Marzieh Ghiasi

Things just got a little more interesting in the world of cyberpolitics.

Google revealed today that they’ve detected a sophisticated attack on their infrastructure originating from China back in December, an attack which they say impacted more than twenty other large companies in various sectors. Specifically, the attackers attempted to access Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Google does not lay blame on any specific party, however, it does indicate that it is reconsidering its approach to China.

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn

Externally Google has been pressured by various NGOs and governments with respect to its approach in China since it decided to censor its search results in the country. A move which some claimed was antithetical to the Company’s mantra “Don’t be evil.” In fact Google along with other search results faced a US congressional hearing back in 2006. Nonetheless, many queries in google.cn continue to deliver this note as part of the results: ” 据当地法律法规和政策，部分搜索结果未予显示。” or “According to local laws, regulations and policies, some search results are not shown.” Until today, it appeared that the revenue from China outweighed the costs.

With this move, the pendulum has clearly shifted. However, many questions remain regarding how decision was arrived at and how it will play out: Whether the costs of operating in country have become too much compared to the net revenue (to the tune of 22 billion dollars in the second quarter of 2009)? Or if Google is simply finding its infrastructure too vulnerable in the country? Has Google returned core values with respect to freedom of information, or caved in to external pressure regarding China’s censorship policies? Will China comply with Google, or will they reach a compromise? And if Google does indeed pull out of the Chinese market will its place be filled with other foreign search giants like Yahoo, or will it set precedent?

This is really the first major news this decade about cyber-attacks. Cyber-attacks have become commonplace in recent years, however in this case the economic and diplomatic stakes are incredibly high. Beyond the scope of the attack on Google, and the battle of the nerds… cyberwarfare between nations is not such a remote possibility as the internet and information technology take a more prominent role in national infrastructures. The following is an excerpt from a piece I wrote late last year on the transformation of war:

“… Constructivism takes an optimistic approach towards norms and progress. However, while norms can change to ameliorate conflict among nations, they can just as easily bring an ever-changing face to war. Indeed the 20th century was witness to a shift in the paradigm of warfare that took conflict from the trenches into cities. The democratization of war was a shift in norms which instead of creating taboos of war, propagandized war. This led to even more destructive weapons and created a situation where wars were supplied by, and waged on citizens. It is possible that even if the killing of human beings as a part of warfare becomes taboo (to the extent that state-sanctioned slavery is today), war itself might evolve. Going back to the definition of war, it is an act that is a means and not an end; and certainly any act that engages two parties in aggression, and achieves the desired outcome by force may constitute warfare. For example, in a world that is becoming increasingly reliant on technology, cyber attacks are becoming increasingly threatening^*. Equipment disruption, invasion of data banks and information highway can all be considered modes of cyber warfare. This type of warfare would not require massive troop mobilization; and it may not lead to civilian casualties, unless that is desired. But compromising critical systems in a nation could paralyze it and threaten its security. This type of warfare would have little resemblances to historic wars, however, it would achieve the same outcomes.”

*Hildreth, S. A. (2001). Cyberwarfare. Congressional Research Service policy paper.