{"id":28796,"date":"2016-09-21T12:30:11","date_gmt":"2016-09-21T02:30:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=28796"},"modified":"2016-09-21T18:24:58","modified_gmt":"2016-09-21T08:24:58","slug":"cyber-wrap-special-two-heads-better-one","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/cyber-wrap-special-two-heads-better-one\/","title":{"rendered":"Cyber wrap special: two heads are better than one"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
There\u2019s a debate going on in the US at the moment that isn\u2019t attracting much commentary here. While it’s a touch arcane, it’s worthy of public discussion. The question is the organisational arrangement for America’s cyber security, cyber offence and signals intelligence capabilities.<\/p>\n
The Pentagon and the US intelligence community are in the blue corner, urging President Obama<\/a> to split military Cyber Command functions away from the intelligence gathering National Security Agency. Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is in the red corner, pledging to thwart<\/a> any attempt to split the two bodies.<\/p>\n Not unusually, Senator McCain has a strong view. His opening statement at a hearing on national security encryption and cyber matters<\/a> didn\u2019t mince words:<\/p>\n \u2018Here we go again: another major policy matter has apparently been decided with no consultation whatsoever between the White House or the Department of Defense with this committee.\u00a0I urge Secretary Carter to provide this committee and the Congress the details of this plan and his reasoning for supporting it. And I hope he will explain what has changed since the last time the administration rejected this idea in 2013\u2026I would remind them that this committee does not take well to being stonewalled while their colleagues in the administration leak information to the press.’<\/p>\n Apart from the Washington beltway shenanigans on public display here, there are some substantive issues underpinning the spat. The organisation split was first discussed in public<\/a> three years ago, in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks. The Director of the NSA (DIRNSA) wears two hats; as well as being in charge of the signals intelligence (‘sigint’) gathering function, he has command of the military computer network activities that fall under the Cyber Command.<\/p>\n That command function sits properly under military control because computer network attack can be used to deliver lethal force\u2014in principle, if not to date\u00a0in practice\u2014through attacks on systems controlling infrastructure where physical harm could result. And, as I\u2019ve argued previously<\/a>, the military use of cyberattacks is useful as an adjunct to \u2018kinetic\u2019 activities in the physical world, by disrupting the ability of adversaries to work out what\u2019s going on and respond in a timely way.<\/p>\n But there\u2019s no requirement for sigint to be under military control. DIRNSA\u2019s counterparts in the \u2018five eyes\u2019 intelligence community, including our own Australian Signals Directorate, are all civilians. That doesn’t seem to hinder those agencies from fulfilling their roles, including sigint support to the military. And it’s that military support role that provides an argument for a split. During the 2013 debate, the Director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council argued<\/a> that there\u2019s an inherent conflict of interest in having the same person oversee sigint support to the military and command its cyber forces:<\/p>\n \u2018Imagine if the commander of US Pacific Command were the leading source of information on the Chinese military threat, had the ear of Congress on China policy, ran covert military operations against China, and could decide what information on China was classified. This perverse concentration of power is similar to where the United States has found itself on cyber policy.’<\/p>\n That’d be a strong argument if supporting military cyber operations was all the NSA does. But there’s much more to its role, and I think the rest of its portfolio provides an even better rationale for a civilian Director.<\/p>\n