The CIA Fears the Internet of Things

The battleground of tomorrow is everywhere at once.

National Journal
July 25, 2014, 11:57 a.m.

The ma­jor themes de­fin­ing geo-se­cur­ity for the com­ing dec­ades were ex­plored at a for­um on “The Fu­ture of War­fare” at the As­pen Se­cur­ity For­um on Thursday, mod­er­ated by De­fense One Ex­ec­ut­ive Ed­it­or Kev­in Bar­on.

Dawn Mey­er­riecks, the deputy dir­ect­or of the Cent­ral In­tel­li­gence Agency’s dir­ect­or­ate of sci­ence and tech­no­logy, said today’s con­cerns about cy­ber war don’t ad­dress the loom­ing geo-se­cur­ity threats posed by the In­ter­net of Things, the em­bed­ding of com­puters, sensors, and In­ter­net cap­ab­il­it­ies in­to more and more phys­ic­al ob­jects.

“Smart re­fri­ger­at­ors have been used in dis­trib­uted deni­al of ser­vice at­tacks,” she said. At least one smart fridge played a role in a massive spam at­tack last year, in­volving more than 100,000 in­ter­net-con­nec­ted devices and more than 750,000 spam emails. She also men­tioned “smart fluor­es­cent LEDs [that are] are com­mu­nic­at­ing that they need to be re­placed but are also be­ing hi­jacked for oth­er things.”

“The mer­ger of phys­ic­al and vir­tu­al is really where it’s at. If we don’t grok that then we’ve got huge prob­lems,” she said. Grok, a ref­er­ence to Robert A. Hein­lein’s 1961 nov­el Stranger in a Strange Land, de­scribes the tele­path­ic com­mu­nion of thoughts, feel­ings, and fears.

Smart cloth­ing, she said, could cre­ate se­cur­ity and ac­cess prob­lems, spe­cific­ally for the CIA. The same tech­no­lo­gies that could al­low mil­lions to bet­ter mon­it­or and man­age their health could cre­ate a trans­par­ency and work­place prob­lems that “Idon’t want to have to deal with.”

It has a sort of sci­ence-fic­tion­al flare, but Mey­er­riecks says there’s no ex­cuse for be­ing caught off-guard by tech­no­lo­gic­al events, or “punc­tu­at­ing tech­no­lo­gic­al dis­rup­tions” that are clearly vis­ible in trends today.

“The mer­ger of bio­lo­gic­al and cy­ber, those will be viewed as dis­ruptors al­though we all know they’ve been in­ves­ted in for dec­ades at this point. When someone fi­nally fig­ures out how to pro­duct­ize it in a way.” By way of an ex­ample, she brought up the cell phone, “When it goes from the brick to something I can’t leave my house without, then it’s dis­rupt­ive.”

In many ways that day has already ar­rived. Dick Cheney, formerU.S. Vice Pres­id­ent, told 60 Minutes that he had a wire­less pace­maker in­stalled in his chest in 2007 that would have al­lowed his doc­tor to mon­it­or his heart, on­line. He didn’t en­able the BlueTooth broad­cast­ing fea­ture for fear of it be­ing hacked. We have a hard enough time se­cur­ing com­puters on desks. We may already face the risk of an en­tire gen­er­a­tion of baby boomers be­com­ing vul­ner­able to leth­al cy­ber at­tacks be­cause of In­ter­net-en­abled med­ic­al devices.

Here are some oth­er takeaways from the dis­cus­sion:

The Eco­nom­ic War Is Afoot

When asked if the United States was already en­gaged in an eco­nom­ic war, with in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­erty as the prize, Mey­er­riecks re­spon­ded that “Ab­so­lutely, this the case.” That’s evid­ent in the fact that the U.S. is now su­ing five mem­bers of the Chinese mil­it­ary for what amounts to in­dus­tri­al es­pi­on­age, steal­ing trade secrets for per­son­al profit. It’s a law­suit against in­di­vidu­als, but the Chinese gov­ern­ment, as a whole, took it per­son­ally and sus­pen­ded par­ti­cip­a­tion in a joint China-U.S.cy­ber-se­cur­ity work­ing group.

Quantum Com­put­ing Won’t Save You

“On our best day we’re 20 years away,” Mey­er­riecks said of true quantum com­put­ing (defined roughly as com­put­ing that every­one in com­put­ing sci­ence can agree is ac­tu­ally quantum in nature, achiev­ing en­tan­gle­ment.) “When it hap­pens, we have a huge chal­lenge. We are mak­ing sig­ni­fic­ant in­vest­ments and pay­ing a lot of at­ten­tion,”

Steve Chan, the dir­ect­or of the Net­work Sci­ence Re­search Cen­ter at IBM who joined Mey­er­riecks on stage in As­pen, said that the search for the quantum Holy Grail was not only con­fused but largely un­ne­ces­sary. Quantum is gen­er­ally re­ferred to as com­pu­ta­tion that takes ad­vant­age of the unique be­ha­vi­ors of quantum bits, or qubits, to rep­res­ent in­form­a­tion in mul­tiple ways, as op­posed to ones and zer­os. “Nowadays,” he said “we can do cus­tom chip design so we can use bin­ary rules but three di­git rep­res­ent­a­tions that get ba­sic­ally the same value, with few­er di­gits, which saves com­pu­ta­tion­al cycles.”

Put Your Faith in Big Data

The threats and the op­por­tun­it­ies tech­no­lo­gic­al ac­cel­er­a­tion oc­cupy the same space.

When asked about the ma­jor in­vest­ment areas of the fu­ture, Lynn Dugle, a vice pres­id­ent at mil­it­ary con­tract­or Ray­theon en­thu­si­ast­ic­ally offered up big data and de­scribed the “op­por­tun­ity to know things, through cy­ber-ana­lyt­ics, through per­son­al ana­lyt­ics.” She cited a com­mon in­dustry fore­cast that more than 50 bil­lion ma­chine-to-ma­chine con­nec­ted devices will in­hab­it the globe by 2020 (ac­cord­ing to fig­ures from Cisco), versus ap­prox­im­ately 13 bil­lion today.

Call­ing Big Data a big op­por­tun­ity has be­come al­most “glib” ac­cord­ing to Mey­er­riecks. But it’s an area where the CIA is also fo­cus­ing its ma­jor in­vest­ments and build­ing the cap­ab­il­ity to do the sort of highly-tar­geted and in­di­vidu­al spe­cif­ic data col­lec­tion that would make today’s NSA activ­it­ies look pos­it­ively quant. It’s big data big data that “dwarfs today’s twit­ter feeds,” she said, and em­phas­ized that is was data spe­cif­ic to an in­di­vidu­al, not every­one, “that’s tar­geted col­lec­tion. Not ran­dom col­lec­tion.”

The Economic War Is Afoot

When asked if the United States was already en­gaged in an eco­nom­ic war, with in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­erty as the prize, Mey­er­riecks re­spon­ded that “Ab­so­lutely, this the case.” That’s evid­ent in the fact that the U.S. is now su­ing five mem­bers of the Chinese mil­it­ary for what amounts to in­dus­tri­al es­pi­on­age, steal­ing trade secrets for per­son­al profit. It’s a law­suit against in­di­vidu­als, but the Chinese gov­ern­ment, as a whole, took it per­son­ally and sus­pen­ded par­ti­cip­a­tion in a joint China-U.S.cy­ber-se­cur­ity work­ing group.

Quantum Computing Won't Save You

“On our best day we’re 20 years away,” Mey­er­riecks said of true quantum com­put­ing (defined roughly as com­put­ing that every­one in com­put­ing sci­ence can agree is ac­tu­ally quantum in nature, achiev­ing en­tan­gle­ment.) “When it hap­pens, we have a huge chal­lenge. We are mak­ing sig­ni­fic­ant in­vest­ments and pay­ing a lot of at­ten­tion,”

Steve Chan, the dir­ect­or of the Net­work Sci­ence Re­search Cen­ter at IBM who joined Mey­er­riecks on stage in As­pen, said that the search for the quantum Holy Grail was not only con­fused but largely un­ne­ces­sary. Quantum is gen­er­ally re­ferred to as com­pu­ta­tion that takes ad­vant­age of the unique be­ha­vi­ors of quantum bits, or qubits, to rep­res­ent in­form­a­tion in mul­tiple ways, as op­posed to ones and zer­os. “Nowadays,” he said “we can do cus­tom chip design so we can use bin­ary rules but three di­git rep­res­ent­a­tions that get ba­sic­ally the same value, with few­er di­gits, which saves com­pu­ta­tion­al cycles.”

Put Your Faith in Big Data

The threats and the op­por­tun­it­ies tech­no­lo­gic­al ac­cel­er­a­tion oc­cupy the same space.

When asked about the ma­jor in­vest­ment areas of the fu­ture, Lynn Dugle, a vice pres­id­ent at mil­it­ary con­tract­or Ray­theon en­thu­si­ast­ic­ally offered up big data and de­scribed the “op­por­tun­ity to know things, through cy­ber-ana­lyt­ics, through per­son­al ana­lyt­ics.” She cited a com­mon in­dustry fore­cast that more than 50 bil­lion ma­chine-to-ma­chine con­nec­ted devices will in­hab­it the globe by 2020 (ac­cord­ing to fig­ures from Cisco), versus ap­prox­im­ately 13 bil­lion today.

Call­ing Big Data a big op­por­tun­ity has be­come al­most “glib” ac­cord­ing to Mey­er­riecks. But it’s an area where the CIA is also fo­cus­ing its ma­jor in­vest­ments and build­ing the cap­ab­il­ity to do the sort of highly-tar­geted and in­di­vidu­al spe­cif­ic data col­lec­tion that would make today’s NSA activ­it­ies look pos­it­ively quant. It’s big data big data that “dwarfs today’s twit­ter feeds,” she said, and em­phas­ized that is was data spe­cif­ic to an in­di­vidu­al, not every­one, “that’s tar­geted col­lec­tion. Not ran­dom col­lec­tion.”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
10 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×