Cyberspace as an Equalizer between Nation-States
by Ron McFarland, PhD
Introduction
Over the past decades, many researchers and politicians have proposed that cyberspace has acted as an “equalizer” among nation-states. However, it is essential to recognize that this notion of cyberspace as an equalizer coexists with the perpetuation of inequalities, which can be attributed to several factors. Let’s examine these factors in detail:
1. Cyberspace as an Equalizer (Cunningham, 2020):
a. Accessibility and Information Dissemination: The internet has played a crucial role in enhancing accessibility and rapidly disseminating information. In the past, financial limitations hindered the accessibility and quick spread of information. With the advent of the internet, information can now be disseminated more broadly and rapidly, enabling smaller nations with limited economic power to access information.
b. Economic Opportunities: The internet has opened up economic opportunities for smaller nations, allowing them to compete in the global marketplace. Startups and enterprises from these disadvantaged nations can challenge more financially stable organizations, thereby leveling the playing field.
c. Dissent: The internet has provided a platform for groups and individuals to express their views about their governments, even in countries where dissent is censored or punished. This ability to voice opinions and dialogue contributes to a more inclusive and participatory society.
2. Perpetuating Inequalities (Cunningham, 2020):
a. Digital Divide: The digital divide refers to the disparity in access to digital technologies between and within countries. This divide continues in cyberspace, exacerbating the gap between the privileged and the underprivileged regarding access to information.
b. Cybersecurity: More technologically advanced countries are better equipped to protect themselves against cyber threats and engage in cyber warfare. This creates power imbalances between smaller, less-developed nations and those with greater technological capabilities.
c. Data Sovereignty: Large tech companies, primarily based in the US and China, hold and manage vast amounts of data. These companies influence how the internet operates and shape data regulations. This power differential impacts data sovereignty and control, which can further perpetuate inequalities.
The Political Scene
While the imprint of imperialism is evident in today’s world, it has also impacted cyberspace. Developed nations have historically held superior status, and the Cold War intensified the power struggle between the United States and the USSR. Superpowers sought to ensure the allegiance of nations through conquest, economic colonization, puppet governments, and dictatorships. As a result, many nations continue to face underdevelopment, marked by limited resources, poverty, inadequate infrastructure, and underdeveloped education and healthcare systems. This lack of power and influence on the international stage can be attributed to the consequences of colonialism.
However, smaller nations that prioritize IT and cybersecurity development, irrespective of their overall development level, possess a tool of power that cuts across traditional instruments such as economics, politics, military strength, and access to information. These nations’ intent determines their capabilities and access to cyberspace, emphasizing the importance of governmental priorities in utilizing this tool effectively (Kuehl, 2009 as cited in Rugge, 2018).
At the heart of a nation’s intent is that the same cyber tools used by network operators can also be exploited by “bad actors” for vandalism, espionage, data theft, and other forms of cybercrime (Rugge, 2018). Smaller nations with limited resources often face the challenge of choosing how to use cyberspace, including access, capacity, objectives, and cybersecurity measures to mitigate threats within their borders.
For instance, Lithuania, as a smaller nation, demonstrates robust national support for cybersecurity infrastructure, reflected in its high ranking on the global cybersecurity index. However, due to resource constraints, Lithuanian computer science professionals often have to be versatile rather than specializing in a single area (Bukauskas, et al., 2023).
IT Prioritization
Prioritizing IT development in countries needing more resources and prosperity means that other aspects of national development may receive less attention, potentially leading to restricted access to cyberspace. Iran, for example, seeks to isolate its citizens from Western influence and knowledge but engages extensively in offensive cyber activity while neglecting defense. Iran’s cyberattacks target international institutions and dissident groups within its borders, discouraging contact with Western culture and ideals (Rugge, 2018).
In the case of underdeveloped countries like North Korea, alliances and assistance are necessary to develop internet access, as demonstrated by the fact that Russia provides 60% and China 40% of North Korea’s internet (Reuters, 2017, as cited in Rugge, 2018). North Korea restricts internet access internally to preserve its cyber-offensive operations.
North Korea and South Korea utilize cyberspace to align with their national objectives. Despite being impoverished, North Korea prioritizes the acquisition and use of technology to ensure its security as a communist dictatorship. In contrast, South Korea leverages technology to foster international business relations and achieve its objective of becoming a developed nation (Rugge, 2018).
South Korea’s high level of IT development results from business ties, domestic research, and development efforts. Consequently, the entire population of South Korea enjoys internet access. On the other hand, North Korea initially gained a technological understanding of cyberspace through collaborative partnerships with South Korea. Still, it exploited this knowledge to engage in illicit activities such as cyberattacks, espionage, and targeting governments and corporations (Rugge, 2018).
Regulation and Espionage
The regulation of cyberspace on an international level remains minimal and relies primarily on rare treaties. While countries may attempt to regulate cyberspace within their borders, it proves challenging, except in nations with extreme control over their population, such as North Korea. The instantaneous transmission of data and difficulties in attribution complicate regulation efforts. Private industry, which holds most of the technology, often prefers to keep proprietary information private, adding further complexity to regulation. Even when cybercrimes can be attributed to individuals, they are often protected by their respective states. Although the FBI filed charges against a North Korean developer involved in cybercrimes, the likelihood of extradition or trial remains low (Rugge, 2018).
Espionage conducted by nation-states exists in a gray area internationally. While nations strive to protect their national security information, they also seek to discover the secrets of other countries. Cyber espionage allows nations to maintain anonymity or distance from the perpetrators. Iran, for instance, employs proxies for its cybersecurity offensives to preserve plausible deniability, considering it a part of the “soft war” against the West. Espionage has traditionally been dealt with through methods like expelling diplomats or exchanging captured spies, but cyberspace removes the risks associated with spies’ capture, interrogation, and death (Rugge, 2018).
However, different governments may have varying definitions of espionage, with some actions being considered cybercrimes beyond a nation’s borders. For example, Russia’s hacking of the US Democratic National Party (DNC) constitutes espionage. Still, the Russians went further by using the acquired information for propaganda campaigns that influenced the American political process. The attack was simple and could have been executed by several nations, including smaller players like Iran and North Korea. Furthermore, the propaganda campaign did not require sophisticated cybersecurity skills; it involved creating false American Facebook accounts to disseminate emails without context (van Der Walt, 2017).
Conclusion
In conclusion, cyberspace provides unprecedented access to information and the means to achieve various objectives for nation-states. It can support the development of a nation, protect its sovereignty, facilitate illicit activities, or serve as a tool for ideological conflicts. The power to realize these objectives lies within the realm of cybersecurity. Any nation, regardless of resources, can utilize cybersecurity as a tool of power. However, how this power is employed, whether to uplift or destabilize humanity, ultimately depends on the discretion of the nation-state itself.
About the Author
Ron McFarland, Ph.D., CISSP, is a Senior Cybersecurity Consultant at CMTC (California Manufacturing Technology Consulting) in Long Beach, CA. He received his doctorate from NSU’s School of Engineering and Computer Science, an MSc in Computer Science from Arizona State University, and a Post-Doc Graduate Research Program in Cyber Security Technologies from the University of Maryland. He taught Cisco CCNA (Cisco Certified Network Associate), CCNP (Cisco Certified Network Professional), CCDA (Design), CCNA-Security, Cisco CCNA Wireless, and other Cisco courses. He was honored with the Cisco Academy Instructor (CAI) Excellence Award in 2010, 2011, and 2012 for excellence in teaching. He also holds multiple security certifications, including the prestigious Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP). He writes for Medium as a guest author to provide information to learners of cybersecurity, students, and clients.
CONTACT Dr. Ron McFarland, Ph.D.
· CMTC Email: rmcfarland@cmtc.com
· Email: highervista@gmail.com
· LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/highervista/
· ·YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@RonMcFarland/featured
