Fellow on the board at the Atlantic Council welcome to this session we are delighted youre here. This event is part of the center from International Security. We are followed on twitter so all of those there online we encourage you to join the conversation if you have questions you can send them and we will try to incorporate them. The conversation is about the book the darkening web via Alexander Klimburg you can pick that up by your local bookstore. It is an outstanding book i have read parts of it and i recommend it. Though whole series of sight cyberseries is to bring experts in of the public together in conversations of the importance so we have a terrific group here today and you all know that we have had a lot of incidents in the last few weeks. Like ukraine, rand somewhere , and multiple sets of questions. The internet raises issues that the originators and never really thought about. Is say public good or the International Public good so who will keep a good . Have to do that . Rigo there are problems at the how do you handle the question . There is the approach from the multi a stakeholder bottle how do they relate to the stakeholders . And what are the issues between them . We have lots of threats stage actors all of these issues and as you think about these questions but what problem are you really trying to solve . Not the technology but the problem. And the problems range considerably. Go to the other end with the cyberconflict of questions of espionage crime and terrorism then bill whole influence arena some people talk about hybrids or influence in how that differs from attack on operational systems what is the role of government . And one year ago established the e. U. Coated conduct from mine hate speech touche notified the Platform Companies and it is illegal in many places in europe and germany Just Creative legislation to that effect. We have terrific people here for all these questions teeeight nine has written the book on this called the darkening web and Program Director for strategic studies in with European Security policy. Glad to have you here. And yes ceo of north america the department of Homeland Security. And that is that the hearts of many of those debates but the most recent addition stiver security firms and that is by a the moderation as a political reporter for cnn. And those wide set of issues for now level turnover to alex in to lay out some things. It is a great pleasure to be here but i think theres more time so whit that transatlantic values it is clear there right now those military alliances or governments and we have day impressive assortment so congratulations on that as well. I hope we have a chance to get into the weeds with our discussion to give a rough outline of those main points but the u. S. In particular very often it concentrates cybersecurity as that technical issue like russia and china concentrate on that psychological issue. And the consequence is with that Global Internet and what most people would consider the universal good that we see this universal good transformed to something quite darker. But then to be controlled. But it is a nightmare for some individuals but for others it is a dream to pursue. Someone once conducted an experiment to try to figure out the nightmares are Common Dreams and people have different dreams of how they should be and this is one of the reasons the strategic arms talks there is one single nightmare that we were afraid of that would bind the east and west together for what we wanted to avoid we dont have a single by mayor and with that narrative with that inadvertent escalation and then day spiral out of control and what we are working at to be restored to go back to the 1950s but for others it is of the worst possible so the and that most realistic threat that it is primarily a means to allow the four nations to interfere in Domestic Affairs so then it is a type of a new type of attack but through those plans through the internet that would be a threat to them personally so theyre much more concerned with Law Enforcement than the application of International Law. So i call them as a simple goal to fundamentally change the way that is from that loosely linked complex and that is the priority here and government can blow things up but they want to move the control and those that are dominated by the governments to move away from california the registered nonprofit but that is a big part of the domain name service. And olsen of the they see that information as a weapon. And then to an act that Law Enforcement regime. Such as blocking translated copies of the new york times. Or to take down websites. That is the only way to ensure the ability for crowfoot so to think of the rule of cybersecurity in since the late 1990s with Un General Assembly in different ways to pursue this. So is difficult to say were forming a u. N. Agency but every time there is a cyber attack with that malfeasance and with the advancement of the intergovernmental of that stakeholders solution. So comparing cyberin with that state of discussion around the 60s so still figuring things out but also cautions because the actions involved are too dissimilar ended is pretty clear who needs to be of the room. And then dont play that big a role in cyberspace but the biggest problem is as a sole arbitrator and security concerns and that is a problem. And then the government stands up to say we defend day multistate colder to take up too much of the play in this space to further that agenda and then getting us to do do something and then like in 2015 the number of channels over catastrophically and the perpetrator is supposed to do be isis and two weeks later the french government to establish a was military intelligence and so the question is why would they do such a thing . From my point of view it was obvious to have cyberterrorism as a narrative have use of the internet we dont actually have cyberterrorism at. So over six months spending a large portion of my time they put out regarding cyberterrorism. Because fundamentally one of the agreements is you dont support that narrative of cyberterrorism. That is what it means the use of internet. The there is another example of another example is more interesting to blow something up with that political narrative. This is why i keep coming back to how important it is to understand why the cyber attack might be information welfare attack. Maybe not to steal your data but simply pushing the narrative that we saw in the last couple weeks and they have no interest to decrypt the system you cannot even reach them online so what was the of purpose . And those attacks have a pattern that pushes the government to do something and grab the narrative that is construed so after the terror attacks that she was the case to take the leading role of data so we are already in the state that which is referred to as the mother of democracies was considering this level of intrusion but luckily it was not included in the queens speech so maybe it would not be implemented. So there are many analogies for cyberif you use them talk about cyberwar. Talk about Public Health issues for Climate Change but although these are useful but there is one problem we should keep in mind above all else. What is the worst possible outcome that has greengage than government regulation . And with the Cyber Capabilities with the worst possible outcome were trying to of with. And for me and to three effectively announcement and its asian of information cnn of Washington Post are all pawns sink to by government this is a scary vision may be happening even 10 years as a possible nightmare bernanke designer chose 60 your 70 years. And then to have those full commitments and that proper segmentation of Security Issues that need to be high in the separate to fundamentally in danger as it is today. Because there is no free speech or free society. [applause] day que alex and i am a reporter at cnn. To the other panelists so we would just dive right in and it is fascinating stuff with lots to cover it may be more useful to start with a particular case that were all too familiar with at this point of the russian meddling in the 2016 election. As it becomes discussed as a cyberevent of hacking personal emails with that spearfishing campaign to root was used to disseminate these events as separate incidents with one actual breach was confirmed but no exultation or changing so my question for the panel is is actually useful to think of what happened . Or do we risk public understanding of what to do do about it by only through them . So maybe i will jump in. I faked people do that and there is of broad sense and there is outrage now whether or not that moves them to action but what do you do about what you know, . And then that brings us to the heart of this book and also to frame the question that the incident mondesi internet what is envisioned but they never imagined the the evil to which the instrument could be put it represents such a Universal Group for so many it is empowering, uplifting, in foreign informing and uplifting it is a universal could but who will keep a good . So bailey hacking of that electoral system is the attrition and then of us thought it would happen but i fake it does if you focus the mind. I think the 2016 example shows us the clash that alex tells so well in the book of this layout of how these countries seek information as the main currency of what cyberspace is about then we have another side that is led by the u. S. In this technical rome and was a 2016 signified a huge way is to ships passing in the night how to take about the problem so russian spent those years articulating how cedras security works to protect the information thinking of information as a weapon and what needs to be used to protect people. And advocating the sovereignty approach this is a place that can be sovereign but when you are willing to say that you put that out year after year and the west does its best to disagree with sovereignty because it goes again so much of those principles but you have those to a different views and then the dnc that working is attacked by the russians and then it shows the way of cyberspace is your up that the challenge how the west government can start to address the as putting us right at the center of the debate what to we want our National Cyberspace policies to look like and how they exhibit power how do you define the domain . I am not sure how you unpack those questions but now starting to deal with those to lou different mindsets. It is very apropos that you start with of terminology that is so essentials as a component as laura brought up if how do you respond . With Bad Information warfare and how the response can play directly into the purses and orchestrating the event . So that general concept that we need to go back to that is significant might only be about achieving of a total in the system or stealing data but to have a very political objective this is more aligned with the kgb a and the soviet union have conducted its experiments rather them the west so it has been that constrained issue of the of military level does us a bad strategic paradigms russia and china is seen as the way they have been raised so it is important that the comeback how to view that the european view is interesting especially the estonia or the germans will say that this is nothing new for us. But the level has ramped up massively but look at sweden that has been undergoing a campaign that puts the United States to shame with individuals and black males spiriting people and they are dealing with everything. So effectively the Approval Rating for joining nato that was neutral went from 16 to about 49 now they are reintroducing the draft sow it failed with ever the objective was. Why was it so successful in the United States when it failed france and germany and estonia, denmark, sweden and a lot of other countries. This is something i only address of the tail end of the book because happened after i finished writing but if you look at the two numbers you can see the level of trust italy 20 percent of the public thought the Mainstream Media was doing a good job italy 6 thinks that congress is doing a good job that cannot be a surprise that the u. S. Is a soft target so you cannot find anything like that in the western european nation not even Eastern European nations said this was the clear point to address had to even have an Approval Rating when chinese to say that Economic Growth that used to be the official position but fundamentally they dont think they could get by with 20 or 30 or 40 and no democracy can survive that somehow the we get to that Approval Rating . That is the question may need to ask. To with some perspective United States is exceptional but the public is angry everyone around the world is angry or in the face of london or paris or in the United States the movement for many was a manifestation of and directed and unindicted i am mad as hell and not take it anymore but the Publics Trust globally has collapsed with dont trust businesses or banks or media or the market and how they react with a range of the motions themselves the media is indignant that we dont. Why do we care what you think . Was institutions have to go back to fundamental principles and here is why you should care with the independent observer picks out the facts and not say theyre perfect but in the wake of Edward Snowden one conversation was particularly offensive to me as my german counterpart had an interesting colloquy among themselves Progress First they were so embarrassed right under our very noses with the german engineering. There will be more of it. There will be others and it will have been in other places. We need to understand this fundamental question of trust. How do we architect trust in public spaces and the fact that publics everywhere are angry it isnt purpose driven anger. This is anxiety based anger. We dont know how to architect trust. We are not sure we know how to architect trust in institutions and i think that is the heart of this question. How do we get to 6 maybe the question is how we get back up to 15 and congress has done that actually in the past few years the Approval Ratings started to pick back up over what john mccain wants to stay and the media took down to that level but one of the things you said was that the objective is to consolidate power in the government and you mentioned others have experienced this that they had a very similar episode a figure emerged on the internet. Fans had the ability to say you cant cover this and many institutions also well pervaded france you see sort of a wonderful view is there something more for the government to do to protect ourselves whereas you seem to be arguing that the exact opposite must be true so how do you unpack that tension of hearing that they did a very hands of the objectives. You come from the private sector perspective that but they often have as good of intelligence as the stuff that has the highest level of prosecution because you see it in the open market but how do you think about the role of the government and society in this response. Who do you trust in a space that is abstract. Cyberspace is an abstraction just like finances but. Im not convinced the government holds the cars for all that private sector and what have you and the kind of obvious statement as long as it has persevered given the ups and downs and changes over all these different elements that changed in the time that weve been watching this space. Thinking from a more proactive sense where both steps do we need to take or ask of the institutions that currently exist to govern the internet or translate what is happening to the internet is who holds what role and what do they carry forth. In the private sector, frequently they are looking at whether they are investigating a fortune 500 network where it wont be the first call or maybe the private sector has been on it for the first year or what have you. But what is the right level of oversight or lack of oversight when you are sitting in a government secret private seed on the Network Incident and Something Like that what do you do to talk about that for the rest of the world, knowing how huge the implications are around us. They came right out and said we know these russian government hackers and it was the community that followed suit months later. Even in releasing back in 2014, the report of this i will tell you we lost a lot of sleep and theres people in this room that lost a lot of sleep deciding whether we should reveal that we had a judgment that there is a russian government government groups and individuals behind it and what have you and that contributed to that conclusion earlier in 2016. So these are questions that a lot of people are dealing with and a mechanism that makes them more predictable with or without oversight is a huge question. What we keep coming back to is fascinating starting with the technical level and we take it up to the level of the National Response there are interesting things to be learned. Information security, what all the companies do which is called Information SecurityPeople Exchange information with each other according and sometimes that information shouldnt be shared because of legal reasons. Its also built the internet and cannot work without it with the operators and oth