Guy-Philippe Goldstein: How cyberattacks threaten real-world peace

Translator: Elisabeth Buffard Reviewer: Veronica Martinez Starnes

Translator: Anders Finn Jørgensen Reviewer: Niels Justus

Good afternoon.

God eftermiddag.

If you have followed

Hvis du har fulgt de

diplomatic news in the past weeks,

diplomatiske nyheder i de forløbne uger

you may have heard of a kind of crisis

har du muligvis hørt om en slags krise

between China and the U.S.

mellem Kina og USA

regarding cyberattacks

vedrørende cyberangreb

against the American company Google.

mod det amerikanske selskab Google.

Many things have been said about this.

Mange ting er blevet sagt om dette

Some people have called a cyberwar

som nogle mennesker har kaldt en cyberkrig

what may actually be

men faktisk bare kan være

just a spy operation --

en spionageoperation--

and obviously, a quite mishandled one.

og naturligvis en helt fejlhåndteret en.

However, this episode reveals

Denne episode afslører dog

the growing anxiety in the Western world

den voksende bekymring i den vestlige verden

regarding these emerging cyber weapons.

hvad angår disse nye cybervåben.

It so happens that these weapons are dangerous.

Det er også rigtigt at disse våben er farlige.

They're of a new nature:

De er af ny karakter:

they could lead the world

De kunne føre verden

into a digital conflict

i en digital konflikt

that could turn into an armed struggle.

der kunne forvandles til en væbnet kamp.

These virtual weapons can also destroy the physical world.

Disse virtuelle våben kan også ødelægge den fysiske verden.

In 1982, in the middle of the Cold War

I 1982, midt i den kolde krig

in Soviet Siberia,

i sovjetisk Sibirien,

a pipeline exploded with a burst of 3 kilotons,

eksploderede en pipeline med en kraft på 3 kilotons,

the equivalent of a fourth of the Hiroshima bomb.

svarende til en fjerdedel af Hiroshimabomben.

Now we know today -- this was revealed

Vi ved i dag -- det blev afsløret

by Thomas Reed,

af Thomas Reed,

Ronald Reagan's former U.S. Air Force Secretary --

Ronald Reagans tidligere U.S. Air Force sekretær--

this explosion was actually the result

at denne eksplosion faktisk var resultatet

of a CIA sabotage operation,

af en CIA sabotageoperation

in which they had managed

hvor de havde formået

to infiltrate the IT management systems

at infiltrere IT styringssystemet

of that pipeline.

for denne rørledning.

More recently, the U.S. government revealed

For nylig, har den amerikanske regering afsløret

that in September 2008, more than 3 million people

at i september 2008, blev mere end 3 millioner mennesker

in the state of Espirito Santo in Brazil

i delstaten Espirito Santo i Brasilien

were plunged into darkness,

mørkelagt,

victims of a blackmail operation from cyber pirates.

som ofre for en afpresningsoperation udført af cyberpirater.

Even more worrying for the Americans,

Endnu mere bekymrende for amerikanerne,

in December 2008 the holiest of holies,

i december 2008 den helligste af hellige,

the IT systems of CENTCOM,

IT-systemer i CENTCOM,

the central command

kommandocentralen som

managing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,

leder krigene i Irak og Afghanistan,

may have been infiltrated by hackers

muligvis har været infiltreret af hackere

who used these:

der bruger disse

plain but infected USB keys.

almindelig men inficerede USB-nøgler.

And with these keys, they may have been able

Og med disse nøgler, kan de have været stand til

to get inside CENTCOM's systems,

at komme ind i CENTCOMSs systemer,

to see and hear everything,

og se og høre alt,

and maybe even infect some of them.

og måske endda inficere nogle af dem.

As a result, the Americans take the threat very seriously.

Resultatet er, at amerikanerne tager truslen meget alvorligt.

I'll quote General James Cartwright,

Jeg vil citere General James Cartwright,

Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

Næstformand Joint Chiefs of Staff,

who says in a report to Congress

som siger i en rapport til Kongressen

that cyberattacks could be as powerful as

at cyberangreb kunne være lige så stærke som

weapons of mass destruction.

masseødelæggelsesvåben.

Moreover, the Americans have decided

Derudover har amerikanerne besluttet

to spend over 30 billion dollars

at brug over 30 milliarder dollars

in the next five years

i de næste fem år

to build up their cyberwar capabilities.

på at opbygge deres cyberkrigskapaciteter.

And across the world today, we see

Og i hele verden i dag, ser vi

a sort of cyber arms race,

en slags cybervåbenkapløb,

with cyberwar units

med cyberkrigsenheder

built up by countries like North Korea

bygget op af lande som Nordkorea

or even Iran.

eller endda Iran.

Yet, what you'll never hear

Endnu, hvad du aldrig vil høre

from spokespeople

fra talsmænd

from the Pentagon or the French Department of Defence

fra Pentagon eller det franske forsvarsministerium

is that the question isn't really

er, at spørgsmålet handler ikke om

who's the enemy, but actually

hvem der er fjenden, men faktisk

the very nature of cyber weapons.

selve karakteren af cybervåben.

And to understand why, we must look at how,

Og for at forstå hvorfor, må vi se på, hvordan

through the ages, military technologies

militære teknologier gennem tiderne,

have maintained or destroyed

har vedligeholdt eller ødelagt

world peace.

freden i verden.

For example,

Eksempelvis

if we'd had TEDxParis

Hvis vi havde haft TEDxParis

350 years ago,

for 350 år siden

we would have talked about the military innovation of the day --

Ville vi have talt om datidens militære innovation --

the massive Vauban-style fortifications --

massive Vauban befæstninger --

and we could have predicted

og vi kunne have forudset

a period of stability in the world or in Europe.

en periode med stabilitet i verden eller i Europa.

which was indeed the case in Europe

der var faktisk tilfældet i Europa

between 1650 and 1750.

mellem 1650 og 1750.

Similarly, if we'd had this talk

På samme måde, hvis vi havde haft denne snak

30 or 40 years ago, we would have seen

30 eller 40 år siden, ville vi have set

how the rise of nuclear weapons,

hvordan stigningen af atomvåben,

and the threat of mutually assured destruction they imply,

og den trussel om gensidigt sikret udslettelse som de indebar,

prevents a direct fight between the two superpowers.

forhindrede en direkte kamp mellem de to supermagter.

However, if we'd had this talk 60 years ago,

Men, hvis vi havde haft denne snak for 60 år siden,

we would have seen how the emergence

Vi ville have set hvordan fremkomsten

of new aircraft and tank technologies,

nye luftfartøjer og kampvognsteknologier,

which give the advantage to the attacker,

som giver fordelen til angriberen,

make the Blitzkrieg doctrine very credible

gøre Blitzkrieg doktrinen meget troværdig

and thus create the possibility of war in Europe.

og dermed skabe muligheden for krig i Europa.

So military technologies

Så militære teknologier

can influence the course of the world,

kan påvirke verdens retning,

can make or break world peace --

kan afgøre knald eller fald for verdensfreden--

and there lies the issue with cyber weapons.

og der ligger problemet med cybervåben.

The first issue:

Det første spørgsmål:

Imagine a potential enemy announcing

Forestil dig en potentiel fjende annoncerer

they're building a cyberwar unit,

at de opbygger en cyberkrigsenhed,

but only for their country's defense.

men kun til deres lands forsvar.

Okay, but what distinguishes it

Okay, men hvad adskiller det

from an offensive unit?

fra en offensiv enhed?

It gets even more complicated

Det bliver endnu mere kompliceret

when the doctrines of use become ambiguous.

når doktriner for brug bliver flertydige.

Just 3 years ago, both the U.S. and France

For kun 3 år siden ville både USA og Frankrig

were saying they were investing militarily in cyberspace,

investere militært i cyberspace,

strictly to defend their IT systems.

udelukkende for at forsvare deres IT-systemer.

But today both countries say

Men i dag siger begge lande

the best defense is to attack.

det bedste forsvar er at angribe.

And so, they're joining China,

Og så de gør som Kina,

whose doctrine of use for 15 years has been

hvis doktrinen om anvendelse i 15 år har været

both defensive and offensive.

både defensiv og offensiv.

The second issue:

Det andet spørgsmål:

Your country could be under cyberattack

Dit land kunne være under cyberangreb

with entire regions plunged into total darkness,

med hele regioner mørkelagt,

and you may not even know

og du kan ikke engang vide

who's attacking you.

hvem der angriber dig.

Cyber weapons have this peculiar feature:

Cybervåben har denne ejendommelige funktion,

they can be used

at de kan bruges

without leaving traces.

uden at efterlade spor.

This gives a tremendous advantage to the attacker,

Dette giver en kolossal fordel til angriberen,

because the defender

fordi forsvaren

doesn't know who to fight back against.

ikke ved, hvem han skal kæmpe i mod.

And if the defender retaliates against the wrong adversary,

Og hvis forsvaren gengælder mod den forkerte modstander,

they risk making one more enemy

risikerer de at få en fjende mere

and ending up diplomatically isolated.

og ender diplomatisk isoleret.

This issue isn't just theoretical.

Dette problem er ikke blot teoretisk.

In May 2007, Estonia was the victim of cyberattacks,

I maj 2007 var Estland offer for cyberangreb,

that damaged its communication

der beskadiget deres kommunikations-

and banking systems.

og banksystemer.

Estonia accused Russia.

Estland beskyldte Rusland.

But NATO, though it defends Estonia,

Men NATO, selvom de forsvarer Estland,

reacted very prudently. Why?

reagerede med forsigtighed. Hvorfor?

Because NATO couldn't be 100% sure

Fordi NATO ikke kunne være 100% sikker på

that the Kremlin was indeed behind these attacks.

at Kreml faktisk stod bag disse angreb.

So to sum up, on the one hand,

For at opsummere, på den ene side

when a possible enemy announces

Når en mulig fjende annoncerer

they're building a cyberwar unit,

de opbygger en cyberkrigsenhed,

you don't know whether it's for attack

ved du ikke, om det er for angreb

or defense.

eller forsvar.

On the other hand,

På den anden side

we know that these weapons give an advantage to attacking.

Vi ved, at disse våben give en fordel ved at angribe.

In a major article published in 1978,

I en større artikel offentliggjort i 1978,

Professor Robert Jervis of Columbia University in New York

hvor professor Robert Jervis fra Columbia University i New York

described a model to understand

beskrev en model til at forstå

how conflicts could arise.

hvordan konflikter kunne opstå.

In this context,

I denne sammenhæng

when you don't know if the potential enemy

når du ikke ved om den potentielle fjende

is preparing for defense or attack,

forbereder sig for forsvar eller angreb,

and if the weapons give an advantage to attacking,

og hvis våbnene giver en fordel ved at angribe,

then this environment is

så vil dette miljø

most likely to spark a conflict.

mest sandsynligt udløse en konflikt.

This is the environment that's being created

Dette er det miljø, som er skabt

by cyber weapons today,

ved cybervåben i dag

and historically it was the environment in Europe

og historisk det var miljøet i Europa

at the onset of World War I.

ved påbegyndelsen af første verdenskrig.

So cyber weapons

Så cybervåben

are dangerous by nature,

er farlige karakter af natur,

but in addition, they're emerging

men derudover udvikler de sig

in a much more unstable environment.

i et meget mere ustabilt miljø.

If you remember the Cold War,

Hvis du kan huske den kolde krig,

it was a very hard game,

Det var et meget hårdt spil,

but a stable one played only by two players,

men et stabilt et spillet af kun af to aktører,

which allowed for some coordination between the two superpowers.

hvilket tillod noget koordinering mellem de to supermagter.

Today we're moving to a multipolar world

I dag bevæger vi os til en multipolær verden

in which coordination is much more complicated,

hvori koordinering er langt mere kompliceret,

as we have seen at Copenhagen.

som vi har set i København.

And this coordination may become even trickier

Og denne koordinering kan blive endnu vanskeligere

with the introduction of cyber weapons.

med indførelsen af cybervåben.

Why? Because no nation

Hvorfor? Fordi ingen nation

knows for sure whether its neighbor

med sikkerhed ved om sin nabo

is about to attack.

er ved at angribe.

So nations may live under the threat

Så kan nationer må leve under truslen

of what Nobel Prize winner Thomas Schelling

af hvad nobelpristager Thomas Schelling

called the "reciprocal fear of surprise attack,"

kaldet "gensidighed frygt for et overraskelsesangreb"

as I don't know if my neighbor

hvor jeg ikke ved om min nabo

is about to attack me or not --

er ved at angribe mig eller ej--

I may never know --

Jeg kan aldrig vide--

so I might take the upper hand

så jeg kan udnytte fordelen ved

and attack first.

at angribe først.

Just last week,

Netop i sidste uge,

in a New York Times article dated January 26, 2010,

i en artikel i New York Times dateret 26 januar 2010,

it was revealed for the first time that

Det blev afsløret for første gang

officials at the National Security Agency

embedsmænd på National Security Agency

were considering the possibility of preemptive attacks

overvejede muligheden for forebyggende angreb

in cases where the U.S. was about

i tilfælde, hvor USA risikerede

to be cyberattacked.

at blive udsat for cyberangreb.

And these preemptive attacks

Og disse forebyggende angreb

might not just remain

forbliver måske ikke blot

in cyberspace.

i cyberspace.

In May 2009, General Kevin Chilton,

I maj 2009, General Kevin Chilton,

commander of the U.S. nuclear forces,

kommandør af de amerikanske atomvåbenstyrker,

stated that in the event of cyberattacks against the U.S.,

erklæret, at i tilfælde af et cyberangreb mod USA,

all options would be on the table.

ville alle muligheder være på bordet.

Cyber weapons do not replace

Cybervåben erstatter ikke

conventional or nuclear weapons --

konventionelle eller nukleare våben--

they just add a new layer to the existing system of terror.

de tilføje blot et nyt lag til det eksisterende trusselssystem.

But in doing so, they also add their own risk

Men dermed de også tilføje deres egen risiko

of triggering a conflict --

for at udløse en konflikt--

as we've just seen, a very important risk --

som vi netop har set, en meget vigtig risiko--

and a risk we may have to confront

og en risiko vi kan imødegå

with a collective security solution

med en kollektiv sikkerhedsløsning

which includes all of us:

hvilket omfatter os alle:

European allies, NATO members,

Europæiske allierede, NATO-medlemmer,

our American friends and allies,

vores Amerikanske venner og allierede,

our other Western allies,

vores andre vestlige allierede,

and maybe, by forcing their hand a little,

og måske ved at tvinge deres hånd lidt,

our Russian and Chinese partners.

vores russiske og kinesiske partnere.

The information technologies

Informationsteknologierne

Joël de Rosnay was talking about,

Joël de Rosnay talte om,

which were historically born from military research,

som historisk blev født fra militær forskning,

are today on the verge of developing

i dag er på nippet til at udvikle

an offensive capability of destruction,

en offensiv kapacitet for ødelæggelse,

which could tomorrow, if we're not careful,

som i morgen, hvis vi ikke passer på,

completely destroy world peace.

helt kan ødelægge freden i verden.

Thank you.

Tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)