America Is Losing the Cyber Information War

Getty Images

 

New strategies, tactics needed to fight influence, propaganda warfare threats, Senate told

The United States faces a growing threat of information warfare attacks and needs new strategies and organizations to counter it, national security experts told Congress this week.

John C. Inglis, former deputy director of the National Security Agency, said cyber attacks are only one form of influence, propaganda, and disinformation attacks being waged in the cyber war of ideas.

“Cyber warfare, in my view, is not a standalone entity,” Inglis told a Senate subcommittee hearing Thursday. “When you’re talking about information warfare, it’s at that top-most stack, and it does not necessarily comprise of an exchange of tools or an exchange of literal warfare. It is, in fact, a conflict of ideas.”

Inglis called for a new approach to information threats.

We need to stop reacting well and thinking that we’ve therefore done good and start to drive and perhaps lead in this space and at least anticipate well or track well,” he said during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on cyber security.

The United States must aggressively tackle the problem, Inglis said.

Rand Waltzman, a specialist on information warfare with the RAND Corp., told the subcommittee the U.S. government needs to review and revamp laws and polices in the information warfare realm in order to better fight influence warfare.

“Operations in the information environment are starting to play a dominant role in everything from politics to terrorism to geopolitical warfare and even business, all things that are becoming increasingly dependent on the use of techniques of mass manipulation,” Waltzman said, adding that information warfare operations “occur at a speed and at an extent previously unimaginable.”

Technical cyber security means, the focus of U.S. government and private sector efforts, are ill-equipped to handle influence warfare. Waltzman called for new capabilities called cognitive security.

An example was the domestic information attack launched by the Russian government in 2011 prior to the country’s legislative elections. Anti-government dissidents had organized a demonstration using a Twitter hashtag. When the Russian government found out, it flooded Twitter with gibberish tweets using the hashtag at a rate of 10 tweets per second, effectively preventing the demonstrators from using the social media platform to issue instructions.

Twitter did not stop the onslaught because it did not violate the platform’s terms of service.

Michael D. Lumpkin, a former State Department strategic messaging official, criticized the U.S. government’s capability to counter disinformation and promote its messages as outdated and stifled.

“We are hamstrung by a myriad of reasons, to include lack of accountability and oversight, bureaucracy, resulting in insufficient levels of resourcing and an inability to absorb cutting-edge information and analytic tools, and access to highly skilled personnel,” Lumpkin said.

At the same time, Lumpkin said America’s enemies are increasing their capabilities and investment.

Clint Watts, a former FBI agent and specialist on information operations, said Russia is the leading power in the use of information operation.

“Russia does five things that sets it apart from others in terms of influence,” Watts said. “One, they create content across deliberate themes, political, social, and financial messages, but they hyper-empower those with hacked materials that act as nuclear fuel for information atomic bombs.”

These information bombs power political groups and other profiteers in the social media space, further amplifying their messages.

Moscow also pushes its disinformation and propaganda in unitary campaigns that appear to come from different locations at the same time, through the use of covert and overt accounts as well as social media platforms.

Russia shares content through semi-linked and covert online personas in order to create a public impression that its propaganda is more established than it is, while pushing themes over long periods of time.

“American obsession with social media has overlooked several types of real-world actors that help enable their operations online,” he said.

They include pro-Russian “useful idiots,” including unwitting Americans who don’t know they are using Russian information for political gain. Others are “fellow travelers” who back Russia and provocateurs who create incidents in a bid to drive Internet traffic.

“When it comes to Americans countering cyber influence operations, when all is said and done, far more is said than done,” Watts said. “We talk about it a lot, but we do fewer iterations than our Russian adversaries.”

Watts said that when the United States has acted in the information operations space, “it hasn’t been effective, and at worse it’s been counterproductive,”

Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.) noted the problem is not new and that U.S. efforts to counter it are deficient.

“Our government and society remain ill-prepared to detect and counter these powerful new forms of information warfare, or to deter them through the threat of offensive versions of our own information operations,” he said.

Full article: America Is Losing the Cyber Information War (Washington Free Beacon)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s