Amid this divisive and
miserable (and thankfully almost over) U.S. presidential campaign, one
menacing subplot hasn’t received the kind of attention it deserves: the Russian
government’s effort to disrupt the American political and electoral process.
In July, hackers dumped a trove of stolen e-mails from the Democratic
National Committee, leading its chairwoman to resign. A few weeks later, the
personal e-mail addresses and phone numbers of almost 200 lawmakers turned up online. Last month, so
did e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. Across the
U.S., hackers have been prying into state electoral machinery, probing for
weaknesses.
Added up, it all amounts to
unprecedented meddling in an Russia’s Hacking. And it all has been attributed
-- by analysts public and private -- to Russia. What kind
of response does such audacious interference call for?
Not panic, for starters.
Podesta is justifiably upset about his e-mails, and it’s disturbing to think
that the leaks may influence voters. But no one has been killed and democracy
hasn’t been derailed. Election officials are aware of the dangers, and the
potential for serious fraud is small. The republic will endure.
Further, there are some indications that the U.S. and its
allies are already responding. Attributing the attacks to Russia may well be
the first step toward imposing sanctions. Last month Vice President
Joe Biden suggested that more covert efforts
may be on the way.
All of which, and more, would
be justified. One thing the White House should be wary of, however, is
employing its own arsenal of cyberweapons. Such
implements are inherently unpredictable. They risk revealing capabilities that
might later come in handy. And the U.S. has far more to lose from an escalating
cyber conflict than does Russia. Better to use the tools -- legal, diplomatic
and political -- that have proved effective in the past.
China offers an instructive
example. After enduring years of escalating attacks against American
corporations, the U.S. indicted five hackers from the
Chinese military in 2014. The White House also threatened sanctions, applied
diplomatic pressure and generally raised hell. Eventually, the two sides came
to a much-touted agreement on the issue last year, and attacks by
Chinese-linked hackers have since declined substantially.
There’s some debate over exactly how much of
this reduction can be attributed to U.S. pressure. But the message was clearly
sent. Top officials on both sides now share information on cybercrime and a “hotline” is being established to
improve communication. Cheating, dissembling and assorted chicanery will surely
continue. Slowly and fitfully, however, the two countries are hashing out
mutually beneficial norms of behavior in cyberspace.
The U.S. has no such
understanding with Russia. Getting there will require a similar combination of
threats and compromises, carrots and sticks. Russia is a much-diminished power,
and its intrusions signify only weakness. But the U.S. still needs its cooperation
on many issues, from space to Syria. It should make clear that interfering with
an American election will have a price. But the price shouldn’t be needlessly
steep.
To contact the senior
editor responsible for Bloomberg View’s editorials: David Shipley at
davidshipley@bloomberg.net.
No comments:
Post a Comment