Skip to main content

tv   Book TV  CSPAN  May 9, 2010 5:00pm-6:00pm EDT

5:00 pm
a couple of homeruns and r.b.i.s. ways 1 for 3. that was a three run homerun. elsewhere today. toronto in chicago. top of the 3rd. 3-1 sox. molian and hill and it is tied up. and the next batter. on a tear since the year started. he hits that out quickly. and wells ahit a homerun. on that breaking ball and the bottom of the 8th. white sox have rollie. and they're batting in the bottom of the 8th. ninth on the year. >> meantime cleveland and the indians and to tribe. magglio. and jackson coming around to score. that cuts the lead to 4-3. at
5:01 pm
4. and indians. sing toll center field. serves it there. kearns scores. that gives the indian as 5-4ees and it is a quinnal. and two more r.b.i.s today. and talbot the win. and elsewhere in the american league. top of the 5th. tied 4-4. tampa bay on the road. in the bottom of the 4th. on a each team with 8 oss. and at fenway park. trying to complete a sweep of the red sox n minnesota and but
5:02 pm
tie showing support. [ man ] ladies and gentlemen, the 57th president of the united states. ♪ ♪ ♪ [ bell rings ] ♪ [ male announcer ] at&t. the nation's fastest 3g network. this mother's day, get 50% off all messaging phones after mail-in rebate, like the pantech reveal, only from at&t. an everyday moment can turn romantic at a moment's notice. and when it does, men with erectile dysfunction can be more confident in their ability to be ready with cialis for daily use. cialis for daily use is a clinically proven, low-dose tablet you take every day,
5:03 pm
so you can be ready anytime the moment's right for you and your partner. tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications and ask if you're healthy enough for sexual activity. don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. don't drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed back ache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away. ask your doctor if cialis for daily use is right for you. for a 30-tablet free trial offer, go to cialis.com. keep you coming back for seconds? it's all in the "pepperation." now, for only $5.99, enjoy our famous house-made chips and salsa, and our hot, tasty soups, like chicken enchilada or the new chicken and green chile. slow-smoked chicken topped with ripe avocado and fresh cilantro. plus, enjoy our new house salad with hand-cut romaine topped with fire-roasted corn.
5:04 pm
all with unlimited refills. it's chili's bottomless express lunch for just $5.99. for a limited time. only at chili's. 1 ball. 1 strike delivery. going back. he has it. this is in the books. the final out today in minneapolis. span and he can get them. oriole's drop the game. they head home 3-game series against seattle. lee and hernandez in the first game. then ryan smith will go in the second against bergesen and the finale thursday at 12:30. certain looking forward to this a battle battle of the two teams. looking at 2 and 3. seattle cannot score. that's a game you want to get
5:05 pm
out there and see. >> he is a young guy. he wilt potential cy young winner. if he gets and he can win it. >> momentum is as good as your starter. david hernandez will be on the round. he is looking for a bounce back game. he was roughed up to ate. >> they scored on him. that's not like him he pitches necessarily when in scoring position. the only problem is the lack of run support. david hernandez showed somism promote you can see it here. we have to put the game together. see how much better he pitched. or not. >> and a starter for the oriole
5:06 pm
es. he made the club. this is his first season and they have designated him the long man. he can eat up a couple of ins, and they have done a good job but every time he has come in he looks like lights out. he pitched they'll and he had command. and that's what berken has to. dodo you never know when you may pitch. >> and out of the bullpen that came back. and berkson making an ano. pick off the span there. and he is alert. he joes what i has to do. >> he did the job. >> i want to leave you on a
5:07 pm
positive today. we talked about tejeda and how well he is playing. in the series last night in game 2 and today he is starting to show the nuances for being comfortable at 3rd. he is making great plays i'm surprised that he is coming in on the ball. 0 stays with it. you want a good strong arm. here today another shot. easy play because of his arm. boy you love to see. it he has to charge. it one thing you worry about is his speed. you have that. >> and the challenge and that didn't work out. you had reimold. infield hit. 1 for 3. didn't leave but good necessary now 6 ahead a commanding lead for rick in the
5:08 pm
challenge. twins win it 6-0. birds come home on a tuesdaying streak. we'll see you tuesday a day offtomorrow. and enjoy your day off tomorrow. get outside! see you tuesday night. bett er than carfax. i have a note from the previous owner. just show me the carfax. a carfax report can help you choose a great used car. it's free at thousands of reputable dealers. just say, "show me the carfax!"
5:09 pm
it's free at thousands of reputable dealers. what's all this? big news! we have another way to help you save. oh, really? how? by bundling. if you get your homeowners and auto insurance together, we give you even more savings. ooh!
5:10 pm
big bundle. [ chuckling ] home and auto together. it's like peanut butter and jelly. oh, or like burgers and fries. or pickles and ice cream. unicorns and glitter! no? bundling to save you more. now, that's progressive! call or click today. ♪ until the sun went down ♪ and many fantasies were learned ♪ ♪ ♪ on that day ♪ keep feeling fascination ♪
5:11 pm
5:12 pm
5:13 pm
>> i'm karl ravech, join us tonight as alex rodriguez and the yankees make their final trip to the stadium until september. the rivalry continues tonight at 8:00 eastern time on sunday night baseball. >> deeper look at yankees and red sox series explains the yanks total domination. boston is just 167. yanks knocked in nine rbis and yankee pitchers pounding the zone. here is tim kirchen. >> the yankees are all banged up and outscore the red sox in the series 24-6. the red sox are not done as contenders. they will pitch better than
5:14 pm
this, but when center fielder jonathan vanevery pitched it is first time the red sox have used a non-pitcher in a game to pitch against the yankees. that is how bad the red sox are going and how good the yankees are going. >> for more on all things new york, including why schillings -- >> let's update things in oakland. the rays lost yesterday. looks like they are on their way to the third. bottom of the five, 4-0. rbi single. last time he faced rays he allowed six earned runs. today four and two-thirds and no walks. >> in minnesota, he's back after
5:15 pm
missing eight games because of an injured ankle. joe mower was in the lineup batting as the d.h. he is 1-3 as the twins are up 6-0. the games just went final moments ago. three rbis. and last pitcher to win with seven plus innings andy nostrikeouts. blackburn improves to 3-1 on the year. >> tiger there 11th straight win over the indians. bottom of the two, indians up and man on third. and barehanded play. and the indians score. later in the inning, and chu to short. and santiago tries barehanded effort.
5:16 pm
4-1 lead. and bottom of five, 4-4 now. and three for four with a pair of ribs and austin kerns scores. the witch is dead. 7-4, the indians finally beat the tigers, first time in 12 games. again, three hits from greg and ordonez goes two for four in a losing effort. >> let's go to pittsburgh. cardinals and the pirates. and a double to deep right. cardinals up 4-0. bottom of sixth, cardinals up. all the starts have been quality starts this year. that is a good thing. and six innings, allowed two runs and seven strikeouts.
5:17 pm
wainwright improves to 5-1 on the year. quality starts in all seven thus far. wainwright came into the day, with a -- e.r.a. this year. cardinals take two out of three from pittsburgh. >> cubbies take the cut against mike leake and the reds. 2-0 with e.r.a. under 3. this is rookie season, leake never pitched in the minors, straight to the majors he went. wild pitching in the seventh and tyler colvin allows byrd to score. and there is colvin and out of here. fourth of the season. cubbies lead. bottom of the seventh, same score. and joey votto gets in one. tell the folks on the steam ship to look out. seventh of the season. fourth home run in four games. and castro delivered sixth
5:18 pm
inning single for the cubs. the sensation for the cubs. first four hits of the career, homer, triple, double and single. first since ken caminiti to do that in his first games. >> houston and san diego. hunter penn to the left field wall. and lance burgman comes to score. game winner, penn 3-5. final in 11 innings. back-to-back home runs for lee and pence. they have the least amount of runs in the majors this year, they score four, that be enough on sunday afternoon. >> still to come, more on the injury that forced tiger woods to withdraw from the players championship. what it could mean for the rest of his season.
5:19 pm
in the united states and we've traced it back if you did it and would like you to arrest them. the russians don't arrest them. so, there are cybersanctuaries for the cybercriminals. growing problem, united states approach we say in the book is bankrupt because essentially the united states says to 90, 90
5:20 pm
different u.s. countries and 66 fbi offices is a criminal act today, you have to prosecuted. they don't have a central organized approached that is able to deal internationally successfully with the cybersanctuaries. some of the cybercriminals now are also participating in the second phenomenon, cyberespionage. so if you're a business intelligence firm and your selling information to let's say a big company that makes airplanes in europe, they want business intelligence perhaps about a link, their competitor. and so the big european companies not going to hack into boeing. they don't want to get caught doing that. they go and hire a business consulting firm.
5:21 pm
the business intelligence firm then goes out and hires a hacker. they hack their way into the company. industrial espionage. it's happening at a prodigious rate. about 18 months ago the head of reddish intelligence, domestic intelligence, the secret security service and my five wrote a letter to 300 ceos in the u.k., the 300 largest companies in the u.k. and in it, he said, you have to have failed to your network has been successfully penetrated by the chinese government and any corporate secret you have have been successfully expo traded from your net work. the u.s. government hasn't written a letter yet but i can assure you, the content if they didn't write it, would be the
5:22 pm
same. every major u.s. company has been successfully hacked by probably the chinese government at a minimum and probably lots of others. and the crown jewels of those companies have been stolen. results of billions of dollars of research funded by the taxpayers or the stockholders going to competitors who pay nothing for the r&d or pennies on the dollar. our secrets and aerospace companies, our secrets and pharmaceutical companies and biomedical come to me if, our secret than financial deals all stolen by either criminal cartels engaging in espionage or by foreign governments. some of those foreign governments when they steal information from u.s. corporations turned around and give that information to
5:23 pm
companies in their own country. now, that accusation has been made a lot by the united states, particularly by the french. they say the united states up there hacking and stealing information and giving it to u.s. companies. that's not true. i can assure you it's not true. it's illegal, we don't do it, but other people do. it has totally changed the nature of espionage. think about traditional espionage. think about older james osama might that, who was smuggling out pieces of paper. smuggling out pieces of paper from the fbi unit down the street here. every time he did it at risk of being caught, taking pieces of paper and putting them in issue and then having to meet his russian handler in some park somewhere or have a dead letter drop in some park in washington
5:24 pm
to pass information on. i was traditional espionage. you know how hard that was? first of all, the russian has to find an american on the inside who would likely do this by. that target spotting was incredibly intense, took most of the time's spies target spotting. then you find a person in my provide the information. you have to persuade them, pay them, to all of this manipulation and is very risky. and what do you get as a result? a shoebox filled with paper. in one hour, a hacker can get into a network and export trade equivalent of the library of congress. terabytes of information out the door in minutes, certainly in hours. and most of the time, this
5:25 pm
happens to companies or institutions involved don't know this at the time. most of them know after the fact with nature their logs, but sometimes even then they don't know that this information has been expo traded successfully. cyberespionage has totally change the world of spying. cyberwar, how is that different? last october 1, the united states government opened something called u.s. cybercommand, which is headed by general keith alexander who has either gotten his fourth store was about to get his fourth star. so u.s. cybercommand is a military organization that includes navy units, air force units, he stood up something called the template. the template has no ships. the air force about something called the 24th air force,
5:26 pm
which has no planes were no missiles. the 10th fleet and the 24th air force report to cybercommand and their battle space, cyberspace. so we have military organizations designed to flight in cyberspace and were not alone in public testimony, leon panetta, the cia director has said between 20 and 30 nations now have military organization similar to cybercommand, designed to fight in cyberspace. how do you fight in cyberspace? you're envisioning kiana reeves in the matrix are some name. not quite. get axiom is not. what do you do? what i typed about in the beginning, if you're on the offensive, you hack your way into those systems on which we all depend weird you hack your way into the control system for a power.
5:27 pm
and cause a blackout. you say that's a nuisance, but i can flick the switch and turn the power back on. well, maybe. but maybe the attack was designed to cause lasting damage to the power grid. maybe it melted high tension wires and caused generators to spin out and explode before it caused a blackout. if that were true, the blackout would last for weeks if not moms. what if the attack was on the railroad and caused at key junctions on the freight rail networks are to be mounted to rail mints causing days, if not weeks when the railroads would work and supplies couldn't move. what if he was on their traffic control system for the airlines and we were grounded for days, the way europe was last month because of the volcano.
5:28 pm
what if all that happened at the same time? and what if in addition to attacking those civilian infrastructures, the military organization that was attacking also attacked the other military. so, they turn up the communication system for the other military. or have they turned off the air defense of the other military. to make this clear, let me give you one example of how this could work. cyber"cyber war" the book opens up at the scene in syria in 2007. syrian air defense operators are sitting there at night, almost midnight. looking at their radar screens, there's not much up in the air at that time of night. nothing going on, all is well. at the exact same momentthat they thought the sky was empty, the sky was filled with israeli
5:29 pm
f-15 and f-16 had it flown to turkey and then did a right hook and came down into syria to pull up a secret nuclear facility in the corner of syria up near the turkish border. they bombed it, destroyed it and escaped and never once did any of those big f-15's and big f-16 show up on syria's radar screens. mbf is teens and f-16's were designed to mimic 70's in their big and reflect radar like us mistry lighting up, but they never appeared on the theory and radar screens. because before israel launched its plans, it launched a cyberattack. secretly take over the syrian air defense network and gave the syrian air defense operators an
5:30 pm
image that israel wanted them to see, which was nothing is happening. those explosions you hear in the background and those airplanes are your flying overhead must be someone's tv. so cyberwar has already started. there are examples of cyberwar. estonia was attacked a few years ago. it's banking system, it don't system crashed. people from russia, perhaps the russian government, but people did it. a year later when russia invaded a nation of georgia, as their tanks were rolling across the border into georgia, they're cyberattack was simultaneously a curried, bringing down communication systems, banking and other key functions of the georgian government. it's not a theory. it's happened. it's happened on a small scale. it's happened somewhat
5:31 pm
primitively, but it has happened in the real world here and we know that they bought more can be done then have happened in cyberspace. so is this a good name? cyberwar may be better than other wars, bikeways people don't get killed in cyberwar, it's clean, it's neat. we don't have to do calisthenics well, we argue in the book they're cyberwar probably is not a good idea, that if we could put the toothpaste back into the two-way web. unfortunately, we can't. we argue that cyberwar is not a good idea for two major reasons. one, the united states is relatively defenseless, in case it is attacked in cyberwar. and two, cyberwar can leave pretty quickly to a shooting war. and so, you might think well,
5:32 pm
you know, it's only a cyberwar, let's do it. and the next thing you know all hell is broken this. i said the united states is relatively defensive and i know a lot of you are thinking how could that possibly be? well, we're really good on the offense, cybercommand and other units in the u.s. and military intelligence community have been doing this stuff for years. he invented it, they're really good at it and you have to assume that anything anybody else is doing probably the united states government is doing, two. when you hear about all those hack into google everything else in america, somebody is probably doing it to china. but we have no plan, no system, no strategy to defend this country against cyberattack.
5:33 pm
cybercommand has a mission that involved not only offense, but it is supposed to defend the military. and the intelligence community. and the department of homeland security, which is so good at everything else, their mission is to be capable someday of defending the rest of the federal government. okay, so maybe someday we'll have the federal government covered it will probably have the military and intelligence community coverdell. what about all that other stuff? what about the power grid in the railroads and the airplanes of the banks and all those things that make the country work? all those things on which the government and the military depend, just as much as we do. there's no plan to defend them. there is no government agency who thinks his job is to defend them. and given the nature of our society, our economy, our laws,
5:34 pm
our progress, it would be very difficult choice to set up a system to defend what is 80% of our cyberspace. now, you think china has that problem? do you think russia has that problem? in russia, there is one big internet service provider. i don't have verizon and at&t. there is one really big and that service provider and it's owned by the russian government. and largely run by their version of an actual security law. china has already started architecting and designing the cyberspace that they can shut it off for the rest of the world. they have drawbridges in cyberspace that they can pull up and isolate the country. and they can filter for content running through their cyberspace
5:35 pm
in other words, they've thought about defending against the cyberwar and they have a system. it's not perfect, but they have a system. china does, russia does. and then there's little old north korea. north korea that i can barely feed its people. actually, you can't feed its people. north korea stage a little cyberattack on the united states last july 4th, just a little test to see if they could do it. and they did. they attacked most federal government agencies. it is a simple denial of service attack and to knock them off the web and they did. it was the largest service attack ever recorded on the internet. and we're pretty sure north korea did it, but not from north korea because they don't have any internet. they don't have any cyberspace and north korea. they barely have tv. so they sent their cyberwarriors
5:36 pm
to china and to south korea and that's where they launched their cyberattack. so with north korea stage is a big cyberattack on us and want to attack them back in cyberspace, they have no cyberspace for us to attack, which is the best solution you could ever have for defending cyberspace. [laughter] you know the three laws of cybersecurity? first law of cybersecurity is don't have a computer. well, you have to have a computer. but if you have good computer, the second law of cyberspace supplies. don't turn it on. you have to turn it on? then the third law of cyberspace supplies. if you have to have a computer, and turn it on, don't plug it into anything like the internet. that's kind of the north korean
5:37 pm
approach to defend. we don't have an approach to defense. unfortunately, the bush administration and the obama administration's philosophies will defend ourselves and the rest of you in the air, you are on your own. it's a bit like is in the cold war when the russians have all those bombers that were designed to come over here and bombed our industry. it's a bit like the u.s. government and dwight eisenhower and john f. kennedy turning to the air, same to u.s. steel, the ceo of u.s. steel, you have all those steel plants in pittsburgh and in a war, the russian bombers are going to come and amen. so the u.s. steel? he went to go out and buy some their defense. that's not what they said. that's not what eisenhower and kennedy said here today said the united states government will
5:38 pm
defend against the russian pack. but today, we're being told, we are on our own. we have to defend against cyberwar, cyberespionage, cybercrime, not good. so the arguments we make in the book are we need a defense strategy for the whole of our country. and that defense strategy has to be part of an overall strategy for cyberwar, which has to be publicly discussed. we don't have a national strategy for cyberwar. the congress doesn't know about one through the public doesn't know about one. the media doesn't know about one and i am informed that there isn't one, so we need a strategy. we need a defensive strategy. we also need not just to focus on cyberwar, but to focus on
5:39 pm
cyberpeas. you know, i did arms-control for over two decades in the state department. arms-control balding biological weapons, chemical weapons, strategical nuclear weapons, conventional weapons. every time we started one of these things i was told that's too hard. you're going to fix this one? it's too hard come you can't do biological arms control. you can't do can't do arms control on things in space. you can can't do arms control on chemical weapons. and they were all very hard, but we got arms control agreements on all of them. and those arms control agreements made the world safer. some of us think the work that the united states did in the cold war on nuclear arms control probably saved the world, probably stopped or made more difficult, reduce the likelihood of a nuclear war.
5:40 pm
so we think it's about time we start thinking about arms control in cyberspace because we know it's difficult. we know there are purification problems. we note you can't trust people. but we know that the military of 20 or 30 nations is moving into cyberspace. so it's about time that arms-control people do, too. and begin to take baby steps that may be will get us one day not to cyberwar, but to cyberpeas. thank you very much and i'll be glad to take your questions. our [applause] guests are in the blue shirt. >> wait for the microphone so everyone can hear the question.
5:41 pm
>> thank you. for nearly half a century, we lived in a world where assured mutual destruction was the key word to keeping the cold war a cold war. my question to you would be if there was an hour class right now with the sand running through it, what kind of a timeframe do you put on this current cold war before it becomes hot? >> well, if it gets hot in the sense that cyberespionage is happening every day both against governments and against industries. in terms of cyberwar is happening, there have been little one, like estonia, like georgia. the nationstates are not going to go out and fight a cyberwar just because they got some new shiny cyberweapon. you know, nine patients had been nuclear weapons for decades and
5:42 pm
the only time anyone has ever used a nuclear weapon in anger has been asked and that was in 1945. so, nations -- nations are so responsible act or is. that's a good thing about nationstates as opposed to terrorists. nationstates will not go to war just because they got a new weapon. but when they choose to go to war next, most nations will involve cyberand there is a component of the war or a standalone. so imagine for the sake of argument that we get sanctions on iran, trying to get you in fictions on iran to stop their nuclear war. let's say just as illustrative, did she get u.n. fictions come the oil embargo on iran. iranians are not going to like it, so they're going to retaliate. they're going to terrorism attacks in afghanistan and iraq and elsewhere. but if they have cyberweapons, which i believe they do, then
5:43 pm
they could respond to the u.s. fifth fleet stopping their oil imports. they could respond not just in the persian gulf, they could respond here by attacking infrastructure here. so that's one scenario that i think is highly plausible good but the point is whenever nationstates go to war, if they are sophisticated modern state and even if they are north korea, when they go to war in the future, they would use the cyberweapons. and there's not a clock that driven by the cyberweapons. there is a clock that is driven by other political military and economic factors. you may see a standalone cyberwar as the attack on estonia was. you may see it as part of an overall military campaign as the attack on georgia was. yes, sir, in the red sweater.
5:44 pm
>> based on what you said, the previous agreements and other types of warfare, chemical, biological and nuclear and so forth were able to achieve agreements because as mutually assured destruction you do it to us, we'll do it to you. but based on what she said, we have no defense. when negotiating power when we have to negotiate a cyberpeace agreements. >> well, we discussed this at some length in the book. the thing that worked in the cold war and the nuclear balance with this concept of mutual assured destruction format. essentially what mad that if you surprise me, i will have enough nuclear weapons last after your attack to totally destroy you. we the united states came up with that theory. we've built enough nuclear weapons. by the way, we now know how many of hillary clinton announced,
5:45 pm
the pentagon announced last week on a nuclear weapons the united states had at the height of the cold war and how many we have today. it's like 33,000 nuclear weapons at the height of the cold war and like 5100 today. but the soviet union stopped at the theory of mutual insurance instruction, too. so with that mutual. we both said you can't hit nuclear weapons because if you do will blow up the world. you should try to apply that theory in cyberspace that breaks down for a lot of reasons. one, you don't really know sometimes who's attacking you in cyberspace. it's not with high confidence initially because you can, you can make it look like someone is attacking, when it's actually somebody else. number one. number two, and mad unit with a nuclear weapon would do. it would when your whole day. there were 20,000 -- is that right -- no, there were 2200
5:46 pm
nuclear explosions in the atmosphere during the testing period. and so, everybody got to see what clear weapons could do. and our nuclear weapons and china and russia and england, they'll do the same thing, very destructive. so there was some confidence in what the world would look like. we're not really sure who has what capability in cyberspace. you can't buy satellite over china and count the cyberwarriors the way we used a flyover and count the missiles and count the tanks and count the bombers. so mutual assured to structure the work too well. and as you point out, if you can't defend, if there is an asymmetry in the one country can defend itself really well and the other can't. and if the one that can discuss,
5:47 pm
then mutually assured destruction doesn't work too well. i still think that there are reasons to negotiate arms control, to prevent accidental war, to prevent war that gets out of control because cyberwar is very fast. the cyberattacks take place in seconds. they move at almost the speed of light. so there are reasons to do arms control. where not going to get the kind of arms control treaty we come for other things. this will be a different kind, but i think if we take baby steps, one little agreement at the time to reduce mistakes, to build confidence, to allow for attribution, ways of figuring out who actually did the attack through international cooperation. i think that's all worth doing. yes, ma'am.
5:48 pm
>> what is cyberpeace? it's interesting what google just went through in china, clearly different definitions. >> so cyberpeace as we define it in the book is an attempt to create international arms control regimes that make it unlikely that cyberwar will have been. so, it's things like i just talked about. international agreements to aid in figuring out who does attacks when they occur in national agreements to help each other if attacks are occurring. agreements that will take some target sets off the table. one of the things that happen in the nuclear business, the nuclear war business was we had agreements that we wouldn't low up, but they were understanding is that we wouldn't blow up each other's cities. we wouldn't low up each other's leadership because we blow up the leadership, there's no way of stopping it. we never had a plan, but we
5:49 pm
didn't intend to decapitate the other side because you need to have someone to turn the war of. so there were agreements or tacit understandings. we could probably get a tacit understanding or even an international treaty today not to attack international banking because everybody's invested in everybody else and the whole financial system is so good that for most countries, maybe not for north korea, maybe not for a man, you could create agreements to say don't attack this. before we invaded iraq the last time, there was a plan to do a cyberattack on the iraqi banking system and essentially to steal saddam hussein's money so he couldn't escape the country with his money. and president bush said no. he was going to kill 100,000 people and willing to invade in the country back to smithereens,
5:50 pm
but it wasn't willing to invest in the banking system. so there are beginning to be understandings about things that could be arms control and fibers race. and that together is what we call a cyberpeace. yes, sir. >> given the apparent necessity for cooperation between government and the dirt to create a cyberdefense and the knowledge everyone has but the reliability of software like windows produced by the private dirt, what role do you see for open source software and security products in the future defensive strategy? >> so open source is software put together by a collaboration of people around the world and there are no secrets in it.
5:51 pm
everybody can feel the winds and everyone can comment on it and improve it. i think open source is important because it's diverse. you know, everybody's running the same software and somebody figures out how to hack that software, then everybody is in trouble. so if everyone is running windows or apple, i think that's risky. the more operating systems you have come under greater diversity of operating systems. i think more likely something is still going to work after an attack. so i'm a big believer in diversity, open source isn't required to get that diversity. the open-source people like to say they're more secure than a proprietary systems. and you can get a real debate going among computer engineers that put us all to sleep about whether or not that's true. yes, sir.
5:52 pm
would you consider to be the actual threshold for determining whether a cyberattack as an act of war and is there any current international law that was making a sort of determination of what's appropriate in terms of retaliation. >> we should ask our international law expert sitting two rows behind you. we talk a little in the book about the existing international laws of war and the international agreements that exist, for example, there's an international agreement going back to 1939 not to bomb cities. you could construe some kind of cyberattacks as violating some of the existing international laws, but they were all written without cybernine. is the only real international agreement that we have some name the european union came up with and we have joined in other
5:53 pm
nations outside of europe have joined an international cybercrime. and it's a good first step. i'm personally, rush is not in japan is not and lots of people are not in it. but there's not very much international law get. so what would be the threshold of war? seems to me when a nationstate does something that damages or disrupt a network, so if a nationstate cybercommand comes in to another nations work and turns off the electric our bread, causes trains to derail, causes a real-world damage, that can be a race in the databanks. i mean, if someone came in and erased the data banks of the trust corp. in lower manhattan, that's not physical damage. but boy would it benefit the
5:54 pm
country. so it seems to me the criteria are a nationstate that there and doing damage or disruption, that's war. that cyberwar. a nationstate going in to the same site, hacking its way in and collecting information, that's not war. as espionage. and it turns out in many cases the difference between a penetration to do cyberespionage and a penetration to do cyberwar is a few keystrokes. and once you're in, you're in. if you go into that networking expo trade copy all the data, that's espionage. if you go into that network and cause the database to crash and erased or caused the train to derail, those few more keystrokes have made it work.
5:55 pm
yes, ma'am. >> with your argument, though, and i think you're right about mad is not necessarilycome as a do you know if it's enough. isn't it a case of mutually destruction by globalization that might limit the ability if they tend to when cyberattack or even north korea because gas they don't have a great toulouse, but they rely on china for a lot of support. so i figure the united states economically, take down our power grid, it hurts china because china is probably best in the united states, so therefore they're hurting themselves. if i may be going to keep everything but say a terrorist. terrorists have nothing to lose, but any country really does. even iran because of russian and french support for them. >> so that's an argument not against probability of cyberwar, but against the probability of war. that argument to me to talk about in the book. that argument when i hear it all
5:56 pm
the time about china is china on to all of treasury notes and where their big market and we are so totally economically intertwined that would never go to war with each other. i hope that's right. but we are building a hell of a lot of stuff just in case they do called aircraft carriers and tanks and planes and missiles. i think you have to upgrade on the assumption that even though there is global passionate and there is economic independence, human nature hasn't changed and there will still be wars. if there are wars in the future, unless you're talking about bernheim and rwanda, those wars are going to involve cyberwar. and the economic interdependence notwithstanding countries still go to war with each other.
5:57 pm
and there are a lot of people in the pentagon and down in tampa at centcom today who are worrying very seriously about the fact that we could go to war with iran in the next year or two. despite the economic in interdependence. i understand your argument, you appreciate it. you may be right, but i don't think it's an argument against the probability of cyberwar as much as it against cyberwar itself. and i wish you were right. >> perhaps he could take one more question. we know you have a busy afternoon. what to leave time for you to sign some books. >> on the audio. yes, sir. >> on the issue, back to the issue of being defenseless, if you look back in december of 2008, the commission we put out a report on cybersecurity and talked about that, talked about the need for public either, you know, cooperations read melissa
5:58 pm
put out her report a couple months later. you're the president almost a year ago to the date talking about cybersecurity. do you see -- now granted, they've had a few things distracting them, but do you see any likelihood that cybersecurity will become a more prevalent issue. and if so, when? >> so there have been cybersecurity presidential beginning in 1986 and they've all been very good. and most of what they suggested has been done or implemented. the 2008 report come it took president bush his last year to actually having a plan he funded and acted on. the bush plan in 2008, comprehensive national cyberinitiative, cnc i had 12 points, as you know. none of those 12 points were really designed to protect anything except the government.
5:59 pm
and so, the comprehensive national cyberinitiative was not comprehensive or national image didn't suggest anything that would protect the power grid or the rail system or the banking system. and that is still our policy. we haven't gone beyond that. i hope my friend howard who is now at the white house will go beyond that. i think and we discussed in the book that there are real daunting political challenges in the congress and given all the lobbying that goes on in washington to get any of these things fixed because a lot of what it's going to take to defend our cyberspace is a word that's very unpopular on k. street and very unpopular with most people on the hill here in washington. and that word is regulation. it's about as awful of a word as you can say in

267 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on