Secret Review Gives Obama License to Cyberkill

Preemption as a military strategy has moved from the battlefield to the world's networks. Revelations about a secret report suggesting President Obama could authorize preemptive cyberstrikes to deflectthreats of an attack on the U.S. have spurred debate over the merits and risks of a cyberwarfare offensive.

President Obama can order a preemptive strike if there's credible evidence of a pending major cyberattack from abroad, a secret legal review has found, according toThe New York Times.New policies will dictate how intelligence agencies can monitor remote computer networks elsewhere for signs of potential attacks on the U.S., the newspaper said. The policies will also apparently allow intelligence agencies to attack adversaries by injecting them with destructive malware, even if war has not officially been declared.Counterattacks must be approved by the president first.The news comes in the wake of recent reports of cyberattacks on the IT infrastructure of theTimesand other major media organizations.An American power station was the recent target of a cyberattack, the Department of Homeland Security revealed.Acting on ThreatsThe new guidelines reportedly make DHS responsible for defending against cyberattacks on American companies or individuals.The military could become involved if there were a major cyberattack within the country. However, the threshold for determining when its involvementmight be justified has been kept vague."I think what's happening is the president's setting up to move unilaterally in case he sees a pending threat," Rob Enderle, principal analyst at theEnderle Group, told TechNewsWorld. "In a cyberthreat, the nature of the attack is it will happen when you see it, and he wants to be able to shut down the attacking nation, which would involve a preemptive strike. Given the case that governments are likely to be involved in these attacks, it's likelyour government is looking at cyberdetente."Legal IntrepretationsThe legal review brings to mind a similar controversial move by the Bush administration to justify the invasion of Iraq, as well as its use of what it called "enhanced interrogation techniques," and it could cause the same kind of skepticism about its use."I believe it's more of a public relations tool than anything else," Jim McGregor, founder and principal analyst atTirias Research, told TechNewsWorld."[The Obama administration is] just trying to build a case for any actions that may eventually come to light through either open or covert channels," McGregor continued.