Feature Podcast: Inaction is escalatory
This podcast is brought to you by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and it’s the second in a series of podcasts we’re doing that are all about cyber policy. The Foundation funds a lot of interesting people and work in the cybersecurity space. So the idea behind this podcast series is pretty simple: we talk to Hewlett’s grant recipients, or experts in Hewlett’s network, about pressing policy issues and turn those conversations into podcasts. The whole idea is to get some policy perspectives out there among the Risky Business audience, which, funnily enough, includes a lot of policymakers. In this podcast we’re speaking with Katherine Charlet. She currently serves as the director of the Technology and International Affairs Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Prior to joining Carnegie, Kate served as the deputy assistant secretary of defence for cyber policy, where she managed the development of US Department of Defence cyber policy and strategy, its development of cyber capabilities, and the expansion of its international relationships. This conversation essentially covers what the state of affairs is when it comes to militaries and their actions in the cyber domain. It was only a few weeks ago that reports claimed the United States government launched a cyber attack against Iranian weapons systems. We’ll hear from Kate about what she thinks that all means, and then we’re going to talk about all sorts of stuff really – the blurring of the line between what warrants a law enforcement response versus a military response, what the path to this situation looked like, so on and so on. But I kicked things off by asking Kate to tell us what this concept of “defending forward” actually means. In the last couple of years we’ve heard that term bandied about by all sorts of people, but everyone seems to have a different definition. Here, Kate shares her more definitive definition.