Just a few days ago, cyber-security specialists and senior
government representatives met in Germany at the 50th annual Munich
Security Conference.
Since 1963, the MSC
has served as “an independent forum dedicated
to promoting peaceful conflict resolution and international cooperation and
dialogue in dealing with today’s and future security challenges.” (More at:
https://www.securityconference.de/en/).
Needless to say, in recent years, the MSC has focused on
security challenges in the realm of cyber.
This year’s sessions were no different.
One session in particular stood out for me: The January 31 Panel
Discussion focused on: "Rebooting Trust? Freedom vs. Security in
Cyberspace."
The President of Estonia made an opening statement, and then
the CEO of Deutsche Telekom introduced the panelists, including the German
Minister of the Interior, the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, Microsoft’s VP of
Security, Huawei’s Chief Security Officer (reminder: Huawei is my employer),
and the Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), Mike Rogers.
The panel was moderated by the President of the EastWest
Institute, an organization founded in 1980 which “seeks to make the world a safer place by addressing the seemingly
intractable problems that threaten regional and global stability.” (More on
EWI at http://www.ewi.info/).
Generally speaking, the panelists (almost all) acknowledged
the shattered trust in the information communication technology industry (and select governments) in the wake of the Snowden revelations. Likewise, the
panelists (most) detailed possible steps towards
restoring confidence.
One panelist, however, stuck out like a sore thumb (one
cannot imagine the countless phrases I considered and rejected for that
analogy): Chairman Mike.
Go figure.
Mike opened with an acknowledgment that there is “a trust
issue,” but pondered aloud about why the group was really gathered: “Damaging classified information that was
leaked? Maybe so.” But, Mike thinks not. Indeed, Mike commented that he was “a little surprised” that people were talking
about “the problems with the NSA.”
The Chairman then transitioned into scare-mongering about Iran,
North Korea, Russia, China, etc., oozed into an explanation that reports of
U.S. spying on French phone calls were misrepresented, and, subsequently, segued
to his key mis-direction of the day:
“The most recent
release of information…the United States engages in economic espionage…I have
been on the oversight committee doing oversight for our 16 intelligence
agencies…for the last ten years…It is against the law in the United States to
use our intelligence services for industrial espionage…If they do it, they are going
to jail. Period. End of story.”
Now that’s only part one of the mis-direction, but let’s
take a brief time-out to consider it.
Last September I posted on Mike’s utter failure to conduct
the oversight with which he is charged (link),
so I won’t belabor that point. But,
since he has raised laws and jail, let’s hold him to it: If future revelations show
that such industrial espionage did take place, then Mike, by virtue of his position,
is aware of and as such complicit to such “illegal” activity and he should be summarily
incarcerated…
…But let’s get back to the Chairman’s key mis-direction,
part two:
Per Mike: “Now
wouldn’t you find it interesting that that information was released at a time when
we’re trying to arrange a trade arrangement that I think benefits both Europe and
the United States… I do…”
This little nugget doesn’t get fully matured until the
Q&A session, but, the gist: The Russians are managing Snowden in order to
time his revelations to tank U.S.-EU Free Trade talks.
In the Q&A session, Mike hammers it home: “I think it’s a huge mistake to allow this
issue…to step in the way of a trade agreement between Europe and the United
States. These are two very separate
issues…but by tying them together I will guarantee you that you will see more
disclosures like we saw last week that the Americans engage in economic
espionage…”
He went on: “You’re gonna
see more of that because it breeds distrust – the Russians have a specific purpose
for driving a wedge between us and our European allies.”
The Chairman is wrong.
Not in terms of our seeing further revelations, but in terms of his interpretation
of the “tie” between European privacy concerns and the U.S.-EU Free Trade
talks.
Europeans have every right to consider privacy protections in
the context of U.S.-EU Free Trade negotiations – the former might (albeit unlikely)
serve as leverage towards achieving some sort of protections in the context of
agreeing the latter, although not likely in the actual substance of any trade
agreement. That is a legitimate tie. Mike’s suggestion that the Russians are
somehow orchestrating the tie borders on absurd.
It gets worse. Following
his initial suggestion that the Russians are orchestrating revelations, and in
advance of his Q&A session elaboration on this point, Mike goes on to propel
himself headlong into a trap he has set for himself more than once in recent
months:
In defending the integrity and due process of U.S. espionage
activities, the Chairman refers to “an
oversight mechanism that is not seen anywhere else in the world. Our judicial branch, our…legislative branch,
and our executive branch have to go through an approval process for these
activities… that is an important distinction and we argue that is our
transparency.”
Sigh.
Really? That
reference, and the Chairman’s subsequent Q&A session reference to the FISA court and 4th
Amendment protections, are both to processes that only
apply to American citizens, and, seemingly, only within U.S. borders, and, from
what we have had revealed to us by Mr. Snowden, perhaps not at all.
One thing is certain though: Europeans and other non-Americans do not benefit from any such oversight or Constitutional prophylaxis (as was pointed out by one clued-in questioner).
C’mon Mike. C’mon America.
Is this the best we have, is this the best we can do?
(Link to video of the full 1.5 hour panel discussion)
(Link to video of the full 1.5 hour panel discussion)