Thomas Rid Quotes

The DNC hack shows the rapid increase in sophistication of nation states (and Russia in particular) in using the Internet to project powers. We're seeing skilled malicious actors pushing the boundaries of what they can accomplish.

Deterrence is a dynamic, interactive process between at least two entities. Deterrence policies are predicated on threatening an adversary with pain if that adversary changes its behavior in ways that you find detrimental to your interests.

We’ve got more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively.

As our use of technologies grows exponentially, so do our country's vulnerabilities. Our national security depends on the stability and reliability of our communications infrastructure. The cyber threat to IT and national security systems has never been greater.

A lot of people have a lot to gain from peddling scare stories about cyber 'warfare.'

The single biggest existential threat that's out there, I think, is cyber.

Cyber weapons provide the tantalising possibility of being able to cripple the enemy without inflicting lasting damage on them.

While the vast majority of hackers may be disinclined towards violence, it would only take a few to turn cyber terrorism into reality.

Any great power—especially a great one suddenly deprived of its traditional adversary—faces the perennial dilemma of showing a reasonable return on its costly military investments.

Knowing what an opponent values is a necessary condition for deterrence success.

… threats that are not carried out—even ones that initially appear credible—can seriously undermine policy. Each successive idle threat invites an adversary to test boundaries even more than the last time, and so the consequences of bluffing grow increasingly perilous.

Deterrence is … a weak tool in the increasingly important realm of cyberspace, where it can be extremely difficult to be absolutely sure of an attacker’s identity.

Cybersecurity is a new issue for the international community at large. First of all, the technologies are new and the attacks are invisible. Traditionally, if you perceived a threat, it could be seen. It was physical. But not in cyberspace.

In the 19th century, there were only [the] Army and Navy. In the 20th century, we got airpower as the third dimension of war. In the 21st century, cyber will be the fourth dimension of war. It's another kind of weapon and it is for unlimited range and is very high speed, and, in a very low signature.

Over the next decade, the market-driven explosion of surveillance sensors and data analytics will bring an unprecedented level of transparency to global affairs. Commercial satellites will capture daily images of the entire globe, offering inexpensive and automated reports on everything from crop yields to military activity. Journalists, NGOs, and bloggers will increasingly use crowdsourced data to uncover wartime atrocities and expose government hypocrisy. Private security companies will discover the sources of cyberattacks and data theft. Biometric systems will expose the identities of clandestine operatives, and government agencies will struggle to contain leakers and whistleblowers.

Venture capitalists are pouring billions of dollars into commercial surveillance satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles, social media analytics, biometric technologies, and cyberdefenses to meet surging market demand. Heavy competition is driving down the cost of and improving the information available to individuals, businesses, and governments.

The Internet definitely could be a weapon of mass destruction - it's not going to come in a bomb, it's going to come as a cyberattack. It's pretty amazing to see what a small group of people can do if they really know how to control the universe.

Organized crime and rogue nation states and terrorists are very much focused on the Internet of things. The challenge that goes with connectivity is always security. The bad guys go wherever the return is, and now it's more lucrative for bad guys to focus on cybercrime than traditional crime.

The problem with cyber weapons for a country like ours is the ability to control them.

We're well aware, and we have been for a long time, that there is a real threat from adversaries, state actors, non-state actors, to hack us, influence us, destroy stuff through cyber means. Because cyber threat has been understood for a while, it's longstanding, it's a concern.

Cyber weapons won't go away, and their spread can't be controlled. Instead, as we've done for other destructive technologies, the world needs to establish a set of principles to determine the proper conduct of governments regarding cyber conflict.

Since most cyberwar is conducted covertly, governments avoid any public acknowledgment of their own abilities and shy away from engaging in any sort of 'cyber diplomacy.' Statecraft conducted in secret fails to create public norms for deterrence.

The reason I said the Internet is dangerous is that a couple smart guys could hack into a computer and shut down the Eastern seaboard if they wanted to. It's a terrible, out-of-control thing.

I think it's a little premature to talk about response until we know exactly what happened, but we should know what happened. And we should know how to defend [against hackers attacks] ourselves without question.

When people are talking about cyber weapons, digital weapons, what they really mean is a malicious program that's used for a military purpose. A cyber weapon could be something as simple as an old virus from 1995 that just happens to still be effective if you use it for that purpose.