Comments on: Towards a Cyber Deterrent: Are we getting any closer?

By: david ronfeldt

david ronfeldt — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:49:49 +0000

tim steven's ubiwar blog led me here. what i was hoping for was moroe clarification about how best to organize, formally and informally, for cyber defense. your paper makes passing reference to assembling efforts by “a broad swath of experts in industry, academia and government” and from “Cross-functional, cross-discipline, public and private intellectual work”. but otherwise this organizational design aspect is unclear. i don't have the answer, but i tried to offer some points here, for what they're worth:

http://twotheories.blogspot.com/2009/07/toward-...

a main point is that the overall design should include a lot more than just key government and big industry actors.

By: david ronfeldt

david ronfeldt — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:49:49 +0000

http://twotheories.blogspot.com/2009/07/toward-...

a main point is that the overall design should include a lot more than just key government and big industry actors.

By: Burying Nitze | Haft of the Spear

Burying Nitze | Haft of the Spear — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:45:34 +0000

[...] old friend and colleague Bob Gourley asks if we are any closer to achieving a cyber deterrence policy. I say: stop burning CPU cycles focusing on a narrow set of legacy futures or start developing new [...]

By: ctovision

ctovision — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:14:47 +0000

Thanks Dunsany for the link. I tend to agree that the counter intel model has been undersupported and I appreciate your comment and the brief at the link. Thanks!

By: dunsany

dunsany — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:03:47 +0000

I feel the answer lies in a different direction for cyber-deterrence – more of a counter-intelligence model. http://www.iedtalk.com/2009/07/slides-and-notes...