The primarily challenge here is remaining at the forefront of technology. And that requires spending money on a lot of non-military activities—basic research, education, equality of opportunity. Historically it has also meant openness to foreigners, for both science and creation of new enterprises.
We’re happily sacrificing all of that to big company profits, electoral racism, and aircraft carriers.
23
Its a general critique on the state of the world’s Cyber and Tech conflicts. Its alot we have seen before.
o China is big and menacing
o Private US companies now run the show
o AI is very difficult to predict
o War might be very different and fought at micro and nano scales
o Q computers could silently steal all of our encrypted info.
o Hypersonic Tech is the next big thing in rockets and missiles
o College kids with tech skills dont seek Gov jobs anymore
o Robot warfare is going to be very different
o And more
Anyone who pay attention will find these themes to be commonly accepted ideas. What we dont see are the concrete steps that could be taken to nullify some of these problems. Many are taken. One example is the use of “adversarial examples” to ruin an enemy AI system. You will not see it advertised. So this comes across as a “State of the Union” message from the military. Pay attention of course, but:
o 1938 the Nazi’s looked ready to control the world
o 1951 it looked like nukes would destroy all civilization
o 1970 it looked like the US would crash and burn in Nam. And loose Asia
You know the rest. We got thru it.
1
"...recalibrating the Fourth Amendment"
So, the part of the U.S. Constitution that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures needs to be recalibrated.
Recalibrating the Constitution sounds like something out of the German news from 1933.
This is about self-interest, about making money, and not about protecting the American people in any way whatsoever. Once the Constitution goes, the country goes with it, and people who put a lot of money in their pockets are not going to be that sad about the process. No. It needs to be stopped.
We have already seen a stunning set of failures that smack of raw apathy--the OPM hack, 9-11 itself, the Iranian CIA hack, Snowden, and the fact that the U.S. has not won in Iraq or Afghanistan--and that apathy and failure should not have even more money thrown after it. The resources they have should be used better.
We do not need to recalibrate the 4th Amendment. Doing so would be North Korea-esque, and a shocking development.
The enormous transfer of technology, especially military technology and critical industrial production technologies from the U.S. to China, was done under the noses of several U.S. entities who let it happen. It has been described as the greatest transfer of technology in human history. The apathy and lack of leadership that allowed that to happen is a disgrace.
1
So World War III will be - is being - fought with bits and bytes. Coupled with actual political hot spots like the Middle East, North Korea, Russia and China, it's truly alarming. The US has an outsized influence on all this. It's a matter of whether they will make things worse or better. Current trends aren't encouraging.
1
I worked in gov to build public-private partnerships to enhance cybersecuirty for over 15 years. IMO - your argument is mostly one-sided looking at these issues from the gov perspective. why should private sector share cyber intel w/gov? what are you going to do with the info? The intel community knows a great deal about the threat but doesn't share with the private sector in a manner that is actionable.
You lay out the problems and challenges - here are some proposed solutions:
1. revamp the security classification system so private sector has better access to threat intel.
2. NSA does not need more money - they need to be re-organized and streamlined to support the digital revolution. Who is the customer?
3. Huge amounts of money is wasted in DOD - streamline and adjust priorities. Not just a tweak - but total revolution.
Tweaking around the edges or just giving more $ to NSA is not the solution.
3
I always thought I lived in a special time, I just never imagined that the future would be more horrific than the past. My take away from this is that the Amish have it right.
Modern technology is on a path to implode unless we build this massive surveillance state that would make the current surveillance state look like a WW 1 tank compared to today's M1A2. Do we really want that Orwellian future?
1
The area we must excel in is applied group psychology, resilience, truth-warfare and trust-building. Gerstell's view of conflict platforms is incomplete without reference to these timeless tools of tribal conflict, because they posit the key to conflict resolution by means other than techno-dominance-submission. If you can operate directly on your opponent's motivational circuits, you can rechannel his fears onto another target besides yourself, and convince him that he is fighting for the wrong cause -- this is the classic art of turning foe into friend or neutral. How prepared are America's national security thinkers to play and excel in this most ancient of battlefields?
3
This article makes me very afraid. Not so much for the vast array of threats apparently ranged against us, but for the mindset of one of those who is supposed to be working to protect us.
What was the point of this article if not to stoke fear and raise allocations?
4
E = mc2 then
E = kTn2 now
Past E >> kTln2
Future E << kTln2
Landauer Principle/Limit/Barrier
Who will breakthrough to the future?
https://ieeetv.ieee.org/conference-highlights/reversible-computing-as-a-path-towards-unbounded-energy-efficiency-michael-frank-icrc-2018
1
A self serving Op-Ed to ask for more money, the ability to co-opt private sector resources and the ability to tap into the public’s data to create a surveillance state.
No thank you. The national security and pentagon budget is already massive. Our rights are being eroded every day.
The answer is to is spend more on education - so that we are not fooled by fakes, propaganda (including fox), and conmen.
6
It's all so very Orwellian, don't you think? I mean really, there is nothing on the internet or any computer that is secure. The person who wrote the program always knows how to get into it. Someone else can, too. Everything on the internet is open game for the right people. And they are not reading this. You could expend the entire gross national product for cybersecurity and all it would take is for one computer genius to get into the program.
Fighting machines? What would the purpose be of two machines fighting each other? If one wins, would all the humans on that side just surrender? No. Killing machines are for killing people, not other machines.
The problem is in thinking that the government can do anything about it. This government can't do anything.
1
The Chief Justice said get a warrant.
The NSA needs a leash with a choke collar.
3
Someone needs to remind Mr. Gerstell that Vladimir Putin is conquering the United States and the western alliance without firing a single missile, hypersonic or otherwise. Before any more fruitless spending on military technology, we need to confront our single biggest national security issue: treason.
1
He works for the NSA.
You, as a citizen, have no secrets from the NSA, computer trackers or Big Tech.
The status quo now is that only governments have secrets. Secrets that they use to protect themselves and do evil.
To borrow from the songbook of John,
"Imagine a world without secrets.
It is easy if you try.
No secret wars, renditions, torture.
Above us only sky."
3
Or “above us only skynet”
2
Can we make a very small start and make elections free of electronic meddling by hostile powers and terrorists? Is that asking too much? (Apparently the current US administration and Senate think so.)
1
The US needs more educated immigrants from Asia and Europe, and not just barely literate masses racing towards the US border from Central America. But then in this age of all out civil war between Trump and liberals, national interest is the collateral casualty for which future generations will be paying for dearly.
Sadly most people who are fixated on Trump in this forum don’t understand the power and reality of AI / ML or the potential threats that a quantum computing pose within our lifetime.
4
This entire piece is based upon the Hobbesian prediction that the world will be in a state of ceaseless war amongst nation-states. While it is not wrong to prepare for the worst, it would be much better if we can work out a way to avoid that kind of situation.
1
Thanks to Mr. Gerstell and to the NY Times for this well-thought-out essay. One of the most important points is that there must be a basis of trust in information made available to the public, either in the form of news reports or articles such as this one.
This should be required reading for the current administration.
2
How about the irony of the surveiller of surveillers - the NSA - arguing for more public funding to develop advanced technological capabilities? The question is trust, which is diminishing not only because of the technological revolution but from the history of the national security communities and governmental intrusion.
Gerstell's outline is startling in its depth and the challenges he outlines. But in addition to talking about primarily national security, I would have appreciated some acknowledgment of how trust has already been violated specifically by NSA's unwarranted surveillance program. Privacy is more than a "notion".
Commercial data collectors are beginning to face calls for regulation tied to these issues. How do you keep the secret government on the leash?
5
"For the past 46 years, around the clock without a single interruption, a team of senior military and intelligence officials has staffed this national security nerve center.
The center’s senior operations officer . . . is authorized to notify the president any time of the day or night of a critical threat."
Where were they on September 11, 2001? Having a nap?
4
@Anatomically modern human
Security operations were stepped up notably in August 2001. I have a collection of newspaper clippings over the following year that document that.
I had a personal encounter with these operations in August 2001 when travelling by bus from Buffalo to Toronto. Over the previous decades, I had departed US borders to various continents approximately fifty times. This was the first time that I had ever been examined by US Border Patrol officers when departing the US. All of my approximately-fifty bus passengers were examined as well, not all English-speaking (a English-Hebrew bilingual lawyer on the bus assisted a group of monolingual Hebrew speakers whom he had never met before).
1
They actually had warnings of an attack but chose to do little at that time.
And then after the attack, went disproportionate with the response. From let’s photograph everyone in their underwear at the airport (what did we do?) to let’s attack Iraq (what did they do?).
All we have succeeded in doing is making life and travel more miserable - not safer. And we have killed more Americans in our response to the attacks than the number of Americans killed in the terror attacks.
2
The perspective of this article in treating military cybersecurity as a service the government is obligated to provide to keep us safe in the same way as conventional military security does, makes me realize how badly lacking our domestic police are in securing us against individual cyberthreats in the same way they do conventional domestic crime.
If military security : having a capable military :: national cybersecurity : having capable cyberdefense agencies, then
individual security : having capable police :: individual cybersecurity : ...buying a commercial antivirus product.
Essentially, when it comes to individual cybersecurity, the inability of our local police forces to adapt to the same challenges this piece outlines has led us shockingly quickly to accepting hiring the equivalent of mercenary soldiers to guard our digital households as standard. That's actually really weird to realize, and more than a little disconcerting.
1
Sadly, money doesn't really solve the issue. We already spend billions and are not better off for that spending. Instead of spending, why not consider directing dollars to efficiencies within the NSA? Our government currently operates on so many outdated IT platforms and databases that don't talk to each other as to make spending more utter nonsense.
We need the brightest and best to work in these areas, not a bunch of bureaucrats at the top siphoning off the money intended to actually get work done. The number of administrators, the size of administration, in most every agency in DC (and locally) is out of control. We've too many and no way to cut unless Congress is willing to curtail the government hiring/pensions/and size. They have no intention of doing so; as a matter of fact, they want more money to spend, more agencies, committees, and studies. No intent to solve a problem.
1
good thing the current administration values science, data integrity and innovation. Those values will help immensely in attracting American coders and scientists capable of advancing US cybertech relative to China.
Although, I suppose, if the current administration fails to attract that talent, they could always just write the word "quantum" on a basic Dell laptop with a sharpie.
3
To a hammer with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. What to make of this incredible ode to fear? Sure, network security can be hacked and needs improvement, etc. etc, but the right response is not necessarily more intelligence and spending on weaponry and defenses. The risks to the nation and american society come from many things such as the weakening of democracy, devisive national leadership, lack of coherent government policy, poor care of the population by the government, poor national health, the inability to leverage the benefits of immigration, endemic racism, etc.
Have we not seen the true enemy, and is it not really us?
1
It is about time the world should wake up and realize the Internet is a Golem.
Much, much, much stronger than the Golem of myth.
1
While I agree that for future confrontations cyber space should have our attention over physical space, there must be checks + balances, definitely NOT more budget.
Shift it within the Defense budget - from the WALL to cyber, or a few bombers less.
Shift also to peace efforts, our wars after WWII have been miserable, long, lost + without exit strategy. We don't need more of that.
4
Well, maybe instead of spending resources spying on your own citizens - illegally I might add - you should've been thinking about, you know, ACTUAL threats. Zero sympathy or concern. If the NSA, CIA, and most especially, the TSA employees who couldn't work at McDonalds, were to disappear tomorrow, I'd rejoice.
4
The whole article is predicated on the reader finding US intelligence agencies reasonably competent.
2
The article is all nonsense. We are 40-60 years ahead in developing weapons and systems. The public has no clue.
1
Mr. Gerstell's lack of imagination is completely unsurprising and simultaneously disheartening. To summarize Mr. Gerstell's opinion, 'our current hammer is unable to drive this new screw into the wood....we need a bigger hammer!'
Unfortunately, is suspect Mr. Gerstell opinion reflects the best thinking the area of national security: "Walls! We need more walls!"
Mr. Gerstell is absolutely correct on the matter of fact: the digitial revolution is poised to destroy the walls that NSA has built over the last 50 years. But clearly he has failed to consider that perhaps the best defense is a good offense; that building a "shining city upon a hill" might yield better results that building a superfortress upon a hill, bristling with weapons. Instead of building better walls, we disarm our enemy's by winning over their hearts and mind.
3
A recent 500 page report by the Transportation Administration essentially says: "Why bother imposing emission limits on cars? The global average temperature will have risen by 4C by 2100, twice the 2C limit of the United Nations report on global warming." We are going to be toast!
1. Doesn't the planet have a compelling reason - the survival of humanity - to cooperate for survival, rather than conflicts and wars, as you assume in your realistic article?
2. In order to hope to achieve (1), how do you face exponentially exploding complexity and maintain the ability to understand it? "Savoir, pour prevoir, pour pouvoir"
Auguste Comte.
3. Enrico Fermi asked: "Why the silence?"even though there appears to be millions of planets able to host life. The smart people who seek to detectsigns of life in the universe hypothesize that civilizations that reach advanced levels of technological development self-destruct. Shooting stars in the immense night of time.
1
So what you're saying is that America needs to stop struggling with 16th-century issues and embrace 21st-century issues? I wonder if Trump knows this?
1
What an amazing, eye-opening article. Thank you and thanks to the Times for printing.
Unfortunately, if history is any guide, meaningful changes are not made until there is a crisis.
These issues are existential and transcend left and right. Politics should not hinder us as we try to navigate survival in the new age. Public-private partnerships are essential. There should also be legislation barring our biggest tech companies from working with foreign nations.
1
Dear Mr. Gerstell:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and NSA experience re not losing the digital revolution. I enjoyed the article and have been worried about falling behind in military and intelligence technology for some time now. The wake up call is a good one. Hopefully funding and candid debate will follow.
One of my questions in this matter is how do our military and intelligence agencies manage private sector security and access in a global economy where many tech companies, for example, have business relationships and sales all over the world? A company headquartered in Menlo Park is no longer effectively an American company. How to keep U.S. intelligence and databases secure when the tech companies are truly international in location, employees, vendors, and senior management? Same issues with univ. research depts.
If not already standard practice, one way might be to embed, for example, NSA staffers, overtly and otherwise, in company locations to keep an eye on quality control, staffing, and security matters and assist with contract fulfillment. It's not spying. It's vendor management, just like any other corp. client might do it, sometimes best done at the vendor location rather than remotely.
The other comment is that it would be nice to use as much home grown talent in this effort as possible and use our valuable visa program to attract the STEM talent we need from offshore. Practice merit based immigration.
Regards, John Brooke 9/11/19
John Brooke
1
"Technology is about to upend our entire national security infrastructure."
Well, if technology destroys the NSA, I am all for it. It is probably the most evil agency in the entire federal government.
2
A very interesting, comprehensive analysis of the future of not only our nation, but of our existence. Thank you.
Unfortunately, we have a governing body (mainly the administration) who not only hasn't a clue of any of this, but further, couldn't care about it at all.
And that will, in the long run, be our downfall.
1
Mr. Gerstell:
Thanks for thinking so thoroughly about upcoming potential threats and possible solutions and presenting this to the public. Gosh, do you sleep at night with all of those thoughts of threats going through your head?
This digital age definitely presents us all with the threats of cyber attacks. Informing the public is crucial.
Fast evolving digital technology is also providing average citizens with unprecedented opportunities to communicate across the globe to people we wouldn't otherwise meet to develop positive new alliances and improved global relations and understanding.
Alliances of trust are formed best by human to human contact. Allies can pick up a phone to verify with one another.
Consider protecting critical infrastructures from potential attacks by adding a human component before systems could be significantly altered/shut down. Have 2-3 persons be required to make significant changes. They would need to input a code phrase known only known to them (and also perhaps put into a safe that is only opened only by a manual method such as a key!)
That way there could be no remote shutting down of systems, as changes in routines would require permission of certain appointed people with unique, personal input codes.
I'm remembering the Navajo code talkers. They went 'outside the expected norm' and were successful.
Authoritarian regimes cultivate obedient citizens. Our advantage is the cultivation of 'out of the box' thinking.
1
This NSA writer is correct that information security is a vast challenge.
But, the US NSA’s mindset about coping with the challenge is not up to the task. An article from the General Counsel of that organization has no doubt been vetted by dozens of military and civilian executives. Still, it fails to mention the NSA’s own failings.
One failing: a contract system administrator in Hawaii (Edward Snowden) had access to highly sensitive NSA secrets. Anybody doing information security for the private sector knew better in 2012, than to grant global unfettered access to secrets like those. But the NSA apparently did not.
Another failing: a software exploit for the Eternal Blue bug in Microsoft Windows was stolen from NSA and subsequently used by cybercreeps to cripple vital services such as the UK National Health Service. This was an example of the sort of critical-infrastructure attack mentioned in the article.
This article didn’t mention those very damaging leaks of secrets from the writer’s organization. Any significant planning for the future necessarily must deal with the reality of that kind of leak. I’m not finger pointing, but rather asking for a new mindset about information security.
The inconvenient reality is this: ALL SECRETS EVENTUALLY LEAK. Not even the NSA’s vast supply of brains and money can build systems strong enough to prevent leakage.
Real information security requires planning for leaks as well as robust leak-prevention measures. Let’s get to work!
6
Agree
The private sector already owns our Govt
We need more Tech now!
We need our young to learn it now.
I remember how Sputnik changed our education systems.
Slowing 5G is not the answer.
A.I. Is here and will start building itself.
Nobody and no organization will be quick enough.
I expect the first major attack will be banking.
Stop the flow of money and everything stops for a while.
We need smart people to be smart not just watching.
2
Trump has tried to destroy the diplomatic efficacy of collaborative global leadership, thereby burdening hard military power at the expense of soft military power, which is what the Gerstell article is about: the need to vastly up the resourcing of soft military power.
This kind of reality highlight’s Trump’s danger to national security. Isolationism is compelled to secure itself with hard military power. Collaborative global leadership allows for the scaling back of hard power in order to better afford soft power.
The Warzel capsulation of the Gerstell Op-Ed implies that China’s draconian integration of governmental and corporate systems gives them an advantage over the U.S. In the jungle, might makes right.
In the long run, China may gain hegemonic discretion to become more tolerant in their sphere of influence before the U.S. is able to become secure enough against Chinese hegemony, without giving up democratic values.
It could be that the late 21st century will see one superpower, and it won’t be the U.S.—unless democratic soft power can prevail over command-economic hardball.
2
Thanks for a very informative article outlining the threats we are facing. As the author underline, this calls for swift and decisive actions. What strikes me is the fact that the author do not mention the alarming need for an international legal binding convention which will enable us to ste up play rules and bring some order to the chaos ahead. All governments share the same challenge. As we become increasingly dependent on digitalization our respective societies also become dependent on international regulations which enables us to go after bad guys who presently are taking full advantage of borderless dimension of cyberspace. We have managed to regulate other transnational interactions such as war, should we not make an effort copying this approach in this new domain?
It also strikes me that the authors suggestion just to increase spendings to the intelligence community do not reflect the fact that the cyber threat is indeed not "business as usual". This will challenge governments to re-assess how they are organizing nations effort to counter the threat, including enhanced cooperation with the private sector.
In closing many thanks for a very good article and wake up call!
1
When you talk about partnership between public and private sector how do you propose that would work for multinational corporations? Which public sector of all that they operate in should they cooperate with? Or is it all of them at the same time?
1
This piece reminds me of a recent article in TheAtlantic, by Graham Allison: "The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. and China Headed for War? -- In 12 of 16 past cases in which a rising power has confronted a ruling power, the result has been bloodshed."
Maybe Trump is doing the US a favor. The US is losing dominance on the World stage through inept foreign relations. Thus, we are avoiding bloodshed from China by shooting ourselves in the foot.
The alternate route to avoiding bloodshed is through free trade. Instead of MAD of the cold war, of the mutually assured destruction detente we had with the USSR, we were building a mutually assured recession (a MAR?) with China. That leverage goes away if we demand US businesses pull out of China.
That was one of the incentives towards opening Iran to trade. With more trade comes more leverage from the threat of sanctions.
I feel like the US is being managed like a Trump Casino. You'd think that we would have all the advantages. The house always wins. Right? It takes a special kind of executive to prove the exception to the rule. Trump is truly exceptional.
This may seem like a non-sequitur. I am a technologist. I'm familiar with Shor's quantum factorization. But, I've lived long enough to know that superior tech will alway be trumped by poor execution.
4
It seems unlikely to me that one group will have a significant lead over another. The evolution comes in so many advances from so many sources.
It is however reasonable that the U.S. will have to “recalibrate” it’s image from being the boss of the world depending on military superiority to being an effective working partner of the many nations trying to maintain a peaceable world.
My biggest concern is that the U.S. descends further in savagery, making living here lousy except for the wealthy and possibly triggering a truly final (for humans) world war.
2
"But what do our notions of privacy mean anymore when Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and so on already know so much about you? "
The difference of course is Google etc can't send men with guns to your home.
That being said, I think the tech companies have too much information too, and I'm looking to limit them,
Moreover, I question whether the "internet of things" will really be that great. I don't need my fridge etc connected to the internet. We are creating a huge amount of vulnerability for very little increase in value.
8
How much more of our money do you want, and how many more of our civil liberties are you going to take? Pure propaganda.
14
@Andrew: Indeed, and the majority of the comments here seem to indicate that much of the public is lapping it up.
"I'm from the NSA, here to assure you that we only want to protect you. Just trust us, and give us even more money and power."
6
“Will Western liberal democracies, already straining under the combined demands of decaying civil infrastructure, aging populations, upgrading militaries and so on, be able to afford these investments?”
No. But except perhaps for China, nobody else can either.
The expense of modern conflict is tremendously expensive. Luckily for the US, no other country can afford it either. This is where our advantage lives, generally. Cost.
On the other hand, how much does an IED cost? $500? Thus far, the effectiveness of the Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram, and others is enhanced because effective weapons are relatively cheap.
Bottom line: the US needs to forever assume a defensive posture. It’s expensive, but not as expensive as it could be. A defensive posture generally doesn’t make people angry. The worst your adversary can cry about is that they didn’t kill you.
Now a defensive posture is not passive. It’s lethal. They launch, we shoot down. They invade, we repel. With lethal force.
As for software, I think it’s slightly different. You a good defense -and- you need a crippling offense.
3
Yes but when it comes to understanding science and technology a majority of Americans are extremely ignorant, illiterate and stupid.
While they frequently favor convenience and profit over their security.
Russian hacking and meddling in the 2016 Presidential campaign and election deployed American science and technology against enduring endemic color aka race aka ethnicity aka national origin aka sectarian partisan American political divisions. Information rather than disinformation led to victory.
The reality of Russian success was that the DNC, James Comey, Julian Assange
Wikileaks, Facebook, Twitter and Google were all useful idiots. While the Russians were covert in their hacking and meddling role the real plausible truths of what they expoited is what won and carried Trump to the White House.
3
"It is by no means assured that our national security sector will be able to attract on a sufficient scale the scarce engineering, mathematical and scientific talent that would supply the necessary expertise."
Chapter 11 of the new book 'Politics, Hierarchy, and Public Health:Voting patterns in the 2016 US Presidential election'
https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Hierarchy-Public-Health-International/dp/0367224445
examines in some detail how the diversion of limited scientific and engineering resources into 'national security' efforts during the Cold War triggered the deindustrialization leading to our current political instability. The Rust Belt came from that diversion. More of the same will generate more of the same. We badly need reindustrialization, not more diversion.
5
Meanwhile, a trillion on this stuff, a couple trillion into the Mideast, a bunch of trillion into all our conventional defenses... and then all our regular folks don't have a decent health care system and are going bankrupt to pay for college.
Well, and those are the middle class. Our less advantaged here in the US live in near third-world conditions.
The "forever war" strategy may be fun for the NSA, Pentagon, CIA, etc. But for regular old Americans, it is a path to US=squalor at home.
10
It's just my hope that it is China and not the United States that comes to the new technology first. The US is clearly a war-mongering nation; the US having robotic soldiers would be a global nightmare.
2
Mutually-assured hacks.
2
I've been trained to believe nothing anyone in this administration says. So, nah.
2
I find it curious that Mr. Gerstell did not once mention the many national security blunders of our current president and the great risk to our security of his possible reelection. To whit: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/opinion/trump-intelligence-national-security.html
5
Mr. Gerstell may be constrained in speaking ill of his carrot topped narcissistic moronic boss, but to suggest more hundreds of billions on hypersonic weaponry, without even considering diplomacy to seek an arms control treaty, is as mad as the mantle Mr. Trump wears so proudly.
5
Either we build a foundation through institutes of higher learning or not. We can’t look toward the future if we hobble students and parents with loans which suffocate individual resources.
We need more free institutes of higher learning. It’s our future national security at stake. We deny gifted students of limited means. How does that help us in the future?
We compete against countries which have free education from kindergarten through college. Countries which offer more hours of instruction and less focus on trivial sports.
We’ve elected idiots to office thinking they’re smarter than us. Rich is right?
Our future looks bleak.
5
No, we need to prepare for peace -- if we prepare for war (America, the world's great warmonger) then we shall have war -- if we prepare for peace, then we shall have peace --
7
There is a very real possibility that democratic governments were never designed to adapt rapidly to existential threats. Even saving Europe from Hitler took us way to long to respond to. Unfortunately, autocratic governments may react more quickly than the messy democratic process will tolerate. Another threat from autocratic governments is that they can much more easily be co-opted by an ambitions A.I.
If so, then not even our ubiquitous "thoughts and prayers" will save us.
2
See, we are now one of those autocratic governments.
1
Interesting. Mr. Gerstell writes an interesting article. He also ignores the fact that we have John Bolton, a mad bomber of renown, and Mike Pompeo, a Tea Party congressman with no experience advising a president who a semi-literate megalomaniac. Now I really am scared.
4
Perhaps it’s time to re-appropriate some of the $700billion a year spent on tanks, warships and aircraft that are easily taken out by drones and use the funds to build the cyber defense of the future.
1
Glenn, tell your co-workers at Fort Meade to vote for any Democrat in 2020 who's running against Traitor Trump. When he is riden out of town on a rail, come back and see us.
2
One thing is for sure, tariffs, legacy-funds, nepotism, and grifter politics while stabbing our enemies in the back and our friends in the face will not help.
6
I think these are matters meant purely for internal discussion rather than meant to be written as an opinion piece and seeking public opinion unless it’s a misinformation.
3
Reliance on the global internet is relatively new and simply unnecessary.
By cutting the financial and power grid systems out of the internet and building a secure parallel domestic comms environment we can go a long way toward insulating ourselves from cyberthreats.
No one at a power plant or a bank needs to get to YouTube.
8
@Objectivist
Your recommendation is a good idea. With consensus it sounds doable. Is it enough?
1
@Objectivist
I like the idea but financial systems are global systems. Billions of dollars traverse the globe every day. How would that work if they are limited to a domestic comms environment? Regarding the power grid, I agree 100%. We might consider upgrading it to 21st century standards too...
The people who were revealed to be spying on all of us, in every imaginable way, all of the time, want our trust, more of our money and more power.
Sure. I mean, what could go wrong?
5
Before reading or re-reading the post I suggest you consider reviewing your own opinion of the underlying "basis" of the article. Helps to resist propaganda, disinformation, etc.
In the author's words those foundations are:
There are four key implications of this revolution that policymakers in the national security sector will need to address:
1. The first is that the unprecedented scale and pace of technological change will outstrip our ability to effectively adapt to it.
2. Second, we will be in a world of ceaseless and pervasive cyberinsecurity and cyberconflict against nation-states, businesses and individuals.
3. Third, the flood of data about human and machine activity will put such extraordinary economic and political power in the hands of the private sector that it will transform the fundamental relationship, at least in the Western world, between government and the private sector.
4. Finally, and perhaps most ominously, the digital revolution has the potential for a pernicious effect on the very legitimacy and thus stability of our governmental and societal structures.
2
None of the suggested remedies are possible without the public's confidence in our Federal government. That trust has been shattered. The same applies to Big Tech. Why would I give more power to National Security organizations or Big Tech when both have shown themselves to be untrustworthy or downright evil?
6
Not to be a dummy but it is more likely an evil regime might send a dozen ordinary looking tourist to mingle in the streets and corridors of Washington DC, infected with a virulent bacteria resistant to antibiotics.
9
We can either 'invest' in better offense, then better defense, then better still offense, still better defense, etc. Or we can create a world where nobody thinks of launching ICBMs, nukes, or cyber attacks.
Guess which alternative is cheaper in blood and treasure?
2
This is a profound and convincing analysis, but to which audience is it addressed? As the author is a senior member of the intelligence community, his colleagues at the NSA surely share his conclusions. They don't need to be lectured. Is this a justification for increasing the already immense and bloated budget invested into a myriad of private defense subcontractors who are getting rich from taxpayers money? I remain mystified.
5
America is unprepared for the future because Republican administrations since the end of WWII has been selling America out for short term gain. Make no mistake they have been conning their base and governing for the benefit of an elite few. Recently they have been making overt and covert back channel deals with our adversaries for profit and to maintain power.
They are selling out your future air and water through deregulation of industries, oil and gas prospecting on public lands without investing in renewable energy futures and jobs. and investing investing nothing in infrastructure.
They have been Undermining public education, minimizing human potential, denying science, segmenting the populations with overt racism, misogamy, ignoring decaying infrastructure. Damaging America's competitiveness.
The lengths to which Republicans will go to hold on to power power Included putting in office a president who is a weak greedy man of low intelligence, who is easily manipulated by payoffs and ego manipulation. A liar who is incompetent as a leader because he understands nothing except how to grift.
How will you be protected? Not by Republicans who are hoodwinking Evangelicals and practicing Catholics, ultimately they are depriving all Americans of a secure future.
3
From the people who brought you Stuxnet: Trust Us!
3
What is the NSA doing about it's biggest current threat, a president who posts a top secret photo of an enemy launch pad on twitter?
A president who most likely has been giving information to the russians during his presidency.
2
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
5
Quite interesting to compare your stated aims and suggested strategies in the cyber realm with those of the Saudi Crown Prince:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/opinion/saudi-arabia-internet.html
2
No mention of the quantum 'revolution'?
China leads in quantum communication:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/18/quantum-revolution-is-coming-chinese-scientists-are-forefront/
China will go 'black' in the very near future.
I'm not sure which country leads in quantum computing.
Whoever wins these races is the next superpower.
9
@oldBassGuy
This is an important area of concern.
As such, there are several paragraphs in this article that mention the "promises and threats" of quantum computing.
7
@oldBassGuy China is demonstrating rapid increases in quantum communications and computing technology.
The irony is that it is building on IP and training provided by Western institutions. Coupled with IP theft It will use these technologies to subvert and subsume the world in order to achieve its political and geostrategic depredations.
We still have the opportunity to win the race but the current administration war on talent isn’t helpful.
Why is our electric grid connected to the internet?! It always worked fine before the internet and the danger of doing it is obvious. Why?
4
Incredible. The solution is ALWAYS more war and more lethal technology for the professional warmonger class. The United States has NEVER faced an existential threat, and probably never will. Watch Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States if you want to learn precisely how the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX co-opted our economy and our government even before the Second World War had ended. I think Mr. Gerstell might change his tune if you put him on the ground in a combat zone with an M-16. He might actually ask himself "What the heck am I doing here?"
9
Our Cyber Pearl Harbor already happened. It was the 2016 election. And most of our national leadership is in denial that it ever happened.
3
Trump has been hoodwinked by Putin and Kim appealing to his fragile ego which leaves us at a national security risk. Trump's only concern is his image his survival and his money and world leaders have found telling Trump how pretty he is gets them whatever they . Brutal murderous dictators are Trump's favorites as he yearns to have the grip Kim has over his people in North Korea and the ability for Trump and his family to enrich themselves his Trump;s top priority recall he was bidding on Trump Moscow Tower while running for prez and denying any deals with Moscow . We have a pathological liar as president a proven fraud where will he leave us as country a broken democracy alienated with our allies.
1
Authoritarianism/fascism has spread worldwide like lymphoma cancer recurring through the body. It has been embraced by the Republican Party, thanks to the post-1968 realignment where Old South white supremacy and Evangelism merged with 1% capitalists and the military-industrial complex. This modern GOP gets along just fine with places like Putin's Russia and Xi's China.
Before we give any more funding and power to our Federal Govt's national security and military, we have to address this internal domestic threat. I will not entrust our country's protection to the people enabling and staying silent on Trump's administration, whether an appellate judge or a political hack in the upper echelons of an agency.
4
NOAA, NASA, NWS, CIA, FBI, IRS, and now the Air Force (along with the administration and congress). Why should we believe anything coming from the NSA? Let's see what Donald and Vlad have to say about it.
3
Mr. Gerstell, if we dedicated our resources to addressing issues of mutual concern like climate change rather than your hysterical view of the future, the world, “Ours and Theirs” will be a place where “we” all can truly live, not in fear but in peace. Fear and warmongering whether based on nuclear threats or your impending doom of A.I. Is a self fulfilling, self inflicted Sisyphean fantasy. If you truly believe what you have written, I can’t imagine how you can sleep or function. Get outside in nature more, leave your gadgets behind and enjoy the limited time we all have on earth.
4
MIssiles?
Dang.
Talk about missing the point.
Look, we've already been attacked.
We are suffering the results of that attack daily in these very newspaper pages.
The thing most at risk in this new era of war is the minds of the citizenry.
Those minds, raised and trained on the trash content and practices of mandatory government education camps, most of us are wildly incapable of detecting that our minds are being manipulated and many of us are literally going to bat to protect the products of that manipulation.
Missiles?
No way.
Toxic mimetic mind implants?
Yup.
2
@Ingolf Stern
Yup: we have met the enemy and it is us. (Walt Kelly)
Missiles are real too.
No
Such
Agency
clueless, ineffective and lost.
Scary and sad.
2
Good Lord. What an absolute runaway godawful mess. How about we start a department of peace and get the best minds there, not in computer-war laboratories, and figure out how to cut this whole thing off at the knees so we can put our effort into, oh, maybe, making sure our planet does not burn up and our children are cared for and our citizens are not getting robbed by the plutocrats?
5
War is a horrible, useless horror. It’s also one of most profitable endeavors. Kudos to all the hard working people who keep us safe. Hopefully we can get back to Democracy and patriotism, and away from traitorous “ leaders” who are totally a waste of space
14
@Mglovr In some ways it is comforting to think that war is "useless". Unfortunately that is a "useless" idea that is far from the truth. In fact, war is the central organizing principle of human society because it brings about major transformative, necessary and long-lasting change. That's the reason societies devote so many resources to the practice of war, be it a hot war, a cold war or a cyberwar.
1
1. Don't you have editors? This article is way too long and wordy for anyone but the most masochistic wonk to read through.
2. There's nothing new in it; anyone who reads tech, security, and related politics updates in the usual daily news sites would be aware of all the points made. It would have been useful as a concise presentation of these points.
3. One of its main premises is wrong. The new technologies are not uniquely speedy in their effects on society. Radio was barely functional until after WW1. Within a few years it was ubiquitous. TVs were rare in the late 1940s. By the mid 50s TV was so dominant that it was already being blamed for the ills of society, present and future. (With some reason.)
4. The sky is not falling. Countries have competed with new technologies since the advent of groups of human beings. There has never been a weapon technology and use-tactics that haven't eventually been countered - by strong-enough adversaries.
5. Not all great new technologies work as predicted, very much including those advertised by the Russian, Chinese, and Iranians.
5. Of course, it is essential that we don't fall behind. A more succinct, less melodramatic article would have had a better effect on this desired outcome.
12
If our response to climate change is any indication — well let’s just say your tsunami metaphor was the accurate choice.
2
November 4th 2020 will be the day the country faces either Armagedden or a new beginning.
If the current president wins we very likely will face Armagedden. If he is not elected we will get another chance to fill the destiny many people believe we have and start a new beginning.
And it really doesn't matter then who is elected as long as it is not the current president.
4
DMP below says the essay needs unpacking. He has focused on other problems of an even grander scale. I would say the main problem is the gigantomania. The catholics invented the principle of subsidiarity. That means challenges should be met at the most decentralized level possible. Among experts, politicians and the Catholic Church itself most of the time the drive is towards centralization. As to the NSA that would be its main Achilles heel.
2
One of the problems with having "security agencies" such as CIA, NSA, Office of Naval Intelligence, etc., is that all these agencies and all the people who work at these agencies have a vested interest in the continuation of war and conflict. If there is no war or conflict then they cannot justify their existence.
There's a lot of money to be made in the promotion of war and conflict, and even good people who work at these places, including military people, are caught up in the notion of "security".
Security agencies do not move us toward "security", however that is defined; on the contrary, they move us constantly toward conflict. We have far too many important things to tackle, mainly climate change and the ecological destruction of our planet.
We should shut down all security agencies and put our collective energy where it is so desperately needed, which is to halt the ecological destruction of our planet and stop the warming of our planet before it is too late. Nothing else matters.
5
God. Let the private sector have more of a role in national defense. The hand off started with GWB's folding in the face of Dick Cheney's demand that his old company play a large and lucrative part in Iraq and now one of the President's men whispers satanically in our ear that all will be well if the capitalists are given control over our protection.
Just another attempt to drive the highloader around to the back of the Treasury to offload the money while the President diverts our attention by threatening to buy Greenland. Or such.
6
@Hollis Hanover I'm probably older than you, but I recall President Eisenhower's farewell speech to the nation in 1961 warning of "the military-industrial complex". It was well entrenched at that time as a result of the government recruitment of private industry during WWII to win the war by out-producing the Japanese and Germans. So, no; it did not start with Cheney and Halliburton and KBR and Fluor and the rest of that cabal. That doesn't detract from the problem you stated.
1
"But these early-warning centers have no ability to issue a warning to the president that would stop a cyberattack that takes down a regional or national power grid..."
The great Northeast Blackout of 2003 was caused by overheated power lines sagging and brushing against trees, causing a cascading fault and super-regional blackout. The loblolly pine and the gray squirrel regularly cause more damage to our power grid than any cyberattacker could ever hope to achieve.
Put all of our power lines under ground, and while we're at it, harden them against cyberattack. It's a shovel-ready project that will pay dividends for several lifetimes.
4
@NorthernVirginia
And the great California power failures and rolling blackouts of 2000 and 2001 were caused by Enron and others manipulating the private power markets for financial gain. Beware the enemy within....
1
‘Ok, gang, bring me the abstracts of all your internal presentations this year, and somebody mash it all together with some recommendations for more budget.’
Despite the motley compilation, the issues mentioned are real, even if few of us would trust the suggested actions, at least as long as we have a lawless government. To generalize, allow (existing) agencies to combine with private interests in an entirely new way, which is the formal definition of fascism.
Long ago, say around 1942, the best and brightest were conscripted or volunteered to update and empower the military. Also long ago, very likely after the atomic buildup combined with unstoppable missiles, the best and brightest lost appetite for contributing any more to what already was beyond excessive.
Yes, it’s a good bet that our defense entities cannot now cope with either warfare as we know it, or the diversified future presented here. It’s also a good bet that destruction of the political and economic influence of the United States is attractive to both governmental and non-governmental entities right on down to tiny splinter groups.
It also seems obvious that a large fraction of our own population, for various reasons, would like to abandon most of the structures of our government in favor of non-democratic or simply chaotic ones. They also do not trust the present defense and intelligence agencies, and certainly not ones with expanded, intrusive missions.
1
How do you accomplish anything when the President officially denies Russia has a hostile government?
Vote.
3
An excellent outline of security problems related to conflict between nation states and other non-governmental actors. However, as was pointed out to President Trump, using nuclear weapons to disrupt hurricanes won't work; the energy of hurricanes dwarf any energy we currently command. Analogously, the threat from climate change dwarfs nation state conflict. The science fiction "deus ex machina" of space invasion to force human governments to collaborate to defeat a common alien enemy may be optimistic given the doltish obtuseness of governmental leaders to recognize and competently plan for a climate catastrophe that has been obvious for the past 30 years. They would rather spend our energy, intellectual capital and treasure on building nation state militaries and intelligence agencies to confront each other than to confront the immense natural disasters that threaten us. I am not suggesting that some cyber preparedness to confront malevolent adversaries is not necessary. I am suggesting that we all are not seeing the forest for the trees and that the resources of all nations would be more beneficially allocated to confront a problem that will overwhelm us all if not mitigated.
5
Yeah right!!!!!
If we are going to prepare for future war that is the most grim prediction I have read today under trumpism.
How can we believe any analysis coming from a government agency under trump or congress.
The NSA has done more to assure endless war utilizing our precious blood and treasure!
Jesus shedding his blood for our sins ..... symbolism created his legend and his movement.
His shed blood was the symbol of WAR among humans. And our SINS continue.
Follow the “ Jesus path” or a path with Gandhi or King .......make love not war.
The future is now!!!!
Hell no we won’t go!!!!!
Yes we can now microwave “the other” to death.
Yes we can drone murder civilians by mistake. Oops.
Yes we can continue to be the darkest entity on this planet.
This is exactly how fundamentalism foments evil.
NSA is a propaganda machine for massive tech driven aggression by autocrats.
4
Many of the underlying assumptions in this essay require unpacking.
First, our country is closer to an oligarchy with democratic window dressing then a real democracy. What the average citizen supports and wants from government is hardly ever enacted into law while wealthy individuals, corporations, and business sectors can push through extraordinarily regressive measures that benefit their own bottom lines.
Second, commercial entities consistently bring highly insecure digital products to market. Security of the "IOT" is a joke and everyone in the industry knows it and the track record of large corporations in the area of cyber security is abysmal.
Third, anyone with any first hand knowledge of how the Internet is built and works knows that it is a teetering Rube Goldberg machine made out of paper clips, baling wire, and scotch tape. The underlying transport protocols were never intended to be secure and they are not.
It's true that the hyper-complexity and exponential growth curve of our technology is a problem. So is the gross inequality of our society, our non-functional governance, and the grotesque over-reach of our titanic corporations. Fixing the latter problems might make possible fixing the former.
139
@DMP
What I have been considering is how can our government both 'regulate' the private corporations to protect consumers and also be asking for the corporation to 'give up' the rich data mined by the corporation at the consumer's unwitting expense?
Those are contradictory purposes.
Corporations have been collecting detailed personal information for proprietary purposes for years. This has served them well to 'sell' more products/services or to sell information about to other companies without most people having any awareness of most of what is going on.
2
@DMP
To sump up DMP's brilliant comment : capitalism is the primary threat. If we dressed it, taking care of the secondary threat posed by digital technology could start looking doable.
The icing on the cake being that it would also help having a go at tackling climate change.
But, let us not forget the fifth and worse threat : overpopulation.
2
Fascinating and disturbing article. (I'd like to see how this was covered in the daily presidential briefing to trump.)
How about this for a solution: less "IoT" and more "sneaker net". You don't protect a castle by building more roads to it.
2
...yet our Commander in Chief doesn't have the intellect or patience to get through the first few paragraphs of this article; perhaps the most important piece I've read in years. Thank you Mr. Gertsell.
4
Dropping old (not needed) technology is a big part of the issue, making new technology that more difficult to fund. Seems that those servicing the old technology need to be retrained before Politicians will consider dropping Military make work projects.
"Congress Again Buys Abrams Tanks the Army Doesn't Want"
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html
2
No mention of the single most important thing we can be doing right now to promote national security and global peace: Addressing climate change.
Don't take my word for it; that was the conclusion of a blue-ribbon panel of 20 former generals and admirals in their 2007 report:
https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/april-16-2007-retired-generals-admirals-global-warming-needs-a-hard-look
Meanwhile, our current administration is going backwards--fast--on this critical issue, while 40% of Americans (those who continue to support this administration) are fine with this approach.
Whatever your cause, it's a lost cause because of climate change.
2
Right now, a similar government official in Moscow is writing an identically worded piece asking for money and planning for the next war.
*
And in Peking, another government official is asking for money and planning for the next war.
*
Do none of these three officials not know about the First World War? That was the occasion when four world powers (Germany, Russia, France and Britain) signed treaties which GUARANTEED that the slightest infraction anywhere would trigger a world war.....and that's exactly what happened in Sarajevo!
*
Here we go again....everyone getting more money and preparing for the slightest (cyber) infraction....but this time the result will be somewhat worse than WW1.
3
Here’s one more sad fact: I can’t read through all these comments without wondering if they’re coming from a Russian “troll farm”: you should wonder the same thing about this comment too.
Private citizens are now clods of battlefield, whether we like it or not — our minds are being competed for, radicalized or neutralized. The global information war rages on, but most of us are more concerned with maintaining our sanity and humanity than gaining new technological conveniences, or receiving more “targeted” advertising.
The most secure thing going in this age of hacks and deep fakes and spear phishing and algorithmic manipulation is in-person conversation and on-paper documentation — you could spend trillions and not come up with anything as secure. AND IT’S NOT LIKE WE’VE FORGOTTEN HOW.
1
Oi. Morse code, pen and ink, Native American languages, burying gold in the back yard?
1
We have a President who alters a map with a sharpie and a senate dominated by people over the age of 75 who likely can’t even use Excel. We are doomed.
3
@BS Excellent point, but as a septuagenarian who uses Excel daily for work you are hitting close to home. And I expect that the octobenarian Buffett also uses Excel. Of course, exceptions prove the rule. Right?
Great. Thanks a lot, NSA official, now Trump will do everything in his power to please his handler, Putin.
1
The threats to national security Gerstell discusses are real and worrying but none are as great as the present occupant of the White House.
3
If and when artificial intelligence finally arrives it is my sincere hope that it will be a tool used to save us from ourselves and put people like Mr Gerstell and his ilk in the military/industrial/cyber complex out of work for ever.
1
As Albert Einstein is credited with saying, “I don’t know what the next world war will be fought with, but the one after that will be fought with sticks and stones.”
4
The sixty billion mentioned which is spent on intelligence agencies pales in comparison to the $1.5 Trillion we are spending on a revamped nuclear triad system, $1.5 Trillion on the F-35, hundreds of billions spending on a new bomber, and we are building our eleventh Nimitz/Ford-class aircraft carrier which needs a nuclear sub, a couple of destroyers, a couple of cruisers, a whole bunch of planes, and 7,500 men to man the operation. All the above-mentioned hardware with little efficacy for the future. We have terrible spending priorities. 92 senators and a whole bunch of representatives have their fingers in the pie regarding the F-35, for example - parts made in 46 states. All clunky WWII type hardware with no efficacy for the future. Go figure! Big military making us much less safe in the face of cyber insecurity and terrible lack of infrastructure spending in our country. Whistling past the graveyard.
6
It's unfortunate that the authors didn't interview our allies and adversaries to get their viewpoint of the risks they see from the USA.....perhaps the biggest and most dangerous culprit in the world.
3
Of all the insights to be found in this dense article, the most important is the recognition that our traditional approach to problems -- let it beak then fix it -- is no longer viable. These threats are existential. If we let them come to fruition, it will be too late to do anything about them.
1
The world is bracing for extreme violence in Afghanistan with that country added to the list of total failures of our military and war-hungry policy-makers. They should all be A) stripped of their jobs, at a savings of trillions and trillions of dollars and B) systematically put on trial for the vast crimes they have committed.
3
Start gathering stones and sharpening sticks!
1
Face it... The human race is run. There were no winners. The losers are all living things on the planet unless and until we psychotic humans are gone. We are the disease. Do not procreate. End the race for good and for all. Please stop.
We may live on, but only once we realize that "we" means ALL of us, every living thing. It is all one. Your torah, bible, quran? They are all lies. ALL LIES... Open your eyes. Open your heart. Open your soul. All is One.
Please stop.
Namaste.
6
Ages ago we had posters that read "Loose lips sink ships", well there's no chance that we can be prepared for war with the current C & C in charge because he tells everybody whats going on.
If we need to prepare for any form of war we need to get the idiot out of the white house.
Vote 2020.
5
Thank you, Mr. Gerstell, for an absolutely remarkable analysis and roadmap! (From a former COMINT guy.)
26
Tragically ironic that as the world achieves new levels of technological progress and danger, the oldest security threat to humankind, a deluge from the oceans, will be inexorably progressing, a calamity which will make all our plans and follies irrelevant to survival of our civilization.
1
We used to think of coal and petroleum as Gods gift to man but we have come to understand that they have been only a short term solution and a long term threat. Now we see that the digital revolution may ultimately take a similar path but we are mostly unaware that our smart phone will ultimately turn on us. Soon enough even our own star will run out of patience with fools like us and incinerate this whole mess.
I suggest that rather than fretting too much that you take a long hike in the woods and don't forget to take a basket in case you find some tasty mushrooms.
2
Mr. Gerstell, I simply cannot take anything you say seriously while we have a President in office who uses Twitter as cavalierly as Mr. Trump. Loose tweets sink... lots of things. On a regular basis, he degrades any semblance of "confidential" associated with our government.
Counsel the CIC about reasonable behavior in the digital age, and if he listens, then come back to the Times and we will all listen with great interest.
4
Fear, fear and more fear.
3
@NSf I am sure many pacifists stated the same thing on December 6th, 1941.
1
So the NSA comes hat in hand to the American voter, asking for more money to do its job.
Wait for it.......
"We will need new technologies and systems to capture, analyze and store this data. "
Yes! Your national security depends on the NSA and other intel agencies storing and analyzing all of your facial recognition data, your spending patterns, your Facebook posts, your phonecalls and texts. Because otherwise, we'll all die, immediately.
What are the odds the "conservative" "original intent" crowd, which points to the Constitution to protect guns and outlaw abortions, will remember the 4th Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Zero. THAT's the real threat to American democracy.
5
Yawn. Panhandlers do a better job of convincing me that they deserve money thank this article.
2
First – most concise, centered, insightful, and holistic view I’ve come across on this metatopic, anywhere in the media
Beyond outstanding – kudos
Second – will start in the middle, where you mention the need for human skill in the mix
This may your (our) biggest challenge – goes beyond wages, benefits, and work environment
While, bluntly, Trump floored me with his soliloquy on lighting décor – that sort of denigration and trivialization of fundamentally transformational technology been going on for a while
Obama marginalized and politicized both Chu and Moniz over at DoE, during a critical decade where we should’ve been anticipating inflection – if not outright discontinuity – in how we produce and consume energy
Renewables simply don’t scale, a renaissance in nuclear energy means small standard inherently-safe modular reactors, and burning gas and gasoline is much cleaner than burning coal or wood
Yet, we’ve struck several STEM-ignorant Faustian bargains in this space – like saying CO2 is the really bad stuff, so trying to sequester it would be worthwhile
If we mis-regulate methane venting, we’ll perpetuate methane flaring, and waste off more energy that the planet’s total solar/wind capacity
Instead, simply consider and compare/contrast 3 potential outcomes in 2030 – 60% of the world’s electricity is generated by:
1. Renewables
2. Nuclear Power
3. Fossil Fuels
1500 looms – and NYT may not post, so stopping here
If posted, will touch on comp/crypto/AI/GPS
2)
In computing, several places we need to get out of our own way
Core logic HW needs to be commoditized
Control-point for advances in parallel processing is at the design automation – not the design architecture – level
Sorely lacking, mid-level – akin to middle-management in a large business – HW that is one part communicating, and one part computing
For clarity, not the lone CPU chip in a sea of GPUs
Focus stayed for too long on single-threaded computing – but there, the rogues had names like Google and Apache
To stay on single-level parallel processing is to court irrelevance
Conversely, the deep layering in AI needs to be more formally compartmentalized, without slowing it down
e.g. for facial recognition, create a separable min-parm geometric model, at a lower level – with Hamming-distance-like computability
This’d naturally promote transparency and compel human-machine cooperation for more ambiguous cases
Potential for secure Q communication is real – but there’re more immediate alternatives
Think of running RAID backwards – e.g. with any 4 of 5 incoming streams, can reconstruct the message
Any fewer, just not possible
Q computing could – like fusion – be a decades-long distraction from production-level leadership
For security, accuracy, and leadership standing in 5G proliferation – GPS and pervasive ground-based reckoning need to be systemically integrated
Yes, we need to win – but also need to bring our best game
Expect no less from our adversaries
How terrifying. What chance do we Americans have when half of our "policy makers" and the people who support them argue with the obvious facts of global warming and want to technologically go back hundreds of years to build a wall on our southern border? To think that our country could possibly maintain (or regain) our position of superiority in the face of such ingrained anti-intellectualism, is absurd.
1
We need to redevelop our diplomatic skills. As Churchill said: “ Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.”
1
OK. Well, there's this. And there's you-know-who and a praise choir of leaders/followers that couldn't get through reading an article of this length.
Oh, and by the way, there is also a need to address water needs, food shortages, floods, climate change, and the inevitable strain on international relationships that will come.
Along with vigilance, maybe having intelligent leadership that reinvests in a diplomacy without crazy threats of annhihilation and assumed shared cults of personality would be a good idea. Just saying.
Otherwise, who needs coffee? Just bookmark, reread, and never sleep.
1
Why bother with all this. America is circling the drain anyway, and almost no one commenting here cares except to somehow express their Trump hate--not that I voted for him. No one really cares about America today. They only care about themselves and the little bands of tribal affinities they can Instagram for Likes. Whatever. Going forward, no one's going to fight for America.
3
It is people thinking like this guy who present the greatest future threat. Use all our technology to damage others.
5
OK. Well, there's this. And there's you-know-who and a praise choir of leaders/followers that couldn't get through reading an article of this length.
Oh, and by the way, there is also a need to address water needs, food shortages, floods, climate change, and the inevitable strain on international relationships that will come.
Along with vigilance, maybe having intelligent leadership that reinvests in a diplomacy without crazy threats of annhihilation and assumed shared cults of personality would be a good idea. Just saying.
Otherwise, who needs coffee? Just bookmark, reread, and never sleep.
1
Oh Holy Moly. This, AND Climate Change.
Perhaps the great techers thruout history have spoken the real truth: be not attached to comfort, identity, understanding, existence.
1
Will we place our security in the hands of the lowest bidder and sub-Contractors?
3
No we don't need to spend a nickel for this "new" threat. You get a trillion dollars now.
3
Our lack of cybersecurity is a vulnerability that few people seem to be doing much about. It’s been reports that Russia and China both have roamed around some of our electrical grids. And of course our election system has security holes (some intentional) allowing any foreign actor to exploit to our detriment. Trump and Republicans refuse to do anything because they think the current system favors them. And with a resident whose only understanding of cyber is how to tweet, we can expect no leadership there. This sentence from the article really highlights part of the problem: “The officer is authorized to notify the president any time of the day or night of a critical threat.” In such a situation, we have a president who is likely to ignore the warning because he is in the middle of writing a tweet trashing Chrissy Tiegen!
2
And this will all run on coal, right?
3
Domestic and international hacking and financial crime have become an orgy perpetrated without fear and with impunity. As long as free societies continue to fail to elevate these crimes on par with acts carrying the weight of serious criminal sanctions for domestic perpetrators and international terrorism for international actors the consequences will be co-procured by them and us.
1
Man - how does this dude sleep at night?
2
More money. More money. More money. It ain’t happening. We’re broke. Maybe you can sell off some of those F-35s. They’re not solving the Afghanistan war. And they’re not useful in cyberspace.
2
Well we all can see where this guy's interests sit: war, conflict, competition and a boost to NSA salaries. So why do we in turn have to sit with this cruel narrow vision that serves the muscle brain elements in society?
Here is a suggestion: Let's have universal disarmament and let's start with nuclear weapons, ours included. How in the world can we ask the rest of the world to disarm if we do not? Next let's have world-wide organizations that govern what is after all a global society. This nationalism crap has seen its day. Next let's have an economic system that distributes resources equally, fairly and without the class-caste-master-slave organization that benefits a few privileged muscle headed men. Next let's use technology to eliminate the repetitive mind numbing labor that robs people of their time and freedom. We don't need no cyber wars and we don't need NSA leaders like this commentator who dips into his bucket of military-tech cliches to say nothing more than what we have been hearing for ten years. Finally, let's have a world society that takes care of the living planet by having long term plans including plans for where people live and how many people live there -- the fish tank is full and the guppies are gasping for air.
And one more thing. Let's pull the plug on the strutting idiot buffoons who have popped-up in this last act of nationalistic capitalism.
5
Wow. I really wish I lived in your world. And i mean that non-ironically. The suggestions you make at the top of your comment are also in my wish-list. However, in the real world of today, unilateral disarmament is a knave’s game, an invitation to foreign masters to come put us to work for their priorities, whatever they may be. While i find this article to be over the top in some regards, i am grateful to the author for this comprehensive overview of these technologic challenges facing society, at this crucial moment of our turn to greater technical and technological capabilities than has ever been possible heretofore. Indeed, greater than even has been possible for any save the most imaginative among us to even dream up!
It may well be the case that before we even understand, much less master, the “problem of consciousness,” our technological capabilities may have rendered our need to understand moot. Not to be coy about it, i wonder if we may not create a super-intelligence before we understand even our own intelligence. This may not necessarily end well, eh?
2
Investing some in cyber-security and warfare makes some sense, but trying to cope with all the potentials would be way too expensive.
Hypersonic missiles(?) - trying to stop them. Why not just threaten people who launch them with our own non-hypersonic missiles. Lost cheaper. "Investing" in new military hardware, especially nuclear, is spending lots of money on stuff we either cannot use or will not use, except to try to scare people, which does not seem to deter the psychos of ISIS or the Taliban - or Iran - or Russia. Why not let them try to develop all this mostly unusable crap, and then steal the technology from them. That is what they have been doing to us for decades, and it is a lot cheaper than our overly expensive weapons development program. This is also true for cyber security. There is no winning to the military spending/tech race. Slow down or stop for a while and see what happens...
1
The reverse and, perhaps, more effective solution to all these cited problems is to encourage distrust of everything digital throughout our citizenships, i.e., shield yourself not only from the nation-state Big Brother but, also, from the private and retail Big Brothers. How many of you use facial recognition to sign on to your phone? This information, and it is attribution, is backed up not only on your phone but on your provider's systems ready for harvesting. How many of you upload your itineraries to Facebook and other "social" sites of not only when you'll be somewhere but where you'll stay, when and where you eat, and who'll be with you? If you don't do so yourself, how many friends and relatives do it for you? More data to be harvested. We've become dependent upon our governments and far-less-reliable businesses to babysit us. Stop trusting all of them and limit your trust to only those close family and friends you can truly rely upon.
4
The power put in the hands of the private sector down to the individual level is the key point. The world will be forced to unify and globalization will be much more pervasive and extensive than ever imagined. We will not be able to stop technology and innovation but will have to learn to control it with common values, purpose, and identity.
5
We have being doing everything online for a very, very short time. And many things used to work better before....
In a world where local needs were handled locally, by concrete material processes (such as control and back-up of municipal water treatment plants), we would have much less to fear. Who profits from this massive global connectivity? Is it really cheaper? And AI is very unlikely to offer any special advantages above and beyond human intelligence in these local areas.
Already people are disconnecting from social media because of the personal damage it has caused and beginning to recognize the threats to privacy. Nobody much wants a smart house or many of the other superfluous and often sinister products of the information economy. These are the individual, graspable analogs of the bigger processes most of us are told have to be in control of our vital systems. Yet maybe these bigger processes are just as superfluous and lacking in common sense?
How stop the dangers addressed in this article? Stop thinking that cybertech is the only alternative.
15
America won't be safer as long as an authoritarian is our president. President Trump is totally unfit to lead our country and to prepare America for the future of war. Technology has already upended our country and we will only know what lies ahead of us now when we look back on this century.
Early-warning centers don't mean diddly in this age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. China and North Korea among several other countries present new kinds of threats in the cyberworld. Nothing in world history has been as ubiquitous so quickly as the digital revolution exemplified by unknown and unexpected technologies that have flooded the planet.
Horrific things are being considered normal in this century. FaceBook and its hydra heads --"websites" snapchat, instagram,twitter, the dark web -- and the rest of the machine learning and AI venues which have been misused since they were created. Will increased spending on security in this age make America safer this century? No one knows.
2
FEAR!
You can smell it in this article. Maybe it is "fear itself" we have to fear, despite all this pernicious tech. What about working towards re-gaining faith in our government? All these black flag car stickers frighten me. As you suggest, it is only our government that can truly help us stay safe in this new age, albeit with help from the Googles and Facebooks. What about making the NSA "the place to be" for new grads? What about investing in quality primary education FOR EVERYONE. And giving everyone a living wage. And what about the home-grown threat of our own people, who can't make a living wage? In who they vote for? Trump is a bigger threat to your security than facial recognition software. We need to put our money on making the world a place where everyone has basic decencies, starting here in our country where the fear of immigrants is far more prescient than hypersonic missiles. We need to reach out the hand to other nations to come to terms about things like hypersonic missiles, why not ban them entirely right now! How about working on a new United Nations that focuses on these issues. How can you write such and article and not address the human factor? I'm old and tired of all this erudition for the sake of erudition à la The Economist, it misses the foundation of trust and compassion we have lost today. Why must people die for us to come together and recognize our basic humanity, together? This is what you should fear.
3
But Fearless Leader and Supreme Omniscient and Omnipotent High Commander Trump knows more than the Generals... and he likes to play with big tanks, watch big planes flying overhead and oversee lots of real live human GI Joe action figures marching and saluting him as they goose-step through the streets of our nation’s capital.
This techie stuff just doesn’t have the same pizzazz. It doesn’t make good television. It won’t get good ratings. Forget it.
3
I'm not concerned with any future war. What I'm worried about is the slow, trickle-down, if you will, of stupidity in government's oversight of education, science and research.
We're becoming a flaccid nation of indifferent people. The American president has the intellectual reach of a fourth-grader (maybe, on a good day) and his SecEd wants to privatize education in America--all for the benefit of the one percent. Their children, of course, will attend top-drawer schools on legacies and the rest of us will be content with the leftovers.
I don't care about a future war. I want a country that educates its people so the best minds find the best jobs. If those are in technology and that discipline must necessarily finds new ways of fighting future wars, so be it.
And, it should not be forgotten, our national infrastructure is best suited to the early-to-mid 20th century. Just about everything is obsolete. So why, one wonders, the haste to "prepare for the future of war" when we have slow train travel; airports that are dysfunctional; roads in such disrepair that a third-world country wouldn't want to drive on them?
And we need more thoughtful citizens who take seriously the responsibilities of citizenship who will not vote anyone into office with the intellectual pedigree of a gerbil. Everything now flows from him. If he's intellectually deficient, then so are those who carry out his orders.
As the Billy Preston song went long ago, "Nothing from nothing leaves nothing."
3
This takes "alien invasion" to a different level. Quantum computers, world domination, a world order with one regime dominating the planet. China. If China had total control, what would America look like? If one believes this dark look at the future is more or less inevitable, perhaps we should begin to envision a "China-like" society on a global level. How would China deal with climate change, the poor, difference and diversity, education, inequality, immigration, democratic institutions, and guns? You know, every nation's problems. What does China do today? Do we work to stave off such a takeover or simply prepare for the inevitable? Does it all really hinge upon on who develops quantum computing first? Lots to ponder here.
2
Thanks to Mr. Gerstall for apprising us of the technological trends in warfare.
Bad news! Military technology moves faster than military production lines. Recall those aircraft carriers, F-35 fighter jets, and tanker aircraft we're squandering trillions of dollars on? They're obsolete!
Ever been affected by an annoying computer bug? Then you can imagine the havoc a sophisticated cyber attack could wreak on our military, government, business, and personal computer systems.
Recall the mutually-assured destruction (MAD) game that has kept the nuclear powers at detente the last 50 years? Guess what? Russia and China are now arming for limited nuclear wars.
Should we squander more trillions of dollars on tactical nuclear weapons and hypersonic gizmos in preparation for limited nuclear wars? Or should we beef up our cyber security, and enhance our MIRV rockets and warheads to make MAD even more terrifying? Or, should we bleed our economy dry by trying to do both?
Without doubt, we need leadership, strategy, and determination before embarking on a new arms race. Unfortunately, there are no technological solutions for naive leadership and strategic indecision.
1
I don’t understand this article.
The NSA says it is:
a) behind China and Russia, and
b) behind the tech giants, and
c) can’t catch up.
That about sum it up?
3
As long as private industry attracts the brightest and the best they will be the power that rules this country.
1
During the Obama years, the Republican enabled starve the beast and obstructions have caused serious constraints. Now, Trump has diverted billions to build an useless wall and fund partisan immigration campaigns. All the while, China and Russia have been targeting America anything cyber.
That said, there are things that cannot be outsourced to contractors. Snowden was a warning shot. Booze Allen Hamilton's another. Just this week, it is reported a prime contractor, Miracle LLC, was hacked but its CEO claimed it was a test system as if it didn't matter. These are all wake-up calls
3
Ah, Future Shock and The Third Wave combined. Not a very hopeful future for any of us...
1
Terrorism was never an existential threat. Bush made a huge mistake when he bent all of our attention on it.
3
The future of war is very different, yet we continue to spend a whole lot of money on the type of weapons that won WWII.
The Afghans have fought us to a stalemate with fighters on donkeys using cobbled together DIY bombs made from cheap cell phones. We've spent two trillion dollars there. Two trillion!
Turkey today is threatening Europe with a whole new weapon: millions of refugees.
Time to stop throwing hundreds of billions of dollars around and start being the world leader of diplomacy, not weaponry.
3
"China’s approach is ...a vast databank of personally identifying information about its citizens, from iris and facial recognition to DNA data. That is antithetical to our values. But it is equally true that to keep our society safe, those charged with that mission will need some access to that data."
This article has shed some light.
That statement brought the darkness back.
We either rely on trust, or we don't.
You describe a world in which reliance on trust will be impossible.
Fair enough. But let's be clear: Democracy without trust is equally impossible. "Trust, but verify" was always an oxymoron.
What you are describing is a post-democratic world brought on by cleverness. Being clever enough outwit other forms of government, yet unwise enough in the process to to unwire our own, well, that shows who wins when trust and the will to aspire to our greatest qualities is usurped by our fears and our willingness to strike a more-bits-but-less-humanity bargain.
Yes, naive.
I can appreciate your insight and rightful concern on the tech front while still choosing to go down with kindness and the common good before I'll be a lieutenant in the hard-boiled laser wars.
My choice, for a little while yet, anyway.
1
This is the new face of "a call to arms." Substantively, this call is the most important one I have read (although there are many others with breakthrough insights).
The coda here is Chinese dominance emerging, not "increased security funding" as several commenters assume. With a hybrid command economy, China has been pumping huge resources into the weaponry of the coming future wars. Supercomputing, quantum communications, quantum computing, CRISPR applications, space communication, quantum radar (goodby "stealth"), hypersonic surface and reentry weapons, space communications and A.I.... they all have huge budgets and endless supplies of highly educated workforces.
We, meanwhile, are burdened with a scientific illiterate in the White House. China exemplifies our new competition, and Trump exemplifies our new disability.
5
And at the moment this is the weak link --"The officer is authorized to notify the president any time of the day or night of a critical threat". Trump is our biggest threat.
2
So "Future Shock" hits the military-industrial complex. That sounds about right.
1
The author of the article doesn’t seem to want to face the fact that there are brilliant people in every country and they are equally capable. More money is not going to solve this problem. That has been the approach for 70 years - it ain’t working.
2
To summarize:
More money for the NSA. And get the private sector to do what the NSA wants.
Doesn’t the government have other priorities. Like faking forecasts and tearing kids away from their parents?
5
I found it interesting that in this almost-interminable essay the author -- who after all is a lawyer -- found nothing to say about the courts.
Yet, while he begs us to face the reality, he fails to mention that every aspect of what's going on in the country is controlled by courts -- and courts (at least federal courts) could not have cared less for reality.
In my experience litigating for the First amendment rights, judges simply replace parties' argument with bogus argument of judges' own concoction so as to decide the way they want to, not the way they have to; when sued for fraud, judges claim the right they gave themselves in Pierson v. Ray to act from the bench "maliciously and corruptly."
So if nothing can be proven in courts -- because courts do not work off the picture of reality, but build their own fake picture -- how can useful behaviors advocated by the author be upheld? How can violations of law be checked?
They can't. I am sure there are people who have solutions to the challenges raised by the author who are blocked from speaking, because they are either seen as non-"curated news source" to use a more bizarre quote from the op-ed, or would undermine the existing crony-capitalism order.
So I'd recommend checking the way the federal "judicial procedure" works, and, having discovered that there is no "due process" in the "judicial process," fixing it. This will greatly empower the public, and make possible countering challenges described by the author.
1
It would be interesting to hear the author debate Marianne Williamson. I wonder he would have to say about her proposal for a Department of Peace.
4
Wow, all the technological info makes my head spin, Mr. Gerstell, but can you please tell us why our military could not defeat the Taliban, you know, a bunch of guys with 1940's small arms, no technology, no airplanes, no navy, no satellites, no uniforms? We have been spending way way too much on the military and getting way too little in results these last 50 years. It is far more economical to make peace with our adversaries and spend our money on bridges, medicine, and schools.
14
The content and tone of the article creates new fear. As a tool of America's leaders, fear works to control many of us. We are encouraged to fear immigrants and, with the assistance of "defense" contractors, many other countries: Our defense spending now approaches $1 trillion annually, a sum equivalent to the next 9 countries combined.
Nowhere does the writer call for international diplomatic efforts that could limit or punish the techniques he describes. Such efforts are not in the interest of the US alone; they're in the interest of all developed nations. He predicts increased national spending on measures to defend the US against those techniques, with that spending most probably added to, not supplanting, current defense expenditures. And in the meantime, US healthcare is terrible and our education system drops further and further in international rankings.
In the broadest sense, the article's assumptions and the resultant recommendations present a horrible future for our children and grandchildren.
Reacting to the use of nuclear weapons in World War II, Einstein wrote "The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except our thinking. Thus, we are drifting toward catastrophe beyond conception. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."
Civilization's decline due to the digital revolution may not be as precipitous as that driven by nuclear war, but just as urgently it demands a substantially new manner of thinking
2
The other day I went to Turner Falls, Oklahoma and had to remember to pack 3.50 in quarters for the toll road, and 40$ cash for lunch/admission because neither vendor took card payment.
Quantum computing, hypersonic-whatever, AI, even 5G will quite possibly take at least that proverbial generation to reach small town America. The media talks endless about needing students with technology skills to deal with the future with out understanding that once you leave metro-areas it's legitamately possible that people are still using 2G and have no concept for AI besides Hollywood movies.
China doesn't need to cripple the US with a cyber attack. They've beat us already -- we surrendered handily years ago when we stopped investing in education. In five years when they have a quantum computer, a nearly universally literate population, and a massive rising middle class we'll still have people dying in Alabama from backroom abortion.
War used to worry me. Now, I don't think any country -- besides Iran and even then I really doubt it -- would bother attacking the US. We're a country in decline. We kill our own people with opioids. We're at serious risk of home grown anti-vaxxers causing a plague. Seattle PHS says there maybe literal plague among their homeless. People with diabetes die every day for want of a 20 drug that costs 300$.
Honestly, what is the massive security state even protecting any more? Does America even have anything worth fighting over at this point?
9
Well, yeah you know freedom to speak the truth that..... oh, wait. Never mind.
Truly terrifying. And stopping just short of saying we are doomed. Good morning to you too Mr. Gerstell. I am out to get some batteries for my AM/FM radio as soon as i finish my coffee.
1
"Without such investments, our national security agencies risk becoming profoundly less effective or marginalized."
Bravo. Bob Wright, Jeff Bezos, Palantir and others like it who seek Private Industry profit from our descent into an Authoritarian Surveillance Controlled Regime couldn't have imagined a more prolific and self-serving Advertorial in defense of a broken Intelligence Apparatus. Congratulations, you get a gold star for carrying the Corporate Oligarchy's dirty water today. Angling for rich new employment on the other side of a future Palantir IPO, perhaps?
Along with ICE, CIA and FBI, the NSA is yet another troubled Institutional National Security Albatross requiring divestment and orderly attrition, a complete Overhaul and Revised Mission Statement. It's all become just another form of organized crime. Why pretend otherwise?
A law preventing government officials from exploiting US owned National Security Clearance, working for Private Industry like Palantir, Google & Amazon, now, that's innovative!
Question: The current administration has claimed Huawei is a threat to national security, throwing an effective profit lifeline to its competitors and advancing an economic war on China. Given the NSA is so diligent about protecting US aligned interests, would NSA allow a French aligned company, with ties to British and Israeli Intelligence to proliferate a "secure" messaging app across the financial industry? If it originates at GS rather than China, its okay?
1
The military and security agencies seem to be enjoying themselves but I for one am getting very tired of the endless war, daily threats, sanctions , embargoes, bombings and hyper-surveillance. Also it appears to me that America , with its overwhelming military, economic and technological superiority, is the one thumping the daily drumbeat and exaggerating the threats from vastly inferior nations.
What a shame we cannot enjoy what should be a period free of major war.
3
If the NSA is no farther along than this article implies, we're seriously in trouble.
4
Agree. I thought the NSA was way ahead of all the others, given it’s unlimited budget.
2
What I take from this gobblety-gook is that w are going to have the technological equivalent of a nuclear arms race. A game of chicken yet again. Who presses the button first. We deserve one another.
2
@the desperate man. So thousands of years of human " civilization " leads here. Living in a daily deluge of fear , threats and ever escalating means of destruction. So much technology, so little wisdom.
1
The military industrial national security state making the case for more money, what a surprise and what could possibly go wrong?
4
We want more joint cooperation with the public sector, more money, more trust, but we will be the arbiters of what we think you are ready to know. Like for instance, the immense extraterrestrial presence on earth and why the government has been working with them for decades.
Instead of spending trillions building bigger fortresses, both physical and technological, we must try with all our might to create one United Earth where all countries work for the global good. If we don’t the earth will become a colony world for one of the aggressive races that seek more natural resources. This is a great article that explains just how complex and hopeless the future will become without a common planetary alliance of all nations.
1
New technology is always developing
and each new development poses
security threat. If we spend trillions
on new technologies it will make us
secure for a short while. After that
a similar column will appear listing
our vulnerabilities. We need to shift
our paradigm: five eyes and five
enemies. Why can't we resolve our
differences with our 5 enemies
and reduce the risk of harm. Is it
necessary to have enemies so we
could spend trillions on new technologies to create cyber-industrial
complex?
1
This article is a refreshingly well-written sober assessment of one problem we face, but there are other equally pressing problems that are growing exponentially harder daily, from climate change and water scarcity to financial disasters.
We are in a lifeboat with not one hole, but several hundred holes in the bottom -- any one of which is sufficient to sink the boat. What should we do about it?
I'd suggest that any shuffling of resources, expertise, and responsibilities is too little, too late. The key problem is that the complexity of the world is now well beyond the grasp of any individual, and it will only get worse from here on.
What is needed is a true solution to the problem of making multiple people collaborating wiser than the best individual.
We have billions of people connected in real-time, but the way they interact so far does not produce useful and compelling wisdom followed by action. If Cyber and Intelligence agencies have a role, I suggest it is in solving that problem -- evolving cyber-intelligent entities.
Right now the attempts to transcend individuals consist of meetings, reports, and committees. They are all standing jokes. Fix that problem, and the others will get sorted and solved.
4
As a first step the US should adopt the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. If we cannot agree to do that, then all of the rest of a new collaboration among government agencies and private businesses will not be possible.
As a second step there must be a Federal registry of all AI. If we don't even know that an AI exists, then how can we act if an AI makes decision that we do not like?
A third step would be an investment made by the private sector and the government in developing forecasts of the timing, probability and confidence in the projection that a singularity could happen. Those who say that there is a 50% chance of a singularity in the next 50 years need to refine their estimates.
1
Mr. Gerstell, if the threat is so ominous, why doesn't the Federal Government stop harassing American inventors and companies who are trying to solve the difficult problems you pose in your essay? As it stands, the quickest way for a computer engineering professional in the United States to destroy his or her career is to suggest a new way to stop the introduction of MALWARE into systems, software and chips.
The problems you outline will never get fixed until the N.S.A. and other Federal agencies finally decide that cyber defense must take precedence over offensive capabilities. Preventing the introduction of MALWARE means everybody's MALWARE...including State sponsored products of every type and source.
2
Excuse my cynicism, the author although well-intentioned is trying to scare people. He knows there are practical (ie cheaper) solutions to secure our information, the electrical grid etc but they are setting the debate in DC for another fleecing of public funds to enrich military contracts. I'm a contractor in DC, how much MORE money does the NSA need? Defense agencies have limitless budgets. Meanwhile, the trump administration cut university research budgets in 2017.
As a technologist, I can see the author's point of view but he is not being realistic. It is poverty, inequality, lack of investment in PEOPLE, not technology that is the biggest threat to our national security. Buying more toys for the cyber-soldiers is only going to make things worse. All I have to say to the DOD set is, if you guys are so smart, you should be operating on 1/100th your current budget.
6
Do you all remembering the fear mongering of New Years Eve 1999? The Y2K drama that was promised to cause global disruptions and hardships previously unknown to mankind? I do. I sought out an off grid gathering far away from the populous area where the unprecedented calamities were to occur. Instead of being victim to the horrors 2000 was to bring I was in the middle of the desert in the rain with a few other conspiracy theorists until the deluge forced us to overnight in our vehicles. I learned lessons about other people’s fear that day.
2
Mr. Gerstell, as a software developer and graduate student in the field of A.I., I applaud your efforts to distill an imperceptibly complex situation into a relatively brief op-ed.
However, I must caution you that your idea of putting more power into the hands of private industries will only make America more vulnerable to attack and foreign influence. To whom do those Google and Facebook employees' loyalties lie? To the Constitution of the United States of America, or to their paycheck? And what about the shareholders? Do they really care about the integrity of Western democracy when they have half a dozen offshore accounts and condominiums to flee to on their private jets at the slightest whiff of danger?
If you truly want to make the United States more resilient to the complexities of cyberconflict, I have two very simple suggestions.
1: Make "suit" work cool. Pay competitive salaries and cut out the antiquated drug tests which ensure that finding A-grade government talent is an exercise of finding a needle in a slightly different needlestack.
2: Cut the contractor fat. Are we really expected to think we would be rightly compensated and served by a $700b military budget full of graft and waste? How many trillions did we blow on the F-22/F-35, while we are told that manned fighters are becoming antiquated in the era of unmanned drones?
Patriots abound, but who can afford to live in the DC area?
Americans know a good deal - and a bad deal - when they see one.
8
We are so focused on our immediate crisis of confidence in our gov't and ourselves that we do not look to the future with any understanding whatsoever. NYT, we need more articles on future issues we face. We as a nation are not looking to even the immediate future. 40% of current jobs are expected to end in the next couple decades. Is there any leadership discussion to the nation of this or other immediate critical topics? No! We are to busy saving coal. We are in a miserable cycle of demonizing "others" and being told it is best to retreat inside the protections of the oceans. Oh, if Barbara Tuchman were still alive. A new chapter, the penultimate, in "The March of Folly."
2
How on Earth are citizens to trust a government or political process that is completely corrupted by money. The current president is an abomination of corruption and a national security threat. How do you propose to fix that? Serious consideration of the future is going to revolve around the challenge of rising sea levels and ever increasingly catastrophic weather events as civilization scrambles to cope with vast displaced populations.
So maybe you need to rethink so as to include all the parameters here.
2
Just waiting for the rally to have backdoors to encrypted data. The "leaders" demanding this have no idea that once an attack vector is identified someone will circumvent. I am willing to take the risk of bad things happening versus an East Germany surveillance state trying to find pins in several million haystacks.
2
What an article. Wow, we are doomed to those in the private sector whether they have malicious intent or not. The rogue individual, the devious corporation, even the "well meaning" government. What a onslaught. I believe the public (which has no idea of what's good for them or not) has been screaming for our undereducated politicians and governing bodies to address these problems. for a while, but politicians have proved they live in their own bubbles.
My suggestions are not popular. 1) Follow and control the money. That is the advertising industry, charitable contributions and their lawyers; if not responsible, no money. 2) As mandatory like with radioactive material; identify the hardware. 3) Make sure an "Off" switch is available. 4) Have EMP and/or Magnetron will travel.
2
Does anyone think Trump and Republicans will attempt to prevent, or be able to prevent war? How well does anyone think the current administration will protect everyday people from war?
This article presents anew many facts that are already widely known, but needs more scope to have meaning.To invest in the personnel, equipment, and research necessary to protect ourselves, the present patterns of military spending must be drastically revised, and there is no hint in this article of how that would be done. Much of this spending involves the private sector—which companies will be removed from the Defense Department's accounts? It also requires a vast reconstruction of our education system which is, in many states, anti-science. How do you tap students who have been taught that the Earth is four thousand years old for the necessary expertise? This is an alarm, but does not provide much of a solution.
This is an extremely well thought out and informative article — really policy paper — on a subject that should be of concern to all Americans. But I wonder when, if ever, our citizens will get back to a time when an intelligent discussion about this can be had by our leaders much the people themselves.
Most likely we’ll need to rely on an AI driven policy machine to make decisions for us while people scroll through their Twitter feed.
4
The force which drives the green fuse lives within us all and remains more intellgible than the transitory fashions of our own particular age. Transitioning from the industrial era through to the technological era, the medium has changed: the miners having repositioned their attentions, from the soft dark clay and mortified rock, inward -to themselves. Still we watch the flux and reflux of humanities most inmate nature.
This artifical world- borne and maintained by human fantasy- nevertheless indices the all too familiar patterns of human frailty: aggression and lust for worldly power. The
imaginations creep into our physical world ever misappropriating our reality.
Yet, like all weaponry, information is nuetral; its potency dictated by the mind having ensnared it, or being held captive.
The gun cannot kill without the trigger mechanism being deployed.
1
Pointlessly verbose, to a degree perhaps no other profession other than the law can muster.
This just in: a hammer thinks we really ought to upgrade our nails.
This is so clearly from the deepest, darkest center of the military industrial complex. How is it that we continue to appoint and elect leaders who cannot, or will not, seek understanding across humankind? Why must we fear each other? Our leaders devote themselves to stoking that fear so that we don't realize Earth is enough for all of us, if we choose it to be. Our leaders convince us that "the other" has it in for us. Why? Because their weapons are pointed at us. And our weapons are pointed at them. It doesn't have to be that way if we, together, choose it not to be.
23
Not that I enjoyed it, but this highly comprehensive and informative piece is, I think, quite important for everyone to take to heart ... to heart ... in order to recognize the futility we are collectively involved that continues to make a bad matter worse. There are lines/ phrases in it that are prophetic ... such as, the hopelessness in believing we could ever “spend our way to success” (Trump, take note); “holistic sanctity of equipment and software,” the god we now worship, apparently. While authoritative regimes such as of China are indeed antithetical to American values, so are permissive forms of government such as that of the America we’ve become, which gleefully celebrates freedom through irresponsible freedom, denying the experience of substantive freedom at the same time. Besides that or to persist more with that, America is now enslaved at every level, psychological and material, to its response to a hostile world. We are not free. It’s interesting, though tragically not un-sad, that what is viewed as progress in civilization is yielding the opposite. There is an Answer to this of charitable love, of course; but for some suicidal reason it isn’t being taken ... yet.
30
Wak
Informed by one’s values and faith, examining ourselves with the question, “What do I want and why do I want it?” can enable that person to remain true to themself. Also, to “ ... think globally/act locally,” can and does impact one’s own community. The practice of each bolsters focus.
In the Judeo-Christian faith, as believers aspire to glorify God, our focus could be far off the mark by striving to “win” a cyber security war or by crippling/overpowering another nation’s defenses.
Every time I read about another incredibly advanced technological weapon, I think how much better the United States would be as a country if its politicians cared about people's health and education as much as they do about creating scores of technologically astounding, billion-dollar killing weapons.
16
This comprehensive view offers a glimpse of the coming complexity as we try to balance a free society and security. One sliver of the complexity is likely to reorient our world. The potential for fewer and fewer people to do greater harm is the supreme threat because the least rational actors have no concern for humanity. In 2001, 10 guys took down two of the worlds largest buildings in the heart of the lone superpower and kill thousands of innocent people. Exponential growth in the power of destruction paints a dismal view of what is possible in the near future. Governments, with the support of frightened masses, will be forced to take all measures to monitor potential threats. The unfortune reality is that we should contemplate what form of authoritarian rule we can tolerate.
22
Tiger light,
I, for one, believe that adherence to “Might makes right,” (i.e. parallel striving for cyber and supercomputer dominance among our world of nations) can place humankind’s mission on a false errand ... or at least so it seems, given the alarm this writer strives to sound. Because, in the not too distant future survival is at risk and, because Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has “told” us (for a couple of generations) that the modern day “norms” we enjoy are far away from the 1st rung in his pyramid - not
pending doom demanding attention.
2
The partnerships between private firms and the government suggested in this article are very disturbing. Is that not our exact justification for our actions against the Chinese company Huawei? Why wouldn’t other countries take similar actions against our private sector tech firms if those firms were known to be conscriptable into government service? The result would be a nationalization of the tech industry, with dire consequences for innovation, consumer welfare, and peace.
The government’s budget is trillions of dollars. It can surely use some of that money to build very strong in-house tech teams rather than conscripting the private sector. Private companies should pursue the interests of their shareholders, employees, and customers (who are located in many different countries), not the geopolitical interests of our government.
53
@HO I completely agree with your position. The problem is that the government cannot come close to attracting the personnel with the skillsets required to adequately address the myriad problems outlined in the article because of the radical diffrence in the pay and benefits (stock options in particular) that the private sector offers. Additionally, those we can attract at a young age are poached by the private sector once they receive extensive taxpayer funded training and attain competence in cybersecurity. Some do still serve out of a sense of patriotism and we should be grateful for those fine citizens.
I think the solution is to create a separate critcial cyber infrastructure "civil service" with a completely different pay scale than traditional government service - but the many entrencehd interests will oppose that vehemently.
9
@Tim
We are paid in dollars for what we do but are also rewarded in satisfaction of our accomplishments. Some sacrifice satisfaction for more dollars, yet others value duty and satisfaction of duty over dollars. Do parents value their freedom enough to emphasize the importance of duty to their children, who will one day be faced with the decision to be part of the team that preserves those freedoms? Do the educators in our schools cultivate critical thinking so a high school student can grasp the differences they have with a high school student in China, Venezuela or the Philippines? I suspect most are enthralled or overwhelmed by technology. The deeper we become buried in our lighted screens, the shallower our thoughts become. If our country values freedom and expects top notch cyber security, don’t wait for the United States government. Teach our children duty to preserve our freedom and expect them to make the right decision if they can help be part of the amazing team that works for us to provide it.
2
The premise is that our system is so good and so precious that we need to sacrifice our lives on its altar.
Our system is ruining life on earth.
The US military is the world's biggest single source of greenhouse gas.
This article describes how to end up in a post apocalyptic nightmare.
147
The problem with this piece is that it essentially makes a case for increased security funding and a shifting of our priorities. But I'm loathe to grant additional monies to intel or military budgets while Trump is in office. What this article fails to address is the threat to the United States from within. Trump is a real risk to our democracy. I can't be the only one who thinks it's a bad idea to give more money and power to institutions an authoritarian like Trump could use against our own people.
He jokes about killing people on 5th Avenue and not losing support, he regularly talks about extending his presidency beyond the 2-term limit, and he co-ops even highly technical agencies like NOAA to support his nonsense claims about weather projections--something he obviously knows nothing about. I have no faith that he hasn't corrupted the intelligence community at the most senior levels. And while the preponderance of the intel and military communities are patriots, they are also used to taking orders. In a command structure, when there is rot at the top, it flows down through the rest of the organization.
Unfortunately, I see too much risk in granting more tax dollars to organizations like the NSA that can be so easily corrupted while Donald Trump is in office. It may weaken us to attacks from without, but it probably hardens us to the political threats from within. And at the moment, I'm at least as worried about the latter as the former.
235
@Souvient. I have to agree with you but go a step further in that we have been infiltrated already and he continues to make us more vulnerable everyday. Modern wars will no longer be fought on a battlefield but instead in cyberspace and sabotage.
37
@Souvient
Unless you prepare to deal with technological threats - including media manipulation - there is unlikely to be a democratic America . Possibly not even a United States.
And as goes America, goes the world.
21
Respectfully, Trump is the symptom, not the problem. The problem (one of them) is that we have allowed the government to wage constant war for profit for as long as any of us can remember. You can be fairly sure that the next president - unless it’s a Bernie or a Warren - will continue to expand the surveillance state.
22
Wow. That's a whole lot of fear. It's hard to know where to begin with an article this size, but what jumped out at me was: "extraordinary levels of new investment will be required". In other words, get ready to double the budget of a whole host of government institutions, especially the DOD. Full on national bankruptcy can't be too far off.
2
Before we add to the military budget, might we actually evaluate the effectiveness of the existing expenditures. Some areas of our military spending had a dismal success rate based on their own internal evaluations.
Would our education departments be allowed to grow and add funding as we do our military?
2
For US adversaries, the immediate windfall opportunity of Trump must be more motivating than the possible future promises of quantum computing. China, with the Russian sidearm, would seem the current focus of the author’s world.
1
"With millennials believing that technology in the private sector now allows them to help change the world — previously the idea of a mission had been largely the province of public service — it is not clear that the intelligence community will be able to attract and retain the necessary talent needed to make sense of how our adversaries will make use of the new technology."
There might be some truth to this, but I think there's a bigger consideration in play: tech jobs in the private sector are generally good jobs - pay well, lots of mobility/flexibility and often a fair amount of autonomy.
The NSA in comparison is going to pay you a fraction and drug test you. Some may take a view that the willingness to sacrifice those benefits is what defines a good public servant, but consider that Russia and China simply force their best software engineers into service, publicly inclined or not. To compete with this without doing the same, the NSA may need to double, triple, or even quadruple the salaries it offers. Do this and I expect the talent shortage will dry up fast.
2
I can remember receiving a pay envelope with hard currency and using that money to buy groceries, pay to fill my cars gas tank, buy clothing for my family, and pay the doctor; what remained I placed into savings. Today, I seldom use hard currency using a card for almost all my transactions. What is alarming is that I can remember when.
Technological advancement is not going to stop. It's part of an evolutionary process, which is out of our control. We also can recognize the threat as well as other countries. If we are going to manage these incessant challenges, then we must work together or we will perish together.
2
The article is arguing for a new kind of Total War, where the energies, capabilities, and vigilance of the entire society must be enlisted, because the threats are so multifaceted. If this must be, then we should also include what will become the greatest long term driver of conflict, climate change. If we're signing up for Total War, it should be to combat the actual greatest threats.
5
I don’t think you lived in Coventry Bristol or London England nor Dresden or Hamburg Germany in 1944/45
Nor Hiroshima or Nagasaki, Japan
That already defeated Country which had those cities, Totally destroyed, just so the rest of the world knew that the United States was capable of TOTAL WAR.
The result of such dominating tactical is always better weapons and better insurgency.
Ever since the FIRST ruthless Tribe Totally destroyed their enemy, perhaps 5000 years ago in some little valley far away from the NORTH AMERICAN Continent.
Total! means complete utter destruction, as is happening to Muslim villages in several countries, at this very moment.
Your problem appears to be fear that as always happens the most evil bully on the world stage might get their cummupence.
Rather than that their is some sort of new totalitarian insurgency war that doesn’t completely destroy just reduces you to penury.
That wouldn’t be TOTAL WAR but total domination, often times the goal of the bullied isn’t to destroy the bully but to make an example an entirely different type of defeat.
They purpose of this new insurgency is to destroy from within, an extension of the English divide to rule.
Reduce the aggressor into a toothless monster, broken by its own division, Mitch McConnell is their prefect tool a baseless slime ball driven by some godless will, to stop anyone gaining an edge over his power.
He owns TRUMP and the SENATE he just doesn’t realize how he is being used, or by whom.
While Mr. Gerstell presents a sober account of some of the challenges many countries (not just the US) will face down as they try to stay competitive and secure in the coming decades, there several telling omissions in his piece. To name just one, the overall picture he paints resembles a second Cold War. This scenario is more than plausible, and no doubt already shapes geopolitics in the present. But for all the pains Mr. Gerstell takes to emphasize the need to attract talent from the mission-oriented young people flocking to the private sector to change the world, he makes no effort to describe to his future collaborators how the Intelligence Agencies have changed their mission to avoid the mistakes of the original Cold War period. As greater numbers of documents are declassified regarding the activities of US Intelligence Agencies in destabilizing democratically elected regimes, and providing logistical to some of the most violent and repressive regimes during the 20th century, it would serve Mr. Gerstell well to comment on these legacies for prospective employees. You do not have to be a conspiracy minded crank to wonder if our Intel community has learned the lessons from the excesses of the First Cold War, which can only be construed as a "cold" conflict if we willfully ignore the violence visited upon the civilian populations of many of the countries of our friends, families, and colleagues.
3
In the midst of this thoughtful essay I detect a rebuke to economic nationalism and isolationism, as well as to disinformation propagated through social media. Think MAGA and election interference.
The author wisely employed sophisticated writing and multi-syllabic words, so there's little chance our commander in chief will pick up on the perceived slights.Coming from a person in the author's position, this piece gives me hope.
3
I like Mr. Gerstell's constant use of the term "hypersonic" missile. It makes me think of the opposite situation, where a nuclear warhead would be puttering along at "subsonic" speed, maybe sitting on top of a propellor-driven missile.
1
Thank you for the briefing. While I disagree with many of your first premises and feel many of your assumptions are unsupportable on their face, I also understand that it is the mission of the NSA to assume a fear-based point of view.
2
Lessee... Since the Reagan years, the U.S. government has increasingly endorsed and practiced unilateralism on the world scene, preached the virtues of small government, defunded education, and granted ever more leeway to markets, Wall Street finance, and technology companies.
And now the U.S. is realizing there is a price to pay when it finds itself with fewer allies, an impotent government, an ill-educated population that has been taught to make its own needs and *beliefs* paramount, and companies that see no reason to cooperate with their own government, esp. if it eats into their potential profits?
Well, no. The piece here suggests that even the experts are only halfway to a full understanding of the roots of the U.S. predicament.
7
Thank you Mr. Gerstell for showing us the some of the future's Big Picture. Anyone who has read Ted Coppell's "Lights Out" has had a teaser of the cyber security danger ahead of us.
But most Americans won't read this and are overwhelmingly concerned with today: catching the bus, kids to soccer practice, paying for unexpected vehicle repairs. To most people, national or personal cyber security isn't even on their radar.
We have a political party who wants to "drown government in a bathtub" through tax cuts and continually defund needed government infrastructure; and a President who has no interest in national security briefings and can't see past his next Tweet; so I'm not too optimistic that the cyber security threat is currently taken seriously. I'm hoping some of the Democratic presidential contenders "see" the threat and act, budget and plan accordingly. Perhaps we need a cabinet level position - IT Secretary.
I appreciate Mr. Gerstell's effort to give the US a warning about the Forth Industrial Revolution, but I suspect he will soon be fired for his future, long term, big picture deliberations.
6
Let's hope our allies are up to the challenge. One thing that is absolutely clear to most US citizens: our government is not. Just look at a random selection of the commander in chief's recent tweets.
2
Outdated and political boondoggle Defense Department projects need to be eliminated in favor of the moves this article suggests, including greatly improving our education system so that we build the talent and capacity to support the new requirements and mitigate the scourges of crime, homelessness, drug addiction and other useless paths people take.
2
When you have a hammer in your hand, everything looks like a nail.
The author paints a grim picture of dealing with a world of adversaries. Another path, is for all countries to decide we are on the same leaky ship, and to make the best of it. This means cooperating with each other, with the intention being to work together, instead of fight each other.I know this sounds naive, but it is really our only choice.
13
@froggy. I'm afraid you are right, but I suspect that won't happen unless we are united by an imminent threat from beyond Earth, like an alien invasion. We already have a grave threat that will impact the entire planet, climate change, brought on by the humans here. We can't even get people in our own country to believe that threat is real, let alone cooperate to address it.
1
@froggy Not our only choice but certainly, our only chance. Until the plague elephant in the room is dealt with, there is NO chance for us. We have to deal with the Republican scourge. If we can not defeat it, we're finished.
1
Unfortunately we still have a large segment of the population that is arming itself to handle a military threat like the Wolverines in the movie Red Dawn. Drone technology, economic warfare and cyber warfare go both ways and that is more likely to be a larger form of future warfare than ever before - far more than face to face combat.
4
The author omits the threat presented by manufactured refugee crisis wherein very real and tragic human suffering is intentionally inflicted to achieve geo-political ends. Russia bombing Syrian cities to dust and Saudi Arabia using American weapons to do the same in Yemen generate waves of refugees. In-turn one European country after another turns to the "secure boarders" candidates who surprise surprise are in league with Putin. Putin will weaken and conquer Europe without losing a single soldier.
4
It is too bad that Americans and their press have never been able to wrap their head around the fact that these security agencies have created way more problems than they have ever solved.
Many of the US primary security concerns currently vis-a-vis Russia, Iran, NK, Latin America etc are the result of ill-advised overly aggressive foreign policy initiatives that have resulted in new enemies and provided no benefit for the nation.
Honestly, the nation would be better off if it did the opposite of what the NSA suggests a lot of the time.
12
The changes Mr Gerstell observes indicate a need for a transformation in education system to allow the facilitation of students from ANY segment of society who demonstrate the ability to achieve the new talents needed. This would require federal support, special programs, and perhaps special schools. I'm curious what directions the author thinks education should go.
2
Many problems exist as described here, many of them indeed highly technical and technological as befits the Digital Age.
Ten-cent words aside, however - and this article is absolutely full of them - I think it pays to step back and dissect out the few of the problems that can be addressed by less technology, rather than more.
Going back to verifiable, paper ballots is one good example, with the goal of avoiding hacked elections.
A second example - stemming from the first - is electing sane candidates to political office who understand that running a country is not like running a business, and that despite all the technologies available or as-yet-to-be developed, that Statesmanship is an important component in world politics.
Which leads next to the concept that the State Department is every bit as important as the National Security Agency, something that many people do not realize, or perhaps feel does not jive with their political goals. With all the billions of dollars the author proposes is necessary for the NSA, and maybe some of it will be to combat the threats described, where is the funding to restore the gutted State Department?
I'll stop there, but I'm sure there are others who can help pick up and put more of these issues - NSA included - in their proper context.
15
The past, present, and future of warfare is the USA. This dark view of rouge nations and terrorists organization has become the guiding principle for the USA. It will require " Gearing up to deal with those new adversaries..." at an extraordinary cost. This is such an enlightened piece of garbage put out my an advocate for more of the same old military industrial complex. We need a new model where we are not a fearsome threat to nations with different cultural views. Yes, some nations are controlled by awful regimes with little appreciate for individual rights but what we need is stronger ties with allies who see a way to work together. Perhaps a carrot rather than a stick can help us deal with what we call rouge nations. No this is not naive. We have followed a paradigm that has lead us to the brink of destruction. Time for allies and a new paradigm.
We are facing an existential threat in global climate change. It will require cooperation from virtually all nations and scientist tell us we better get started and we need to do it right now. The dark view of the future advocated by Gerstell will not get us there and is simply more of the same old tactic of increasing the danger of a lost world. The USA was once respected throughout the world and viewed as hlolding out promise for all nations and a stable world. We are in great need of starting on a path to regain that status.
18
The author is worried about the availability of luring smart, qualified computer scientists, developers and other cyber talent to work with our government, but if we could just find a way to lower rents in the Washington DC Metro area, we would attract all the talent we needed...and then some. Most of the real good tech talent I work with has left the DC area (and Northern VA) because they just can't afford the cost of living there.
2
Mr.Gerstell's proposal of Government and private industry partnership is exactly what we accused Huawei. So we are telling other countries not to trust Huawei and we are going to commit the same sin and ask them to trust us.
3
In an effort to avoid oversight and accountability, the US intelligence and military are, more and more, privatizing operations. When congress told Reagan no to support the Contras, the CIA secretly got into drug/gun running business to make it happen anyway, illegally. This shouldn’t have occurred. Similarly, deaths of private contractors do not need to be reported as standard US soldier’s deaths do. The budgets for such funding are also frequently different, typically obfuscated, even from congress.
These ways of operating have become more and more common rather than less and really needs to be comprehensively cleaned up. US intel and the military require oversight and accountability, as do the people at the top making these decisions, and the relevant policies involved.
As I think many Americans do, I don’t mind exchanging a bit of privacy for safety. But I do expect to get something for this sacrifice: ie actually being safer. If all this is really just another way to line corporate pockets of newer military complex companies, then this is not ok. My privacy is precious and if I give even a little of it, all of that extra freedom to operate differently *better* be spent prudently in the direct defense of America and its citizens.
3
Based on the news of the last five years it seems the federal government and its various agencies can’t even keep their own personnel files secure. I would guess that in the not too distant future, a 15 year old selling his services on Fiverr.com will be able to penetrate a $10 billion NSA computer system and do it for $300, or a new set of headphones.
What we need to survive is not more money for defense. What we need is a new paradigm about living on this planet.
8
@Only 62 Exactly. This is what the "anti-nukes" movement has seen coming for some time - now we just need to believe people will act in their own and country's best interest.
@Only 62 I agree completely. The Internet was never designed for the purpose it now serves. Cyber stalking, SWAT-ing, doxing, none of this should be able to be done with impunity, as many of these behaviors result in very real, criminal outcomes (including death, so SWAT-ing should be attempted murder/murder.)
Its time to throw the baby out with the bathwater and build a foundation of security and accountability into our computers and networks. Make the information only available through court warrant: which is a proven system of accountability that works more than doesn't.
We have laws on the books involving libel and other crimes, modify them for the internet. Make the hardware and software changes to tighten everything up. We nearly have self-driving cars, fixing computers/networks and the Internet itself in reasonable, sensible ways shouldn't be beyond us.
1
I think this lengthy piece can be summarized as: 1. cybersecurity is complex 2. It will get exponentially more complex 3. We haven't had the time to adapt to the complexity (and threats) 4. Much more money is needed (although that is a truism that applies to just about in life) 5. Much more cooperation between private & public sectors will be needed. Does that pretty much say it all?
7
@Rethinking What is not stated is that we need leadership that understands this and is motivated by improving security as much as possible over seeing their name in the news as often as possible.
3
Ad maybe a president who doesn’t ignore and then undermine the US national security apparatus and other federal agencies.
@Rethinking
6. We need a president who understands complexity.
2
If “cybermalevolence is a persistent threat”, then perhaps government agencies should report commercial software vulnerabilities immediately instead of exploiting them for years.
3
This important article, or near monograph, aims at one of the most central developments in the modern world. Yet despite a deep technological grasp, it sets itself in what amounts to a political and economic vacuum.
What was the most visible politically-driven "reorientation" in the intelligence services post-9/11? On the information-gathering front, the introduction of torture: spectacular, primitive, ineffective, and covered up. On the operational front, the armed drone, turning the CIA into a kind of international Murder, Inc., run out of the White House.
On the economic side, Mr. Gerstell has much of value to say about the role of corporations in the US predicament. But he stays in the realm of the deontic: should, must, ought to. But economics tells us, if we want prediction, to look at *incentive*. In our vaunted system, as is abundantly visible, the primary incentive is short-term gain. This appears to be about as good for cybersecurity as it is for health care.
The broader political and economic context is the parlous state of US higher education and the attack on science by those currently in control of the political apparatus, for whom the country's intellectual elite --- and the mechanisms that sustain it, which have included large-scale immigration into our universities and tech corporations --- are anathema. The narrower context is the crude, years-long effort to discredit and undermine the intelligence services. How do we exit this world?
5
In the article about the Russian asset who has gone into our secret protection program, how is he not trackable? In it, it is said that Putin eschews all electronic communications. Perhaps, important functions that affect life and financially-ruining transactions should not be dependent upon the cyber world.
1
Gerstell’s article definitively sounds the alarm to the danger of the confluence of AI and quantum computing in the hands of enemies dedicated to our downfall. His very concerning scenario is made worse with the knowledge that the focused effort needed by the United States to respond is unlikely. Our policy makers are unable to respond to more obvious threats, such as global warming and gun violence. They are clearly incapable of overcoming our commitment to archaic, politically driven, weapons systems. In the federal budget, defense research is already our highest expenditure by far. We already spend 50% more on defense research than anything related to health, the second highest priority. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic that we will mount anything near an adequate response to this alarm.
2
Our GOP leaders and military industrial complex tries to keep the planet in a perpetual state of war. It’s their lifeline and not ours.
Stand against all war: war for supremacy, war for resources, war for subjugation... That’s where lies progress that will heal our society and nourish our souls.
5
“The digital revolution thus far is distinguished by its ability to become ubiquitous in our daily personal and commercial lives in an astonishingly rapid time, a time frame that is really without precedent.”
And yet while this article lays out the technological challenges we face, talks about recalibrating the balance between government and the private sector, and so on — it doesn’t address the most significant challenge of all: reforming the way we actually govern day to day. When you start to examine the governmental structures, resources, and processes currently in place — you quickly realize that nothing is going to happen in “short order.”
Our legislators House and Senate spend enormous amounts of time on getting re-elected and fund-raising. How on earth would they ever have the time to address urgent issues? The length of the legislative sessions, the actual work hours, the committee systems, the rules of debate, the very ways of working in what amounts to a fossilized powdered-wig environment — they are all from a distant era and are in no way reconcilable with the imperatives suggested by this article.
If anything is clear, it is that our government must be far, far more nimble to work. Which of us wants to live in modern China, but the highly centralized Communist government can turn that huge nation around on a dime. Just watch how it tackles climate change and reducing emissions in the coming decades. Our government, meanwhile, wades around in the mud.
6
Let’s be honest:
These are among the extremely serious issues that our country and our world cannot begin to seriously confront while our current “leadership” is in place. If you are concerned about any of this, by far the number one thing you can do is help restore some semblance of responsible, informed, mature leadership by working to get Trump out of office. (Just a first step I realize but the crucial one.)
5
Infrastructure overhaul has been promised for many years, but never done. Instead, we waste $billions on unnecessary, redundant weapons, and $600 toilets seats, while cheating our soldiers. In the meantime, our communications, public services, roads and bridges rot and endanger innocent lives, while the military/industrial complex rakes in incredible profits, and the State Department fails to do its job of pursuing peace. When are we going to secure our actual, physical country, and the valuable lives of our citizens instead of blaming immigrants for the failings of this government? We have plenty of money to do all those things, if we're not wasting our resources on government graft. Have you heard any presidential candidate, but Bernie, talking about this?
2
Cam we think through and offer an equally complex analysis based on Mutually Assured Survival?
3
The entire premise of this article is mistrust, rivalry and conflict of interests. But we are on a planet in peril in terms of our own treatment of the natural order and our continuation as a species. Is it not time to sit down and see visions for humanity more along the lines of Jeremy Rifkin in "The Empathic Civilization?" It is time to deal with our human nature. We should start with the one out of control in our oval office.
25
Think back to when the Trump administration took over. Bannon and Flynn were the top national security advisers. We must restore checks and balances to concentrated power before it's too late.
To the rivalry between hawks and doves the global corporations add a lot of weight. And unfortunately we know what their bottom line is. Sometimes they get us into war, but with cybertechnology distributed around the globe it's something of a standoff.
Perhaps that will equate to the Mutually Assured Destruction in nuclear weapons and contribute to the safety of the world.
3
Well, sadly, by the time us sheeple get this information it means it already exist. This article is more of about preparing us for what is already in fact a fact.
I can imagine a counter industry rising to insulate people and municipalities against being controlled by an outside power. Backup systems closed off from the grid sounds like a plan. Also personal defence by rejecting or isolating technologies of conveniences that allows companies or nation states from accessing person information. Keeping track of financial data and buying physical gold/silver to backup to digital money erasure.
3
Yet we keep building aircraft carriers and all the systems to support them in order to continue the next phase of WWII. Why? We did not prevail in that war with weapons in of themselves; but, with our overwhelming ability to out produce the Axis powers. Our infrastructure and resulting ability to produce is our fundamental strength and our Achilles Heal if we do not take the steps to protect them. The Cyber attacks on our election system should be our wake up call. Are we awake?
14
Awake??? We are Comatose. We have been conquered by a dictator puppet of Putin. So now the NSA etc work for that. More resources? To enrich the private sector company you will soon. work for? No.
As good as it is knowing a country's preparedness for the unknown, in this age of revolutionary technology, and always with the possibility of armed conflict, it's very possibility must humble us into thinking thrice about using our power to destroy...instead of seeking an inter-dependence and healthy relationship with 'all walks of life', to defuse potential wars. Cooperation and solidarity for peaceful conclusions ought to be our mantra. This is more urgent now, as we have an unhinged brutus ignoramus at the helm, capricious to no end, unable, or unwilling, to measure the consequences of his actions, and where human rights seem just an afterthought. Those of us concerned about this suffering democracy, must speak out, and allow constructive criticism to save us.
5
We do need to prepare. We can start by removing the current President from office.
Un-learn the Newt Gingrich school of thought by only hiring political hacks and retrain/hire professionals who put country before political parties.
This is among the many damages cause by not educating our population.
Critical Thought then vote.
10
@Rob Brown
Removing Trump would be considered a left wing coup. Stop thinking and listen .
We - the USA - need to recommit to the United Nations, and convince other countries to join and abide by the rules too, and revamp/revisit those rules to best serve the World, not any specific country, regardless of wealth or power. It is only by general consensus that the world will ever approach some level of peace.
And it is only by a unified show of force that a realist stance can be supported: those who wage war do so with the world, and the world will come down on that country with no quarter given if communication, compromise, and reason are tossed to the side.
Mostly, we all need to realize that any sort of full-on conflict is truly no-win for anyone, and if the major powers are involved and pitted against one another, it will only escalate quickly into madness and death for probably most of the world. Nukes aren't the scary things; biologics and chemicals are, and if anyone truly believes that Russia, China, Israel, the USA, and more have and are *not* working on those types of weapons, that is an amazing level of naivety.
The UN is necessary, and without some sort of 'world order', we're all pretty much doomed.
4
My presumption had been that the $60 billion per year US taxpayers have been devoting to the NSA and other intelligence agencies meant that these issues were being carefully thought about and planned for. The author - apparently an insider in a position to know - now informs us that this is not the case. To me this raises the question what have these agencies been doing all this time?
The NSA reported recently that the entire basic research budget for the entire US university sector is $75 Billion a year. This number accounts for essentially all university research with cyber research presumably only a small percentage. Yet the article makes plain that university researchers into cyber security have skills and capabilities the government lacks.
Given these facts, the author’s basic contention that massively more money should go to the US intelligence community seems hard to credit.
The basic contention that this is going to be an important set of challenges seems unassailable, but maybe the bulk of the investment to solve the problem aught to go to where the brains actually are - to our universities - rather to the bloated and largely unaccountable “intelligence” community.
13
@Harry - Your last comment is interesting, it proposes as I read it, that the 'public' university network (a future revamped institution) be used for an open-source government in itself, or one could imagine at minimum the network as a non-governmental cabinet branch...
2
@Harry The amount of money spent on money rarely reflects the quality of the work done. Throwing money at problems won't solve anything unless it is done with rigor. There are far too many leeches waiting when the money floodgates are opened.
The government is known for throwing money around expecting results. Private industry gets results with a lot less money and no need to flood the market with money to fix a problem.
Universities are new "big oil and big tobacco". They are only concerned about the money and the grants that make it possible.
1
@Harry
"... but maybe the bulk of the investment to solve the problem aught to go to where the brains actually are - to our universities - ..."
Bad idea. The upside to University based research is that it is open to the public. Having these people do critical national security research means those facilities would have to be as secret as the NSA. Parts of our campuses would become high secure facilities. That would be a nightmare security problem.
I thought this article was gonna be about Terminator, Rise of the Machines. All jokes aside, a lot of this has to do with putting everything on the internet with lack of investment in cyber security educational programs in the US. Examples are like putting lights switches, home appliances, security systems, etc... to be able to turn off by logging in online.
1
On a personal level...Alexa you are not welcome into my home...SIRI control "yourself" on my "doorstep"...smart home technology that interfaces with these and other devices stay away...I can turn my own lights on and off...I can set whatever mood I desire in my home...I can set back my own thermostat before I leave on a travel excursion...I will connect when I choose to and not at the whim of a cyber devise...Facebook, I'll find my friends in conventional discourse of relationship formation...the best personal, individual defense again what may happen to the larger "grid" is switches and dials and touch screens that can be personally controlled and regulated...To our Government keep developing every defense and offense it can to protect us and provide for the common defense of the country and work with allies near and far in a common planetary protective sphere of common unity and influence...in the meantime switch on and switch off as is decided on the spot...
8
The strategies in the cyber-conflicts described here make a certain amount of sense, but are misdirected in some cases. For example, Mr. Gerstell depicts China as an adversary that refuses to adhere to international norms. However, he must also appreciate that China's economic and political strength (obtained through central control) is also its weakness. For example, if China manages to infiltrate American cyber-assets, it has few options for exploiting that situation that will not reduce the creativity and productivity that emerges from our less centrally controlled institutions.
The far more likely scenario is that the US and China will both develop Mutually Assured Destruction capabilities in cyber-space and as our two economies become more intertwined, the impetus to go to cyber-war will dissipate.
At the same time, if economic disparities continue to grow at both the national and international scale, cyber-capabilities will more likely be exploited by nimble terrorists (domestic or international) trying to tear down the established systems of power and control.
1
This long winded exposition was a big nothing-burger. Not a single original thought on emerging threats in the cyber domain. It’s disappointing but not surprising that instead of focusing on the actual greatest threats to the human race and most higher order life on Earth, climate change, this high level Defense official trods out the well worn boogeymen scenarios (China and Russia) which lead to nothing but perpetual war. How about recognizing that since the United States has abdicated its global leadership position in the world under Donald Trump on the environment and has instituted with total abandon the most retrograde environmental policies imaginable, we are our own worst enemy? But, I suppose that would be too morally courageous of a stance and career imperiling move when our government agencies can’t even accurately report on the direction of hurricanes without being threatened with their careers by the President and Commerce Secretary in some nouveau rendition of the Catholic Church inquisitions wherein astronomers had to pretend they didn’t see planets and recant their observations regarding the heliocentric solar system.
The fact that the author even mentioned the possibility of conscripting tech talent into some kind of white collar chain gang, when a good percentage of this nations civilian tech talent come from countries like India who wouldn’t even be beholden to tech draft speaks volumes about the mentality of the author. Clearly he’s from a by-gone era.
32
The Newtonian perspective on war outlined in this article, is exactly why we may need artificial intelligence (just kidding) - We need advanced ideas..., sadly the people that rise to the top of government posts like this author only get there because they are like everyone else, think like everyone else.
But we need people that have truly learned from the past century of collective global insights into deep biology, sociology and physics, and how systems function beyond the caveman cause and effect universe. We need bravery, leadership and wisdom to collectively, globally confront conversion universally to renewable energy sources, and consumer-production cycles, capitalism and novel approaches to supporting individuals and families within this troubled and challenging environment of rapid change.
If the U.S.A. can't do better than electing Donald Trump and other racist primitive citizens to government, if society is more corporate profit-driven, than familial; loving and wise, then what exactly is worth protecting?
9
I may be hopelessly naive but what would China, Russia, Iran or North Korea gain from destroying part of our infra structure? China would loose a major trading partner. Russia, Iran and North Korea would be devastated by our response, however belated it may be. Of course we should be prepared, but the threat of attack from foreign nations seems to me much less of a threat than the threat of trying to survive on a planet whose environment is becoming increasingly hostile to all forms of life. Why not devote our major efforts to dealing with t(e threat to our planet, our only planet, and worry about warfare after we have found a way to am,e our planet habitable?
7
@John Adams
Mutual destruction has been the mantra of 20th century defenses systems. Or so I assume. If it were me, I'd allow this strategy to continue through established negotiating and intelligence systems. I'd add an occasional "easter egg" to encourage continued effort. Simply offering defense of the defensive position works for most traditional legacy thinking.
But why destroy what one can deconstruct?
Progress requires processing power; processing power, intelligence; intelligence, access; and access, reliability.
If I have the choice of mutating reliability, have I not gained advantage?
5G and/or IoT (Internet of Things) will grant fact-based advantage to those who gain access to it. If,strategically, I can re-route what I need and want, de-value what others need and want, I have achieved more than destruction. Dominance without domination.
This seems more suitable to 21st century strategies than the traditional kill or be killed models of oneupsmanship most societies have leveraged to their own sovereign advantage.
Nation states are the institutions at risk in the new strategies. A habitable world is no longer the ideal we fight for. A collaborative one, though, is the fight worth surviving for.
1
@John Adams
I too may be "hopelessly naive". I believe that humanity can still survive, via our best efforts. I must believe that my grandchildren can enjoy their lives, somehow.
This author presents scary observations about exploits of many bad actors - not just nation/states any more - in our fast-evolving cyber reality. He has been a leader in some of our best efforts to address them, and he is worried. Few of us have such deep experience on the dark side of the new reality; whether we understand it or not, we all now live here. I attribute great validity to his observations.
I too believe that climate change threatens civilization as we know it - perhaps even my grandchildren's very survival. Overwhelming as that appears, it is not our only existential problem. Our cyber environment is changing much faster, and we know less about it.
I am encouraged that the author's principal hope rests in people. His concerns about their effective organization, cooperation and support are right on. His experience, and mine, is that we can do this, if we want to, if we act now.
1
There couldn't be a worse time for the rise of authoritarianism in America. All of these digital tools will surely be put to use by any Administration, including the current one, to: control citizens, spy on political enemies, extort concessions from politicians, control the flow and accuracy of information, exact revenge on politicians who don't go with the leader's program, shape reality to fit an agenda, and enable the further accumulation of power to the 'dear leader'.
Yes, we are in a state of hyper-evolution facilitated by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Political, social, and scientific discourse needs to keep pace with the changes. Authoritarianism makes us increasingly petty and trivial as a nation.
7
We created the technology that makes cyberattacks possible. So if we are hoisted with our own petard we only have ourselves to blame.
4
"Enormous investment". "Extraordinary levels of new investment". The author is laying the groundwork for yet another wave of massive government spending on national security, on top of an already bloated DoD budget exceeding $700 billion. Before taking that leap, consider the return on investment for our current tax dollars. Two decades of losing in Afghanistan. Impotence in Syria. ISIS. Russia annexes Crimea. North Korea lobs missiles into the Pacific. The Chinese navy exerts control over the South China Sea. Oh, almost forgot the F-35 stealth fighter program debacle. How many billions will be wasted on this new frontier? It's time to cap spending on national security. Any new programs should be funded solely by shifting dollars away from existing programs. Make it a zero sum game. Force the military-industrial complex to make hard choices. Just like the everyday American tax payers who are funding this madness.
88
@Steve Collins
Not to mention that Stealing secrets is cheaper than creating technology and keeping it secret.
4
Budget increased by multiples after 9/11, Constitution trampled, US now a surveillance state; the most heavily funded intelligence program in human history by an order of magnitude: "we're unprepared, be afraid! we need more money". What a surprise.
28
Thanks for the very sobering analysis.
Until now, direct armed conflict among First-World nations has been deterred because of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction and America's potential adversaries certain knowledge of our willingness to use nuclear weapons to defend our homeland and our vital interests.
MAD will remain a key part of our deterrence, but as this article makes clear, nuking the aggressor becomes a less effective option when the attacks themselves draw no blood and - most especially - in light of the hostile actors' ability to hide their true identity.
History is not over. Be brave, new world.
7
Very enlightening perspective. There is no obvious reason to doubt the points made in the article about threats stemming from future developments in instant cyber data collection analysis and synthesis that can be used for nefarious decision making. But with all of the special interests involved all with the with access to funding knowledge technology power and the will to use instantaneous cyber input there is no reason to believe any one special interest currently has the abilities for mischief over any other special interest whether the interests are a government or private interest. Also there is no reason to believe that the instantaneous abilities described will not confuse the even the fastest cyber brains designed for real time data input. But with our nation currently struggling with conservative viewpoints promulgated by citizens who are as old as the viewpoints they try to push-off on other citizens there is legitimate doubt that our nation is in any position to enter a cyber race into an era of instantaneous data input that has uncertain utility given measured pico instants or faster.
2
Our country spends more than a trillion dollars per year on defense spending. But apparently we are not prepared to handle the new threats to our national security. And apparently the solution is the dissolution of privacy and the strengthening of private industry over the elected government (that way our authoritarianism is based in capitalism, which is The Way of the West). Moreover, the reason we can't have safe bridges and cheap healthcare is because of the existential threat of hypersonic missiles and bogus Facebook ads. So was the point of this editorial to inform me of a dystopian future that I have no control over? Was it to inspire me to rally to their cause and lobby my Senator? Because all I took away from this author was "fear, fear, fear! now show me your retina!". You want to solve this problem, start by improving the efficiency of the DoD economy (budgets are for transportation agencies, not missile defense). Start by reducing the power of private industry over the DoD. Start by paying federal employees an actual wage so you can recruit and retain smarter people. Once upon a time national laboratories were places of innovation, too. We don't have to yield the power of the people to fear and paranoia.
68
@Shereef
Well said. There is plenty of money already in the military, it's just allocated extremely inefficiently. We don't need trillion dollar F-35s or more than half of the aircraft carriers in the world. We especially don't need hundreds of overseas bases, many of which are just inflaming tensions.
3
what a great article. great if your future lies in WAR. unfettered WAR and a cowed fearful populace. WAR as an alternative to peace Serenity and Calm. great article to help keep the citizens in line. yes lets gin up fear in the populace again.
52
The defense of our country clearly must include defense against cyber attacks. Of course, if an adversary does launch a crippling cyber attack against us we always have the option of bombing them to smithereens with "real" weapons . That ought to provide at least some deterrence to those who might be considering such an attack.
4
@Jay Orchard
No one has the ability to bomb *us* to smithereens? Think our nukes in their silos, all interconnected, are just safe as can be? Think we can sustain an all-out war with anyone, particularly since we've outsource most all manufacturing to non-US sites? Think our entitled, lazy, 'smartphone' addicted populace will survive when their service goes down for months? Think the youth of today can fight a war where they won't get all their meds, can't bring along their 'therapy dogs', and Mom and Dad aren't standing there behind them to pat them on the heads?
You know what the best deterrent to war is? Talk. Communication. Understanding of other's POVs. Ability to compromise. Realization that greed does not rule, and sometimes you can't always get what you want...but if you try sometime, you find you get what you need (oh, you saw that coming).
Nothing is every so simple as to say "we'll hit you back".
Better answer: blow the internet to smithereens. Many, many (many) problems solved.
What is crucially missing here in this "realist" vision is any discussion about what we can do to advance and improve the moral and ethical nature of the actors involved in what the author considers to be an inevitable Hobbesian "state of war." If human philosophy had not kept some kind of approximate pace with human technology, we'd already be extinct. I will dare say that the solution to the problems of technology is not simply more technology.
8
Does "preparing for the future of war," in a cyber context, entail buffering the computer networks for our infrastructure from cyber attack? Does it include micro-sizing networks like pipelines and electrical transmission lines, so that attacks against them would necessarily be piecemeal, and not blanket attacks against single-entry attacks? What about banking? Does it include firewalling our election systems? IMO, we need to be sure we're not talking only about insulating our Command and Control Communications systems for the Defense Dept.
2
The enemy is not to be countered with more extensive surveillance of our citizens. The enemy IS surveillance of our citizens.
25
With a majority in government that denies facts, disrespects science, allows the enrichment of the head of state with government funds, and at all costs, focuses primarily on stroking the ego of the authoritarian head of state, how can we expect an honest effort to meet this challenge?
45
@Karen Steinberg
The House of Representatives has an opposition majority.
I believe this article, while addressing many important potential technological threats, has left big questions unaddressed. Where here is the discussion of the national political capacity to address these issues? Our government can hardly function these days, and ultimately the intelligence community is a political tool, overseen by political people and processes. Who decides how science is to be developed and applied? What if our political class no longer chooses to grounded in truth, facts, or science? Who will debate and define the policies needed to govern these technological efforts - government or corporations?
And what if our elected leaders are just incapable of comprehending and understanding this spectrum of possibilities?
18
Sadly you are so right! So glad we are having this conversation. The article was so well thought out and written— I hope it helps wake up the current administration to where the real threat to our country resides.
2
@Mike Jones
You write: "Who decides how science is to be developed and applied?"
The scientists themselves decide how science is developed and applied by doing science or refusing.
See John Adams and Peter Sellars "Doctor Atomic" (2005).
Zeroing out the bank accounts of the populace by an adversary is the way to destroy the system from within. That’s what I fear most. Probably irrational, I know, but it’s the one thing that would impact my life directly, aside from being a victim of nuclear devastation. Having lived through that supposed threat, I find it hard to get worked up about some new threat cooked up by the MIC to keep the masses motivated by fear. As nihilistic as this might sound, maybe the best thing for the environment would be the general collapse of our unsustainable greed based economies. The Black Death did wonders to improve the economic situation of the peasants during the aftermath of that collapse. Things were pretty good for a while, then it all went backward again as the aristocracy gained back their power. Two examples are Britain’s enclosures and Corn Laws. Reaction and backlash are human attributes that no govt. or future war have any power over, short of the kind of cataclysm such as world war or soon to be manifested devastating climate change. Businesses get a bad rap on short-termism but it’s the individual who is ultimately to blame. The Tragedy of the Commons is a good example of that. Whatever evolution has in store for us, it hopefully has more to do with intellect than instinct.
9
What about promoting, and guaranteeing, world peace?? In other words, diplomacy and mutual disarmament (remember START and similar initiatives?).
U.S. and NATO military belligerence--including Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq (killing countless thousands of innocents)--were the primary cause of the "terror" blow-back, in the first place. But the so-called "war-on-terror" has kept the War-Business going strong. Now, new "enemies" are allegedly looming on the horizon--China, and, of course, the old standby Russia. (Thirty years ago, Gorbachev offered to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely--an offer rejected by Reagan, who preferred the "Star Wars" boondoggle.)
Not too long ago, the "intelligence community"--notably the NSA--illegally expanded its domestic surveillance (remember Edward Snowden?). Do U.S. citizens want even more technological intrusion into their lives (in the name of the largely bogus "national security" hype)? But then again, fear-mongering about future wars is "good business"--so that taxpayers will grudgingly foot the bill for yet more weapons-systems and cyber-tech over-reach.
In short, the bloated Military-Security Complex--with its preposterous (and unaudited) budget--parasitically thrives on the loathsome business of "perpetual war"--of benefit only to the giant contractors intertwined with these agencies.
40
Perhaps before we start to spend even more trillion$ on this latest “threat to our national security” as Mr. Gerstell seems to advocate we ought to ensure that we have a livable planet. The US race for “full spectrum dominance” against all possible adversaries is simply the result of a ruling class concerned about maintaining full spectrum dominance of those who would challenge their wealth and privilege.
19
After reading this long and complex analysis I am made uneasy by the conclusion that the only way to combat cyberthreats of this complexity would be to institute the type of authoritarian structure that China seems to be well on it way towards, but which of course is anathema to anyone who values creativity and free expression.
I'm not sure if it's even possible to find some other option; it seems a command and control structure may be the only way to compete with other command and control structures.
3
@Glenn Ribotsky
Manual systems universally applied is a viable alternative.
2
Everyone admits that it would be insane for either side to launch their nuclear arsenals against the other. Few, however, see the insanity of placing ourselves in a position where MAD is not only possible, but inevitable. If we are to pull away from the ridiculous posture we've now assumed, there will need to be a paradigm shift in human thought around the world, and particularly in the United States and Russia. If not, we are doomed. In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a linguistic "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds see the survival of a particular belief as more important than the survival of all. When we understand this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
1
After reading the article, I'm left with the lingering impression that William Gibson essentially got it right.
Life imitating art, indeed.
3
The effects of technology-based risks pale in comparison to the effects of enemies installing their own human decision makers throughout the US government, and crippling the procedures for dealing this them.
We see the that effect daily with the current administration and its partisan enablers.
14
In a short time both we and China will have created MACD) mutually assured cyber destruction), and we'll go back to the kind of uneasy co-habitation we had with the USSR from 1955-1985. Then slowly but surely the era of peace that began in Europe after 1945 will continue to spread IF (and only if) we can stop population growth in Africa and the Middle East, decarbonize our energy sector, and reduce after tax return on capital to no more than total economic growth.
Inequality, scarcity, and environmental degradation lead to hopelessness, which leads to conflict. Sustainable populations living in healthy environments, and enjoying sufficient resources don't need to spend additional trillions on surveillance and counter surveillance.
31
An N.S.A. official says the U.S. needs to prepare for the future of war, that technology is about to upend the entire national security infrastructure of the U.S.?
Preparing for the future of war does not seem enough to me, or even the right perspective on the matter. The problem seems to somehow design a controlled and healthy awakening of the human race, to understand that historically power in society has not only known relatively little about virtually everything, has been relatively asleep, it has sought to prevent from the public even what could be known, has sought to preserve a quietly sleeping household and to stay in bed as long as possible for itself, to not really get up, awaken to the day.
But the advances we are undergoing are increasing rapidly knowledge in all areas and probably most painfully, self-knowledge. We are on verge of a Super Enlightenment historical era, one which has society asking itself whether, and like a person, it will wake up in healthy fashion to a new day or will it wallow in bed, self-deceive, or wake up and overeat, or drug itself senseless, or commit suicide, or lash out at others, or get lost in pleasant daydreams because it cannot stand the responsibility of itself.
The challenges and possibilities are so profound it makes me ask if neuroscience can give us such a picture of a healthy brain waking up in the morning that we can mirror this process and have it mimicked overall by society, that we can awaken society as a person.
6
The need for more experts in cybertechnology requires more expenditures for education, and for creating a path to national service in this sector. Funding of higher education initiatives which provide funding in return for national service is one path, but one requiring a willingness of Congress and the Administration to provide the resources.
3
Thank you Mr. Gerstell for a well written article which helps the average citizen understand the enormity of the cyber challenge.
The comments carping about Trump, the wall, climate change, and the defense budget miss the gist of Mr. Gerstell’s argument. He is not denying or arguing against any of those concerns, in fact he directly or indirectly acknowledges them, but sounding an ALARM about the cyber challenge. Before September 11, the upper reaches of the Bush Administration were “warned” about Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden but concentrated on more relevant issues like reducing taxes. We, all of us, have been put on notice about the cyber challenge.
What are we going to do about it? Reduce taxes?!
105
@Thomas Gilhooley - Great leadership... would help people understand the problems today; these are not like in past centuries. In simple talk, if the path is rocky and dangerous, we choose a new path, collectively we identify and set out upon.
This would require a radical redefinition of humanity and self. But compared to what this author is asking for, a radical redefinition of humanity and self is perfectly reasonable to consider in this context, and it would perhaps produce the best outcome.
The enormity of what is being asked in the article, of what life would be like in this ideal future or security - it just does not add up. The analysis is very lopsided.
1
@Thomas Gilhooley you're a little late...
"We, all of us, have been put on notice about the cyber challenge"
We should have / could have been put "on notice" 10 years ago. It's a rather big failure of leadership that we haven't anticipated better and been more prepared.
Our leadership doesn't have the tech literacy skills to make decisions that will adequately deal with these challenges.
5
@Thomas Gilhooley
The right knows with absolute certainty that the best defense against any threat is tax cuts for the rich.
3
It is too late to start preparing for the war. We are at war now and have been for sometime. Russia has been hacking into our computer systems for years. They provide disinformation, "alternative facts" and most likely was and is able to change our election outcomes. They managed to help elect leaders of more then one western countries, including ours that are destroying out alliances and economies. Who needs rockets and tanks when you can ruin your enemy with the a bit of the computer hacking.
52
We need a global treaty on all things cyber: cyberwar, cybersecurity, cyberespionage. We need rules, and we need to adapt the technologies to our democratic values, if we still have any, even if that means commerce suffers.
Power, at least the power to do harm, is becoming increasingly liable to asymmetric advantage. Embrace that, because other than totalitarianism (and even then), there's no way to interdict, in the not-so-long-run.
So, of course, the digital lies on top of the real: make the global economic system work for the vast many, and you'll only get more stability, that supposed prize of national-security types (it isn't; domination is).
As Ben Franklin said, we'll either hang together or we'll hang separately; now that means the entire species.
Provide a resting state for people that is a decent life, which we certainly can do, with a, what? $65tn global GDP; work out territorial issues ASAP; allow for independent development even if Western corporations suffer; begin to truly democratize not only political but also, and crucially, economic institutions, and we may have a shot.
We start within the current system, of course, and much can be done. But if you want to really think outside the box, do so: human beings simply have to live together on a rapidly shrinking planet (with rapidly dwindling resources) or we're eventually (and pretty soon) all done, possibly literally and certainly as a semi-decent society.
4
Although this piece attempts to assure otherwise, it is obvious that the solution being advocated here is an expansion of the surveillance state to match those of our authoritarian adversaries. Our Five Eyes partner in London is already well on the way to realizing Orwellian dystopia through a network of surveillance cameras that is numerically unrivaled per capita. With antitrust investigations mounting against FAANG tech giants, the USG is endeavoring on a defacto takeover of citizens' data and privacy rights - the opposite direction which the EU has taken through the passage of the GDPR. Trump's closed-door meetings with Tim Apple and Sundar Pichai were no doubt intended to force their companies' compliance with national security objectives.
9
What I see in these comments are great arguments for removing Trump, and moral intonation against war and the military-industrial complex. I agree with them all, but there is no avoiding the premises of the article: the coming of overwhelming, ongoing, revolutionary technological change that leverages machines and computers beyond the ability of humans to manage them in real time except with like tools. It poses the serious question of whether and how real, analog human beings deal with it. Can democracy function and can people protect liberal values in this environment? We have no choice but to hope so, beginning with removing Trumpism from American leadership, replacing Trump and his ilk with better leaders. The alternative is Chinese-style cyber-authoritarianism. Functionally, what alternative is there other than (a) government-led regulation, control, and use of technology, empowered -- one hopes -- by functional democratic processes, or (b) ceding such control to trans-national corporations like Google? Maybe technology will empower individuals, but probably only if the Googles of the world allow it. How's that working out so far? In short, we don't have the answers, and we won't even have the details about the questions until we address them in real time. Meanwhile, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others, and humans have to use it to meet these challenges. (Yes: start with throwing out Trump).
6
The piece is essentially about our future existence, not just waging war. The safety of our democracies and our citizens is the major objective. We cannot think in single terms as war being the only outcome. If by focusing on the development of necessary technology, we will hopefully avoid world wide conflict and somehow contribute to the safety of all mankind. Sorry to say, it takes money to get there.
11
Let us not forget that many cyberattacks were possible only because the Nation Security Agency's software was acquired by bad actors, and the Agency did not inform the software producers of the weaknesses involved. The NSA has been incredibly damaging to the security of the USA, and they did not prevent the tradegy of 9/11. This is not an agency to be trusted.
53
@seattle expat. Sorry, but software development practices coupled with business drivers to rush features out the door are the fault here. Security of software and systems is an after thought in industry. The fact is developers largely aren’t taught secure software skills, industries aren’t held accountable to secure outcome standards, and consumers don’t insist on security and privacy. In this environment, cyber-criminals and national defense agencies don’t have to work hard to find and exploit preventable vulnerabilities.
11
@Graham Holmes
Sorry, but if the NSA knows of a vulnerability, they have a responsibility to let the software developer know to protect their clients. Like a dam inspector telling the dam owner there is a crack to be fixed.
4
@seattle expat I would also mention that the FBI and NSA are fighting to have back-doors included in encryption, so they can look at everything we communicate or store. The fact that their hacking tools have been lost in the past reminds us that the keys to those back doors will also eventually be lost. Then goodbye privacy and goodbye bank accounts.
Haven't you heard, we're going to have a wall. Of course, the use of technology instead of a wall would provide superior barrier for a host of concerns, and it will have to be installed, as well. As far a technology is concerned, let's first make sure that we don't have hacked elections. The future safety of America, and the world, will be the ability to utilize technology not only for monitoring and halting any vulnerability we may have, but in thwarting any adversary trying to attack our systems. This is another reason why Russia shouldn't be part of the G-7.
8
One cannot separate war from the climate catastrophe. At a time when our future as a species is questionable, war has to be seen as obsolete with a devastating climate impact. Rather than squandering billions on weapon to underwrite military industries we need to be investing in renewable energy, permaculture farming and infrastructure adaptation.
74
@Al M
You may consider war to be obsolete but, until all others join with you, there will be wars and other paths to global domination. And world leaders who will eagerly travel those paths.
4
@Philip Brown
Not for long.
Excellent. We need more war and we need to spend more money on war. War is the answer to all our problems. War is peace.
145
@Godfree Roberts
Well, capitulation without so much as a peep is a sure way to prevent war.
As climate changes and population grows, the pressure on resources will increase. Post WWII globalization did a great deal to "spread the wealth." Rising nationalism now says "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mostly mine too." These factors will increase rather than relax the march toward wars.
It seems unlikely that the world community is ready to join hands and work together to make this planet work pretty well for everybody. Until then ... prepare for war.
17
@Godfree Roberts: Rather than seeing this as war or no war, see it as an ongoing struggle for stability vs. instability. Like it or not, stability is created by governmental structures that impose restraint on certain actors, ultimately through the threat of violence.
11
In retrospect, it seems now that we got off light with the Cold War. On our hair triggers, both sides feared the other might launch nuclear missiles first. Luckily no one did.
Now it appears the vulnerability is returning.
Whether we fall into the same approach as last time, or adopt a more philosophical, but possibly dangerous approach , is anyone’s guess. In either case we appear to be heading back to more dangerous times.
The US , China and Russia need to adopt a peace centric approach before it gets out of hand.
38
@RjW
The problem is, all the leaders of those countries operate on ego not intellect
2