruments of force. Competition produces a tendency towards the sameness of the competitors” (Waltz, 1979: 127) The defensive neorealist offense-defense balance concept could be used to understand the logic behind some cyberattacks, “Offense-defense theory (…) [is] based on the argument that war can be prevented if defense gains an advantage over offense. It also argues that an effective arms control can reduce the risk of arms races and war”(Glaser & Kaufmann, 1998).. 2.2.3 Liberalism. 立. 政治大. ‧ 國. 學. Liberalism is quite a broad way to look at the International Relations nowadays since it emphasizes on the plurality of actors involved, the importance of domestic policies in shaping. ‧. the international behavior of states and the role of institutions in setting up rules of behavior for. sit. y. Nat. the international community. This theory represents an expansion of the realist approach where. al. n. of issues.. er. io. everything is seen as a constant struggle for power and survival since it focuses on a broader set. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. Nevertheless they acknowledge that states still have a huge impact in world politics, but in addition, they also consider other actors such as transitional corporations, social movements, migrants, terrorists etcetera. Most of the liberal thinkers argue that because of this variety of actors, the sovereignty of the nation-state it’s being less clear by the development of transnational relations. Liberals tend to have an idealistic perception of the international society, which can be traced back to the influence of the ideas of Kant and Wilson. For them, there is a possibility to. 21. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(28) overcome conflicts by peaceful means through building norms and institutions at an international level. Modern things such as technological development, are seen as a “vehicle of enlightenment and peaceful change” (Eriksson & Giacomello, 2006) Liberals think that war is most likely to occur when militaristic and undemocratic governments not attached to international norms or institutions pursue their interests. Ideologically, if two states share the same ideology they would not go to war, like the democratic peace theory that says that two democratic systems will not fight with each other. This would. 政治大. alight with the fact that most cyberattacks are made to countries with different ideology such as. 立. the US to China and vice versa. Cyberthreats are seen as a sovereignty and security weakener for. ‧ 國. 學. states “Cyber-threats weaken the sovereignty and security of the state. Non-state actors are becoming even more numerous and powerful because of the information revolution” (Eriksson &. ‧. Giacomello, 2006). y. Nat. io. sit. When discussing the effect of the Information Revolution there is still a gap in the. n. al. er. literature since few of the liberals seem to have apprehended the challenge of this revolution.. Ch. i n U. v. Besides that, those who have, have forgotten to discuss its implications for security. For example,. engchi. Joseph Nye observes that security, seen as the absence of threat to major values, can be at stake but he does not mention anything about cybersecurity threats in his work. (Eriksson & Giacomello, 2006). 22. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(29) 2.3 Development of the United States-China relations in the 21st century The United States and China initiated formal diplomatic relations in 1979, when the US President Jimmy Carter granted China full diplomatic recognition, acknowledging China’s One China principle. Since then the bilateral relation has had ups and downs in history, nevertheless ,for the purpose of this thesis I will just focus on the relations from the beginning of the 21st century.. 政治大 China was tougher than the policy of his predecessor. Relations went on a low level on April 立. In 2001 George W. Bush became president of the United States and its policy towards. ‧ 國. 學. 2001, when a Chinese jet fighter crashed with a US reconnaissance plan. Nevertheless, both governments worked to resolve this kind of issues and worked together to establish a more. ‧. economically oriented relationship.. sit. y. Nat. The first decade of the twenty-first century evolved to be a good and stable relationship.. n. al. er. io. There has been growing economic interdependence and cooperation over key issues but there are. v. some issues that still represent major obstacles to further cooperation between the two countries,. Ch. engchi. i n U. issues such as Taiwan, Japan, North Korea keep policymakers busy. Authors such as Sutter (2013) argue that Bush’s Legacy to the relation is a positive equilibrium. During this period both countries converged and tried to broaden the common ground, neither one or the other sought trouble with the other, they were both preoccupied with other issues like the economic crisis of 2008. The United States and Chinese administrations “worked hard to use multiple formal dialogues, high-level meetings and communications, and official rhetoric emphasizing the. 23. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(30) positive in the relationship”(Sutter, 2013) The major differences were still there but they decided to avoid focusing too much on them, when this was impossible, there were tensions between them. At the end of the Bush administration there were more and more tensions in four main categories: Opposition to the US support for Taiwan, opposition to US efforts to change China’s political system, opposition to the fact that the US wanted to play a more dominant role along China’s periphery and opposition to many aspects of the US leadership in world affairs.. 政治大. It seems that during this period of time China went from being the reserved player who. 立. avoided conflict in order to keep gaining economic power to the player who started playing a bit. ‧ 國. 學. more aggressively once he got the economic means and international recognition. President Obama came to power in 2008 facing a great number of challenges. ‧. domestically and internationally. In the case of China, the government of Obama was eager to. y. Nat. io. sit. build on what the previous government had achieved. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton noted. n. al. er. that the administration would not let its traditional support of human rights “interfere with the. Ch. i n U. v. global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis”.. engchi. It was during Obama’s administration that issues such as cyberespionage and the theft of information started to become a problem. Many American industrial secrets were stolen and outraged many US officials.. 24. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(31) 2.4 Summary This chapter analyzes the literature review regarding the transformation of the security concepts and how the new information and communication technologies are transforming the lives of every actor in the international system, people and states included. Given the challenges that cybersecurity brings, defining key concepts is a vital part for this chapter. Here the theoretical framework is constructed, using two of the main theoretical bodies in International Relations:. 政治大 States-China relations in the 21st century I concluded that cybersecurity issues such as 立. Neorealism and liberalism. After the brief description of the brief description of the United. ‧ 國. 學. cyberespionage and the theft of information were a great factor in creating instability in the bilateral relation. On the one hand, neorealism is a good theory that helps to explain cyberwar,. ‧. while on the other hand, liberalism argue that there is a multiplicity of actors in the cyberwar.. sit. y. Nat. The control over cyberspace is viewed differently, liberals argue that cooperation through. n. al. er. io. institutions is a key factor, neorealism has a different approach. According to the literature. v. consulted, liberals lack to explain how norms and institutions can effectively tackle cyberwar. Ch. engchi. i n U. while neorealist explain why war happens: states act offensively in order to seek their national security.. 25. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(32) Chapter 3 The US and China on Cybersecurity: One issue, two different approaches Is not a secret that the relationship between the United States and China is, if not the most, one of the most significant in the world nowadays, the economic power, the number of people involved and their military capabilities make them have such an important role in today’s world. In this relationship, there is an issue that has changed the reality dramatically in such a short period of time: cyberspace.. 治政大 the United States and China. Cybersecurity has generated a lot of uncertainty between 立. Concerns over this domain have moved up to the list of issues in the bilateral agenda. Distrust is. ‧ 國. 學. one of the key elements when discussing this issue given the nature of the cyberspace.. ‧. In this chapter I will discuss the experiences of the United States and China regarding. sit. y. Nat. cybersecurity, their individual experience regarding cybersecurity and how each country has used. io. er. attacks against other entities, especially the United States against China and vice-versa. How. al. iv n C U the other can bring to the table. It is really important to understand theirhperspectives e n g c handi what n. they have adapted their agendas to include this new issues in it and the reasons behind doing so.. “Explanations by each side of how they came to a certain viewpoint can then move towards how the collective group can address some common problems” (Lieberthal & Singer, 2012) This is exactly why it is relevant to see what each country understands as an issue because even though its the same problem they see different solutions and approaches. Both sides can benefit enormously from the smooth functioning of the internet so it is an imperative issue to solve.. 26. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(33) 3.1 The United States and China: Domestic experiences on cybersecurity 3.1.1 The United States Fred Kaplan in his book Dark Territory published in 2016, give us some insights about the United State’s “long” history of aggressions in cyberspace. In this book, Kaplan argues that the United States has been active in this kind of aggressions since the Gulf War when the American army was using “counter command-control warfare” to try to limit the enemy’s ability to control. 政治大. its forces. Also during that time, allegedly the National Security Agency (NSA) was using. 立. technology to monitor the conversations of Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq at that time.. ‧ 國. 學. Also in the late 1990s, when Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina were out in the streets striking against the presence of NATO soldiers enforcing the 1995 Dayton peace agreement, the. ‧. United States intervened transmission towers from local newscasters that were encouraging. y. Nat. io. sit. people to gather, telling them where and where. When the US officials learned about this,. n. al. er. together with the NATO-led stabilization force installed those devices to control them and shut. Ch. i n U. v. them off whenever the newscaster began urging people to go out to the streets and gather and even throw rocks at NATO soldiers.. engchi. Kaplan says that around a decade later, the US government installed a “mini-NSA” in Iraq, which aimed to intercept insurgent’s e-mails and shut down many of their services with malware. Also, they were sending deceptive e-mails to those insurgents telling them to go to a certain place where US special forces would be waiting to kill them. “In 2007 alone, these sorts of operations, enabled and assisted by the NSA, killed nearly four thousand Iraqi insurgents” (Kaplan, 2016) 27. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(34) In 2006, the United States launched what Kaplan calls the US’ most ambitious cyberattack. This cyberattack aimed to, together with Israel, sabotage the Iranian nuclear program. This offensive campaign was named Operation Olympic Games, and later known as Stuxnet. “For Olympic Games, they took some of their boldest inventions (…) and combined them into a single super-worm called Flame”(Kaplan, 2016) This worm could, once it infected a computer, swipe filer, monitor keystrokes and screens, even records conversations through the machine’s microphones. It also allowed the NSA people to “remotely increase the flow of. 政治大. uranium gas into the centrifuges, which eventually burst[ed]. By early 2010, the operation had. 立. destroyed almost a quarter of Iran’s 8,700 centrifuges”(Parker, 2017). ‧ 國. 學. This intrusion “was a classic campaign of information warfare: the target wasn’t just the Iranian’s nuclear program but also the Iranian’s confidence-in their sensors, their equipment, and. ‧. themselves”(Kaplan, 2016) Another characteristic of this information warfare incident that. y. Nat. io. sit. makes it a good example is that for years the Iranians did not know that outsiders were attacking. n. al. er. its systems, so they must have assumed that the malfunctions were their own fault. They realized. Ch. i n U. v. only because the virus was accidentally spread to computers in other parts of the world, where. engchi. the private sector researchers discovered it.. Cyberattacks have also often targeted the United States and since then, it has been a huge concern for the government of the United States and the private sector alike for more than a decade. The increased interdependence to the Information Technologies and to the E-commerce sector in the US has brought a huge rise to cyber crimes, causing a lot of damage to the economy of the government and the private sector. It has become an issue of more attention given the fact that it has reached key industries such as financial, healthcare and other important industries for 28. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(35) the US. The importance, volume, and cost of the data breaches have increased tremendously over the years. Figure 3.1 shows the number of data breaches from 2005 to 2017 in the United States. It also shows the number of records exposed during the same period of time. As we can see in Figure 3.1, the number of data breaches has increased exponentially in the United States from 2005. The most common type of data breach incident online is identity theft, accounting for 59 percent of all global data breach incidents in 2016 according to the Identity Theft Resource Center. The most important data breach to date, given the amount of. 政治大. information that was stolen, was uncovered in 2016, when the web service provider Yahoo. 立. acknowledged that hackers stole information of all its 3 billion accounts in 2013.. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. Figure 3.1. Annual number of data breaches and exposed records in the United States from 2005 to 2017. 29. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(36) When these attacks were uncovered, Yahoo said that the date from more than 1 billion users was compromised, nevertheless on October 2017, they rectified and said that all of their more than 3 billion accounts were affected. According to Reuters “cyber thieves may have stolen names, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and encrypted passwords” (Volz, 2016) This attack is not an isolated one, but it represent the largest in scale. Dan Kaminsky, an American security researcher says that these kind of attacks have affected almost everyone,. 政治大. “Five hundred of the Fortune 500[companies] have been hacked,” he acknowledged in an. 立. interview carried by Reuters. The only problem is that we might not know about it, since most of. ‧ 國. 學. these attacks have not been publicly disclosed and we still do not know if they ever will (Volz, 2016). ‧. There might be many explanations behind these attacks, like economically driven but. y. Nat. io. sit. there is also the possibility, according to Reuters, that some intelligence officials from the United. n. al. er. States said they believed some of these attacks were state-sponsored.. Ch. i n U. v. As a way to attack these attacks, in May of 2009, President Obama declared that the. engchi. digital infrastructure of the United States was a strategic national asset and he also made protecting this infrastructure a national priority. In 2013, President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order “to strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure by increasing information sharing and by jointly developing and implementing a framework of cybersecurity practices with our industry partners” (White House, 2013). This Executive Order expands the previously created Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program, they intended to strengthen the U.S. Government’s partnership 30. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(37) with critical infrastructure owners and operators to address cybersecurity by creating new information sharing programs (producing unclassified reports of threats to U.S. companies and sharing them), also the Order directs The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create the framework of cybersecurity practices relying on existing international standards, practices and procedures that were proven to be effective. The Executive Order likewise includes strong privacy and civil liberties protections based on the Fair Information Practice Principles, establishes a voluntary program to promote the adoption of the Cybersecurity Framework and. 政治大. calls for a review of existing cybersecurity regulation.. 立. In 2015, the cyberthreats were noted as “among the gravest national security dangers to. ‧ 國. 學. the United States” (White House, 2015) this because cyberattacks, privacy violations, data breaches, and cyberterrorism have become commonplace. In order to examine the risks and. ‧. trends concerning these events, some authors such as Romanosky, Edwards, and Biener have. y. Nat. io. sit. conducted an analysis of cyber incidents in the United States with records form 2004 to 2015.. n. al. er. Sasha Romanosky (2016) distinguishes four types of cyber events: data breaches, security. Ch. i n U. v. incidents, privacy violations and phishing/skimming incidents. Data breaches happen when. engchi. personal information is disclosed by unauthorized users, security incidents are those malicious attacks targeting a company, the privacy violations are those violations to the privacy of the consumers and finally, the phishing/skimming incidents are those individual financial crimes. Out of all these incidents, the most common one in the case of the United States are the data breaches which is exactly what happened in the previously discussed case of Yahoo. Besides basic information such as name and address, these cyberthreats steal credit card numbers and medical information. 31. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(38) The question that remains in this equation is which sectors are these incidents attacking them most in the United States? In the figure 2, first, we can see the number of incidents across different industries and on the right panel shows the percentage of firms within an industry that suffer an incident. Figure 3.2 examines the incidents and incident rates by industry based on the North American Industry Classification System. We can see based on the left graph in the Figure two how the Finance and Insurance Industry, is the one with a higher number of cyber incidents and. 政治大. Health Care, and Government entities are the second and thirds mostly affected by this issue.. 立. Nevertheless, when the incident rate is considered, Government agencies are affected at a much. ‧ 國. 學. higher rate compared to other industries. While Health Care is above Government on the left side, when we consider the Incident Rate the Health Care sector falls considerably on the list,. ‧. Government’s rate goes to >1.5% while Health Care is <.5%.. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. Figure 3.2. Cyber incidents, and rates, by industry. Adapted from “Examining the costs and causes of cyber incidents” by Sasha Romanosky, 2016, Journal of Cybersecurity, 2(2), p.124.. 32. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(39) In the particular case of the United States, China and Russia have been the countries that keep US policymakers worried about, nevertheless China has traditionally “engaging not just in espionage and battlefield preparation, but also in the theft of trade secrets, intellectual property, and cash” (Kaplan, 2016) There are also other players like Iran and North Korea.. 3.1.2 China. 政治大 attractive cybercrime target” (Nir Kshetri, 2013). According to data provided by The China 立 According to Statista China had, by the end of 2017, 771.98 million internet users making it “an. ‧ 國. 學. Internet Network Information Center, in the first half of 2011 for example, 217 million Chinese people became malware victims, 121 million had online accounts hacked, and 8% were attacked. ‧. by some scammers.. sit. y. Nat. The development of the Internet in China is a really unique process, given the fact that. n. al. er. io. the way their citizens use it is different from the American perspective. Nevertheless, “China. v. [also] attaches great importance to Internet development (…) [however] China faces various. Ch. engchi. i n U. challenges and has been one of the major victims of cyberattacks” (Longdi, 2014). China started using the Internet relatively late, the first mail ever sent from China to the outside world happened on Sep 14, 1987, by some Chinese researchers sending it to their German counterparts (Wu, 2005). He Rulong, a Chinese spokesman from the Chinese Embassy in London explained to the Financial Times in April 2013 that this lateness in starting using the internet affects them, the spokesman acknowledged “As a late starter, China’s internet is highly vulnerable and among the most victimized by cyberattacks”(He, 2013).. 33. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(40) In order to be responsible for Internet affairs in the country, China founded in June 1997 a government department that would run under the Ministry of Information Industry called the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC or 中國互聯網絡信息中⼼). This information center constantly releases statistical reports in which they carry out an Internet development survey. Since its creation, the CNNIC has published 39 reports (last one on June 2017). They release two reports every year, at the beginning and the middle of each year. According to the Report, cybersecurity incidents have also affected most of the internet. 政治大. users in China, they acknowledge that 70.5% of internet users encountered cybersecurity. 立. incidents. The report provides a table we can see in figure 3 that shows the types of cybersecurity. ‧ 國. 學. incidents encountered by users in China.. ‧. As we can see from Figure 3.3 online fraud accounts for almost 40% of the incidents in China. The center considers that there are 6 main types of fraud incidents: bonus-winning. y. Nat. er. io. sit. information fraud, pretending to be a friend for cheating, online part-time job fraud, online shopping fraud, using fake employment information to cheat and pushing websites, there are. al. n. iv n C others as well but the numbers are quiteh small so the report U e n g c h i just puts them together and tags them as other frauds.. Until December 2016, 247 million PC’s were infected by various virus such as Trojan viruses, attacking not only average internet users but also “more than 1.9 million mainframes in China”(Healey, 2013) According to Jason Healey the websites of 85 public institutions and companies were hacked between September 2012 and March 2013, with 39 of those attacks traced back to the United States “during a similar period, Chinese authorities noted that there. 34. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(41) 政治大 Figure 3.3. Types of Cybersecurity Incidents Encountered by users in China. 立 on Internet development in China” by CNNIC, 2017, p.106 Adapted from the “Statistical report. ‧ 國. 學. have been some 5,800 hacking attempts from United States IP addresses and that U.S.-based. ‧. servers had hosted 73 percent of the phishing attacks against Chinese customers”(Healey, 2013). Nat. sit. y. The deputy director of the Internet Society of China acknowledged in 2012 that. n. al. er. io. Cybersecurity is also becoming an increasingly severe and complex issue in China. Mr. Gao. i n U. v. Xinmin said “There are increasing attacks on China’s Internet infrastructure as well as the. Ch. engchi. information systems in key industries such as finance, transportation, energy, customs, taxation, and high technology. Financial sector websites have suffered frequent phishing attacks, becoming easy targets for online fraud and privacy theft”. Attacks originating from China to the outside world are a bit different from the ones coming from the United States which are mostly intended to gather information from governmental entities abroad. Chinese cyberattacks are usually targeting private sector companies trying to steal intellectual property, trade secrets, and other information that would be. 35. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(42) profitable. Nevertheless, Chinese hackers have also targeted the negotiation strategies and financial information of energy, banking, law, pharmaceuticals, and other companies. “ In 2013, the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property (…) estimated that the theft of intellectual property totaled $300 billion annually, with 50 to 80 percent of that being from China”(Healey, 2013). Likewise State-sponsored hackers have used cyberattacks to gather information on agencies, institutions, and individuals trying to influence international debates on topics that. 政治大. China considers of importance to either change the status quo or threaten the stability, “The. 立. embassies, foreign ministries, and other government offices of Germany, India, Indonesia,. ‧ 國. 學. Romania, South Korea, Taiwan, and others have been targeted” (Healey, 2013) Like Stuxnet for the United States, one of China’s most high-profile cyberattacks. ‧. happened in June 2015, these operations were tied to intelligence and counterintelligence. y. Nat. io. sit. operations. The US media reported that servers of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). n. al. er. were attacked by Chinese hackers, granting them access to more than 22 million records that. Ch. i n U. v. included security background checks and data on intelligence and military personnel. One of the. engchi. goals according to Adam Segal was to use this stolen information to identify spies working undercover at US embassies around the world. Besides economic reasons, “Chinese hackers also break into US networks in preparation for a potential military conflict”(Segal, 2017) Figure 3.4 shows thirty-seven cases of alleged Chinese intrusions from 2005 until 2013. The first known intrusion happened between September 2003 and August 2005, known as Titan Rain which aimed to affect the Department of Defense laboratories, NASA networks, and aerospace companies (Thornburgh, Forney, Bennett, Burger, & Shannon, 2005) This figure 36. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.

(43) 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. Figure 3.4. Alleged Chinese attacks on the United States, specifying duration and targeted institutions. Adapted from "From Exploitation to Innovation: Acquisition, Absorption, and Application.” By Jon R. Lindsay and Tai Ming Cheung, 2005, China and Cybersecurity: Espionage, Strategy, and Politics in the Digital Domain, 51-86.. 37. DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMPIS.007.2018.A06.