6th European Conference - Academic Conferences

Marthie Grobler et al.
apply to state behavior in cyber space.” (Markoff 2010). The report recommends five steps to improve
international cyber cooperation and security:
Having more discussions about the ways different nations view and protect their computer
networks, including the Internet;
Discussing the use of computer and communications technologies during warfare;
Sharing national approaches on legislation about computer security;
Finding ways to improve the Internet capacity of less developed countries; and
Negotiating to establish common terminology to improve the communications about computer
networks (Markoff 2010).
The signers of the report are major cyber powers and of other nations: the United States, Belarus,
Brazil, Britain, China, Estonia, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Qatar, Russia, South Africa and
South Korea. From a legal perspective, a number of concerns can be identified, such as:
Lack of collaboration between industry and the defense environment;
Capacity of the legal fraternity to comprehend the complexity of the cyber environment and to
deliver a verdict based on a thorough understanding of the facts;
Collaboration between countries and the agreements on protocols;
Lack of collaboration between State Departments on cyber warfare and cyber crime;
Lack of collaboration between municipalities, districts, regions and provinces; and
Lack of collaboration between urban and tribal authorities.
Networked computers now control everything, including bank accounts, stock exchanges, power
grids, the defence, the justice system and government. Networked computers also control all health
records and crucial personal data. From a single computer an entire nation can be brought down. The
authors are of the opinion that a series of regional conferences with all stakeholders involved and
sponsored by private sector should be conducted. Significant progress has been made in South
Africa, but commitments are required to draft a comprehensive Charter for South Africa and its unique
situation.
4. International cyber warfare
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is only just beginning to recognize that the Internet
has become a new battleground that also requires a military strategy. To counter such threats, a
group of NATO members established a cyber defense centre in Tallinn. The 30 staffers at the
Cooperative Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence analyze emerging viruses and other threats and
pass on alerts to sponsoring NATO governments. Experts on military, technology, law and science
are wrestling with such questions as: what qualifies as a cyber attack on a NATO member, and so
triggers the obligation of alliance members to rush to its defense; how can the alliance defend itself in
cyber space? Answers to these questions are strikingly different: Washington creates new funds for
cyber defenses; Estonia is aiming to create a nation of citizens alert and wise to online threats (NATO
ND).
The choice of Estonia as the home to NATO’s new cyber war brain trust is not accidental. In 2007,
Estonia suddenly found itself in the midst of cyber attacks. The fact that this happened in Estonia, a
proud digital society, was eye opening. Back in 2007, Estonia’s minister of defense stated that the
attacks cannot be treated as hooliganism, but as an attack against the State. Nevertheless, no troops
crossed Estonia’s borders, and there was nothing that could be regarded as a conventional conflict.
The United States clearly wants to take a military strategy approach. Estonia, on the other hand,
prefers to demilitarize the issue by educating citizens on how to identify risks and promote a culture of
cyber security, starting with schoolchildren. The Estonians have the right idea. A society of savvy
citizens is the best defense (Geers ND).
In response to the cyber attacks on Estonia in 2007 and Georgia, NATO set up a coordinated cyber
defense policy with a quick-reaction cyber team on permanent standby. This, however, has not
stopped the constant attack on NATO computers (Gardner 2009).
95