Cyberterror

Contention One is Cyberterror:

The NSAs electronic backdoors undermine overall
cybersecurity also shuts out the US from establishing cybernorms
Sasso, technology correspondent for National Journal, 14
Brendan, "The NSA Isn't Just Spying on Us, It's Also Undermining Internet
Security", April 29 2014, Natio nal Journal, www.nationaljournal.com/daily/the-nsaisn-t-just-spying-on-us-it-s-also-undermining-internet-security-20140429
*NSA backdoors infrastructure to make hacking easy
*This encryption is available to anyone that finds it = hacking
*Necessary for international norm- modelling- people wont follow til USA does
their shit
Bolstering the nations defenses against hackers has been one of the Obama
administrations top goals. Officials have warned for years that a sophisticated
cyberattack could cripple (destroy) critical infrastructure or allow thieves to make
off with the financial information of millions of Americans. President Obama pushed
Congress to enact cybersecurity legislation, and when it didnt, he issued his own executive order in 2013. The
cyber threat to our nation is one of the most serious economic and national
security challenges we face, Obama wrote in a 2012 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. But critics
argue that the National Security Agency has actually undermined
cybersecurity and made the United States more vulnerable to hackers. At its
core, the problem is the NSAs dual mission. On one hand, the agency is tasked with
securing U.S. networks and information. On the other hand, the agency must
gather intelligence on foreign threats to national security. Collecting intelligence
often means hacking encrypted communications. Thats nothing new for the NSA; the agency
traces its roots back to code-breakers deciphering Nazi messages during World War II. So in many ways,
strong Internet security actually makes the NSAs job harder . This is an administration
that is a vigorous defender of surveillance, said Christopher Soghoian, the head technologist for the American

Surveillance at the scale they want requires insecurity. The

leaks from Edward Snowden have revealed a variety of efforts by the NSA to weaken
cybersecurity and hack into networks. Critics say those programs, while helping NSA
spying, have made U.S. networks less secure. According to the leaked documents,
the NSA inserted a so-called back door into at least one encryption
standard that was developed by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology. The NSA could use that back door to spy on suspected terrorists, but
the vulnerability was also available to any other hacker who discovered it.
NIST, a Commerce Department agency, sets scientific and technical standards
that are widely used by both the government and the private sector. The
Civil Liberties Union.

agency has said it would never deliberately weaken a cryptographic standard, but it remains unclear whether
the agency was aware of the back door or whether the NSA tricked NIST into adopting the compromised

The
revelation that NSA somehow got NIST to build a back door into an encryption
standard has seriously damaged NISTs reputation with security experts. NIST is
operating with a trust deficit right now, Soghoian said. Anything that NIST has
touched is now tainted. Its a particularly bad time for NIST to have lost the
support of the cybersecurity community. In his executive order, Obama tasked
NIST with drafting the cybersecurity guidelines for critical infrastructure such
as power plants and phone companies. Because its an executive order instead of a law, the
standard. NIST is required by law to consult with the NSA for its technical expertise on cybersecurity.

cybersecurity standards are entirely voluntary, and the U.S. government will have to convince the private sector to

The Snowden leaks werent the first to indicate that the NSA is involved in
exploiting commercial security. According to a 2012 New York Times report, the
NSA developed a worm, dubbed Stuxnet, to cripple Iranian nuclear centrifuges.
But the worm, which exploited four previously unknown flaws in Microsoft
Windows, escaped the Iranian nuclear plant and quickly began damaging
computers around the world. The NSA and Israeli officials have also been tied to Flame, a virus that
comply.

impersonated a Microsoft update to spy on Iranian computers. Vanee Vines, an NSA spokeswoman, said the U.S.
government is as concerned as the public is with the security of these products. The United States pursues its
intelligence mission with care to ensure that innocent users of those same technologies are not affected, she said.

the NSA relies on the same encryption standards it recommends to

the public to protect its own classified networks. We do not make recommendations that we
According to Vines,

cannot stand behind for protecting national security systems and data, she said. The activity of NSA in setting
standards has made the Internet a far safer place to communicate and do business .

But due to concern

over the NSA damaging Internet security, the presidents review group on
surveillance issues recommended that the U.S. government promise not to in any
way subvert, undermine, weaken, or make vulnerable generally available
commercial encryption. Encryption is an essential basis for trust on the Internet ;
without such trust, valuable communications would not be possible, the group wrote in
its report, which was released in December. For the entire system to work, encryption
software itself must be trustworthy. The White Houses cybersecurity coordinator said that
disclosing security flaws "usually makes sense." In response to the report, the administration adopted a new policy
on whether the NSA can exploit zero-daysvulnerabilities that havent been discovered by anyone else yet.
According to the White House, there is a bias toward publicly disclosing flaws in security unless there is a clear

Michael Daniel, the White

Houses cybersecurity coordinator, said that disclosing security flaws usually
makes sense. Building up a huge stockpile of undisclosed vulnerabilities while leaving the Internet
vulnerable and the American people unprotected would not be in our national security interest, he said. But
Daniel added that, in some cases, disclosing a vulnerability means that the U.S.
would forego an opportunity to collect crucial intelligence that could thwart a
terrorist attack, stop the theft of our nations intellectual property, or even discover
more dangerous vulnerabilities. He said that the government weighs a variety of factors, such as the
national security or law enforcement need. In a blog post Monday,

risk of leaving the vulnerability un-patched, the likelihood that anyone else would discover it, and how important

But privacy advocates and many business groups are

still uncomfortable with the U.S. keeping security flaws secret. And many
dont trust that the NSA will only exploit the vulnerabilities with the most
potential for intelligence and least opportunity for other hackers. The surveillance
bureaucracy really doesnt have a lot of self-imposed limits. They want to get
everything, said Ed Black, the CEO of the Computer & Communications Industry
Association, which represents companies including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and
Sprint. Now I think people dealing with that bureaucracy have to understand they cant take anything for
the potential intelligence is.

Most computer networks are run by private companies, and the

government must work closely with the private sector to improve
cybersecurity. But companies have become reluctant to share security
information with the U.S. government, fearing the NSA could use any
information to hack into their systems. When you want to go into partnership
with somebody and work on serious issuessuch as cybersecurityyou want to
know youre being told the truth, Black said. Google and one other cybersecurity firm
discovered Heartbleeda critical flaw in a widely used Internet encryption tool
in March. The companies notified a few other private-sector groups about the
problem, but no one told the U.S. government until April. Information you share
with the NSA might be used to hurt you as a company, warned Ashkan Soltani, a technical
granted.

consultant who has worked with tech companies and helped The Washington Post with its coverage of the

company officials have historically discussed

cybersecurity issues with the NSA, but that he wouldnt be surprised if those
relationships are now strained. He pointed to news that the NSA posed as
Facebook to infect computers with malware. That does a lot of harm to
companies brands, Soltani said. The NSAs actions have also made it difficult for
the U.S. to set international norms for cyberconflict. For several years, the
U.S. has tried to pressure China to scale back its cyberspying operations, which
allegedly steal trade secrets from U.S. businesses. Jason Healey, the director of the
Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, said the U.S. has militarized
cyber policy. The United States has been saying that the world needs to
operate according to certain norms, he said. It is difficult to get the norms
that we want because it appears to the rest of the world that we only want
to follow the norms that we think are important. Vines, the NSA spokeswoman,
Snowden documents. He said that

emphasized that the NSA would never hack into foreign networks to give domestic companies a competitive edge
(as China is accused of doing). We do not use foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign
companies on behalf ofor give intelligence we collect toU.S. companies to enhance their international
competitiveness or increase their bottom line, she said. Jim Lewis, a senior fellow with the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, agreed that NSA spying to stop terrorist attacks is fundamentally different from China
stealing business secrets to boost its own economy. He also said there is widespread misunderstanding of how the

there is a trust problemjustified or not. He

predicted that rebuilding trust with the tech community will be one of the top
challenges for Mike Rogers, who was sworn in as the new NSA director earlier this
month. All the tech companies are in varying degrees unhappy and not eager to
have a close relationship with NSA, Lewis said.
NSA works, but he acknowledged that

The risk of cyberterrorism is highexperts agree that

adversaries have the technical skills and political motivation to
carry out a dangerous cyberattack
Burg, Principal US & Global Cybersecurity Leader, 14
David, Michael Compton Principal, Cybersecurity Strategy & Operations, Peter
Harries Principal, Health Industries, John Hunt Principal, Public Sector, Mark
Lobel Principal, Technology, Entertainment, Media & Communications, Gary
Loveland Principal, Consumer and Industrial Products & Services, Joe Nocera
Principal, Financial Services, Dave Roath Partner, Risk Assurance, "US cybercrime:

Rising risks, reduced readiness Key findings from the 2014 US State of Cybercrime
Survey", June 2014, co-sponsored by The CERT Division of the Software
Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, CSO magazine, United States
Secret Service, www.pwc.com/us/en/increasing-iteffectiveness/publications/assets/2014-us-state-of-cybercrime.pdf
*experts
*other nations have better cybersecurity programs- Russia
The risks and repercussions of cybercrime In this 12th survey of cybercrime
trends, more than 500 US executives, security experts, and others from the public
and private sectors offered a look into their cybersecurity practices and state of
risk and readiness to combat evolving cyber threats and threat agents. One thing is
very clear: The cybersecurity programs of US organizations do not rival the
persistence, tactical skills, and technological prowess of their potential
cyber adversaries. Today, common criminals, organized crime rings, and nationstates leverage sophisticated techniques to launch attacks that are highly targeted
and very difficult to detect. Particularly worrisome are attacks by tremendously skilled threat actors that
attempt to steal highly sensitiveand often very valuableintellectual property, private communications, and

the US
Director of National Intelligence has ranked cybercrime as the top national
security threat, higher than that of terrorism, espionage, and weapons of mass
destruction.1 Underscoring the threat, the FBI last year notified 3,000 US companiesranging from small
banks, major defense contractors, and leading retailersthat they had been victims of cyber intrusions. The
United States faces real [cybersecurity] threats from criminals, terrorists,
spies, and malicious cyber actors, said FBI Director James B. Comey at a recent
security conference.2 The playground is a very dangerous place right now. Nation-state actors pose
a particularly pernicious threat, according to Sean Joyce, a PwC principal and
former FBI deputy director who frequently testified before the US House and Senate Intelligence
committees. We are seeing increased activity from nation-state actors, which
could escalate due to unrest in Syria, Iran, and Russia , he said. These groups
may target financial services and other critical infrastructure entities. In todays
volatile cybercrime environment, nation-states and other criminals continually and
rapidly update their tactics to maintain an advantage against advances in security
safeguards implemented by businesses and government agencies. Recently, for instance,
other strategic assets and information. It is a threat that is nothing short of formidable. In fact,

hackers engineered a new round of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks that can generate traffic rated at
a staggering 400 gigabits per second, the most powerful DDoS assaults to date.

A cyber-attack would trigger military retaliation and escalate

to nuclear war
Robert Tilford 12, Graduate US Army Airborne School, Ft. Benning, Georgia,
Cyber attackers could shut down the electric grid for the entire east coast 2012,

http://www.examiner.com/article/cyber-attackers-could-easily-shut-down-theelectric-grid-for-the-entire-east-coa ***we dont agree with the ableist language

*power grids- no backup generators
*radar systems go blank
*no communication
*launch nuclear weapons because we dont know what the fuck is going on
a cyber attack that can take out a civilian power grid, for example
could also cripple (destroy) the U.S. military. The senator notes that is that the same power
grids that supply cities and towns, stores and gas stations, cell towers and heart monitors also
power every military base in our country. Although bases would be prepared to
weather a short power outage with backup diesel generators, within hours, not days, fuel
supplies would run out, he said. Which means military command and control centers
could go dark. Radar systems that detect air threats to our country would shut Down
completely. Communication between commanders and their troops would also go silent.
And many weapons systems would be left without either fuel or electric power, said
Senator Grassley. So in a few short hours or days, the mightiest military in the world
would be left scrambling to maintain base functions, he said. We contacted the
Pentagon and officials confirmed the threat of a cyber attack is something very
real. Top national security officialsincluding the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Director of the National
Security Agency, the Secretary of Defense, and the CIA Director have said, preventing a cyber attack and
improving the nations electric grids is among the most urgent priorities of our country (source: Congressional
Record). So how serious is the Pentagon taking all this? Enough to start, or end a war over it, for sure. A cyber attack
today against the US could very well be seen as an Act of War and could be met with
a full scale US military response. That could include the use of nuclear
weapons, if authorized by the President.
To make matters worse

Thats key to cybersecurity

1. Backdoors make cyberterrorism a ticking time bomb
Seneque 14 Gareth, ICT professional with a particular focus on UNIX
Architecture & Design, holds a degree in Philosophy/Politics from the University of
Sydney, Alex Comninos, an independent researcher focusing on information and
communications technology and politics, a Doctoral Candidate at Justus-Liebig
University in Giessen, Germany at the Department of Geography, where he is
conducting doctoral research on the challenges and constraints of the use of usergenerated geographic information systems in Egypt, Libya, and North and Sudan
in 2010 to 2011, "Cyber security, civil society and vulnerability in an age of
communications surveillance", 2014, Justus-Liebig University Giessen and Geist
Consulting, giswatch.org/en/communications-surveillance/cyber-security-civilsociety-and-vulnerability-age-communications-sur

The relevance of Snowdens disclosures to cyber security The scope and reach of
the NSAs surveillance is important. The NSAs surveillance posture is as has been
repeated by General Keith Alexander, and is reflected in the NSA slide in Figure 1 to "collect it all":32
from undersea cable taps, to Yahoo video chats, to in-flight Wi-Fi, to virtual worlds
and online multiplayer games like Second Life and World of Warcraft. The NSA has at least three different
programmes to get Yahoo and Google user data. This shows that they try to get the same data from multiple
mechanisms.33 With the GCHQ under the MUSCULAR programme it hacked into the internal data links of Google

In addition to
highlighting the NSAs massive institutional overreach and global privacy invasion,
Snowdens disclosures also highlight the many points at which our data is
insecure, and the vast numbers of vulnerabilities to surveillance that exist
throughout our digital world. However, while the NSA is the largest threat in the
surveillance game, it is not the only threat. Governments all around the world are
using the internet to surveil their citizens. Considering the rate of
technological change, it is not unforeseeable that the methods, tools and
vulnerabilities used by the NSA will be the tools of states, cyber criminals
and low-skilled hackers of the future. Regardless of who the perceived attacker
or surveillance operative may be, and whether it is the NSA or not, large-scale,
mass surveillance is a growing cyber security threat. It has also been disclosed that
the NSA and GCHQ have actively worked to make internet and technology users around
the world less secure. The NSA has placed backdoors in routers running vital
internet infrastructures.35 The GCHQ has impersonated social networking websites like LinkedIn in
order to target system administrators of internet service providers.36 The NSA has been working with
the GCHQ to hack into Google and Yahoo data centres.37 The NSA also works to
undermine encryption technologies, by covertly influencing the use of weak
algorithms and random number generators in encryption products and
standards.38 The NSA in its own words is working under the BULLRUN programme
to "insert vulnerabilities into commercial encryption systems, IT systems,
networks, and endpoint communications devices used by targets" and to influence
policies, standards and specifications for commercial [encryption] technologies. 39
The NSA is also believed to hoard knowledge about vulnerabilities rather
than sharing them with developers, vendors and the general public,40 as
well as even maintaining a catalogue of these vulnerabilities for use in
surveillance and cyber attacks.41 None of these activities serve to make the
internet more secure. In fact, they do the very opposite. As US Congresswoman
Zoe Lofgren commented: When any industry or organisation builds a backdoor to
assist with electronic surveillance into their product, they put all of our data
security at risk. If a backdoor is created for law enforcement purposes, its
only a matter of time before a hacker exploits it, in fact we have already seen
it happen."42
and Yahoo34 for information that it could mostly have gotten through the PRISM programme.

2. NormsCurtailing surveillance is key to effective normsbuildingthat prevents cyber-warfare

Farrell 2015, Henry Farrell, PhD in Government from Georgetown University,
Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, April 2015,
Promoting Norms for Cyberspace, Council on Foreign Relations,

http://www.cfr.org/cybersecurity/promoting-norms-cyberspace/p36358?cid=nlcpress_release-press_note--link220150406&sp_mid=48385113&sp_rid=YWtpbWVyeUBoc3RvZGF5LnVzS0
*build norms- soft power is necessary- SPURS COOPERATION
*no one is listening to us rn
*AT: Treaties- no one listens to them
the United States and others need to build norms to mitigate
cybersecurity problems. Admiral Michael S. Rogers, head of the National Security Agency (NSA) and
U.S. policymakers argue that

Cyber Command, has argued that shared norms are a basic building block for cybersecurity. He has called on
actors in academia and civil society to help design them and to assist in their spread. It may seem strange that

soft tools rather than hard military options, but there are four
good reasons why norms are the best option available. First, the United States is
vulnerable to cyberattacks and this weakness is difficult to address using
conventional tools of military statecraft. Second, it is difficult to ensure that complex
information systems are fully defended, since they may have subtle technical
weaknesses. Third, classical deterrence is not easy in a world where it is often
challenging to identify sophisticated attackers, or even to know when an attack has taken place.
Lastly, treaties are hard to enforce because it is so difficult to verify compliance
particularly in cyberspace, where weapons are software, not missiles. Although norms are hazier than
Pentagon officials are arguing for

treaty rules, they may still have important consequences. Norms against the use of nuclear weapons have taken

Robust
cybersecurity norms might, over time, rule out some kinds of attacks as
normatively inappropriate. They might encourage other states to see norm breaches
as attacks on their security, too, spurring cooperation to prevent or stop attacks. Finally,
norms can provide shared understandings between states that allow them to work
together where they have shared interests and manage relations where their interests clash. Challenges to
Norm Promotion It is hard to spread norms, even in the best circumstances. Unfortunately,
these are far from the best circumstances for the United States . U.S. policymakers face
hold since the 1950s, making their use nearly unthinkable in ordinary circumstances.

three major problems. First, it is easiest to promote norms when one can invoke common values to support them,
yet the world's cyber powers have differentand radically incompatiblevalues over how to protect cyberspace.
The clashing interests between democratic and authoritarian regimes on the value of an open Internet and

adopters of norms
are likely to be more receptive if they do not think the proponent of the norms is
acting in bad faith. To be sure, many states were happy to use the Snowden
revelations as a cover for opposition to any rules of behavior Washington might
offer. But for others, efforts at persuasion have been damaged by the exposed
gap between U.S. rhetoric and actions. At the very least, other states must be persuaded that
definitions of security make effective global treaties impossible. Second, the potential

following a norm is in their national interest. The disclosures, however, reinforced the view of many states that the
United States disproportionately benefits from an open, global, and secure Internet, and is only committed to

In light of the
Snowden disclosures, the United States is poorly placed to persuade other actors
of its good faith or its commitment to shared interests and values. The extent of the
damage to the U.S. reputation was revealed when the United States accused North
Korea of hacking into Sony's servers and announced its intention to retaliate against North Korea
these values to the extent that they further U.S. economic, political, and military objectives.

through low-level sanctions. Building on previous indictments of Chinese soldiers for hacking into U.S. firms, U.S.
officials followed an approach of "naming and shaming" cyberattackers while pursuing sanctions and possible
criminal charges. These actions are highly unlikely to result in successful prosecutions, but potentially serve a
normative purpose by signaling to the world that some actions are unacceptable. Although a few states criticized

many did not buy U.S. claims that Pyongyang was responsible. Members
of the business and technology communities also expressed polite skepticism over the
North Korea,

evidence supplied by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

3. TrustThe SSRA would rebuild trust between the

government and the private sectorthats key to cybersecurity
Zezima, reporter @ The Washington Post, 15
Katie, "Obama signs executive order on sharing cybersecurity threat information",
Feb 12 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/12/obamato-sign-executive-order-on-cybersecurity-threats/
*government and industry arent working together
*AT: XO- that just makes communication easier doesnt mandate it
*encryption sets up problems with private and public sectors
Obama signed an executive order Friday that urges
companies to share cybersecurity-threat information with one another and the
federal government. Obama signed the order, which is advisory in nature, at the first White House summit
PALO ALTO, Calif. President

on Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection at Stanford University here. The summit, which focused on publicprivate partnerships and consumer protection, is part of a recent White House push to focus on cybersecurity.
Obama said the prospect of cyberattacks are one of the nation's most pressing national security, economic and
safety issues. The specter of a cyberattack crippling the nation's air traffic control system or a city with a blackout
is real, and hacks such as the one on Sony Pictures last year are "hurting America's companies and costing
American jobs." He also said they are a threat to the security and well-being of children who are online. "Its one
of the great paradoxes of our time that the very technologies that empower us to do great good can also be used
to undermine us and inflict great harm," Obama said before a cheering, friendly audience here at Stanford's

The order the president signed here encourages the development

of central clearinghouses for companies and the government to share data and
creation of centers where data can be shared across specific geographic regions.
Obama pushed for collaboration between the public and private sectors. "Theres
only one way to defend America from these cyber threats, and that is
through government and industry working together, sharing appropriate
information as true partners," he said. MasterCard chief executive Ajay Banga
praised Obamas executive action but said that eventually we need a real
legislative solution. An executive action can only take you this far. Rather than fight
this in individualized groups, theres some merit in joining hands and doing it together, Banga said. Obama's
order is part of a broader White House effort to beef up the nation's cybersecurity
infrastructure, something the administration wants to push on Capitol Hill. Last
Memorial Auditorium.

month Obama proposed legislation that would shield companies from lawsuits for sharing threat data with the
government. Last month he proposed legislation that would shield companies from lawsuits for sharing threat
data with the government. Obama said shortly after he took office he realized that cybersecurity is "one of the
most serious economic national security challenges that we face as a nation" and made confronting them a
priority. Obama has signed other executive orders, including one that calls for the creation of voluntary standards
to bolster the security of computer networks in critical industries and a framework for cybersecurity and another
last year to protect consumers from identity theft. So far nothing has been able to stem the tide of attacks such as

privacy groups and Silicon

Valley companies have said they would oppose the legislation Obama proposed last
month unless reforms are first made to the NSA's surveillance program . In an
interview with Re/Code, Obama acknowledged tensions with Silicon Valley after the NSA disclosures. "The
Snowden disclosures ... were really harmful in terms of the trust between
the one against Sony or others against retailers including Home Depot. Both

the government and many of these companies, in part because it had an

impact on their bottom lines," Obama said. The president also said that there should be a "public
conversation" about encryption and said he likely leans more toward strong data encryption than law

U.S.
government surveillance activities have been seen as a potential liability for tech
companies that operate globally. Seventy to 80 percent of the user bases for a lot of these companies
enforcement, but is sympathetic to them because of the pressure they are under to keep people safe.

are the foreigners who get very little protection under our system, explained Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow
focused on technology and civil liberties at the Cato Institute. If they dont display some push back, they know

In December of 2013, major tech companies

including Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo joined together in
the Reform Government Surveillance coalition, urging the President and Congress
to impose restrictions and oversight measures on U.S. spying programs. The
President agreed in principle to some limits on spying programs , including the bulk
collection of domestic phone records, during a speech last year. But progress on reforms has
been too slow for some privacy advocates, as the administration urged for
legislative action that has yet to succeed. Tech companies, meanwhile, have taken
some measures into their own hands by strengthening and expanding their
deployment of encryption to secure users' online activities setting up a
conflict between the companies and law enforcement who warn that such
actions may make it harder for them to pursue crime and terrorism which
increasingly includes a digital component. I think its fair to say that changes on the technology
they wont do very well with those markets.

front have outpaced governmental and legislative efforts, said Andrew Crocker, a legal fellow at civil liberties
group the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Plan Text
The United States federal government should substantially
curtail its use of backdoor encryption standards and metadata
collection programs.

Internet
Contention 2 is Internet:
International outrage at NSA surveillance threatens internet
globalizationsupport is growing for a Balkanization of the
internet
Fontaine, President @ Center for a New American Security, 14
"Bringing Liberty Online Reenergizing the Internet Freedom Agenda in a PostSnowden Era", Sept 2014, Center for a New American Security,
www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publicationspdf/CNAS_BringingLibertyOnline_Fontaine.pdf
*other countries are getting pissed because of NSA spying
*authoritarian countries are using USA spying
*= balkanized internet
The Snowden Fallout and the Internet Freedom Agenda
The dramatic revelations about NSA spying that began to emerge in June 2013 provoked a
storm of international reaction.17 Political leaders expressed outrage at
American surveillance practices and threatened a raft of retaliatory measures.
President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil cancelled a planned state visit to the United States and the Brazilian
government later organized an international meeting (NetMundial) to discuss the future of
Internet governance.18 German Chancellor Angela Merkel was deeply affronted by the alleged monitoring
of her personal cellphone. Chinese and other officials charged America with blatant hypocrisy. The fallout affected
the private sector as well; where previously the focus of many observers had been on the aid given by U.S.

the gaze shifted to the role

American corporations play wittingly or not in enabling U.S. surveillance. Countries
that had been the target of American reproaches rebuked the U.S. government for
what they saw as hypocrisy. The United Nations and other international venues
became platforms for international criticism of the United States. Germany and
Brazil together sponsored a resolution adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in late 2013
backing a right to privacy in the digital age.19 In June 2014, the U.N. High Commissioner
for Human Rights issued a report that endorsed digital privacy as a human right and criticized mass
surveillance as a dangerous habit rather than an exceptional measure. 20 Some
European officials began to question the existing Internet governance model itself .
In a statement, the European Commission said, Recent revelations of large-scale
surveillance have called into question the stewardship of the US when it
comes to Internet Governance. So given the US-centric model of Internet
Governance currently in place, it is necessary to broker a smooth transition to a
more global model.21 Nongovernmental groups that might otherwise be partners
with the U.S. government in promoting Internet freedom reacted sharply as well.
Reporters Without Borders, for instance, listed the NSA as an Enemy of the Internet in its 2014 report
companies to foreign governments engaged in Internet repression,

on entities engaged in online repression. Drawing no distinction between surveillance aimed at protecting

national security and surveillance intended to suppress free expression and political dissent, the organization

declared the NSA no better than [its] Chinese, Russian, Iranian or Bahraini
counterparts.22 Mass surveillance methods used by democracies like the United
States, it added, are all the more intolerable as they are already being used by authoritarian
countries such as Iran, China, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to justify
their own violations of freedom of information.23 Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World
Wide Web, said, Mass surveillance is the most immediate threat to the open Internet
and the most insidious because we cant see it.24 The Electronic Frontier Foundation asserted
that mass surveillance is inherently a disproportionate measure that violates
human rights,25 and officials with Human Rights Watch observed that the surveillance scandal would
render it more difficult for the U.S. government to press for better corporate practices and for companies to resist

Now, its chief researcher said, the vision and

credibility of the U.S. and its allies on Internet freedom is in tatters. 26 The
reactions to the Snowden disclosures threatened to go beyond verbal
denunciations, diplomatic protests and critical press. The most serious
commercial fallout came in the rising support for data localization
requirements. Russia in July 2014 approved legislation that requires data operators
to store the personal data of its citizens within the countrys borders.27 Indonesia, Brazil
and Vietnam have also called for their citizens data held by companies such as Facebook to
be stored domestically.28 Data localization has been debated in the European
Parliament and elsewhere on the continent as well.29 Apart from the chilling effect on innovation
and the loss of business to America companies, Internet freedom itself could become a
casualty of such mandates. If a users data must be held within the borders of a
repressive country, its government will have new opportunities to censor, monitor
and disrupt online information flows. Such moves, combined with increasing
questions about the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance (and possible
support for a government driven approach), together give rise to concerns about
the potential Balkanization of the Internet, in which a constellation of
national-level systems could take the place of the current global online
infrastructure. As former NSA general counsel Stewart Baker warned, The Snowden disclosures
are being used to renationalize the Internet and roll back changes that have
weakened government control of information. 30
overly broad surveillance mandates.

Curtailing surveillance is the only way the US can regain trust

as a responsible steward of the internet and avoid
Balkanization
Meinrath, director of the New America Foundations Open
Technology Institute, 13
Sascha, "We Cant Let the Internet Become Balkanized", Oct 14 2013, Slate,
www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/10/internet_balkanization_m
ay_be_a_side_effect_of_the_snowden_surveillance.html
*disconnecting from US internet and make their shit
*NSA caused this because of spying
Brazilian President Dilma Rouseffs recent indictment of the United States
cyberspying practices has profound global repercussions for the U.S vision

of a borderless, open Internet. What makes this backlash especially potent and
lamentable is that it is being fueled not by democracies that oppose American ideals, but rather by
allies that resent Washingtons betrayal of its own overarchingly positive vision.
Rouseffs offensive to change Internet governance follows reports that the National Security Agencys watchful
eye could see as far as her Palcio do Planalto in Braslia. According to leaked documents, the United States has
been surveilling Rousseffs email, intercepting internal government communications, and spying on the countrys

After canceling an official visit to meet with President Obama in

Washington, Rousseff took to the podium at the U.N.s General Assembly to call on
other countries to disconnect from U.S. Internet hegemony and develop their own
sovereign Internet and governance structures. Rousseffs move could lead to a
powerful chorusone that would transform the Internet of the future from
a global commons to a fractured patchwork severely limited by the political
boundaries on a map. Brazil is one of a handful of countriesincluding
Indonesia, Turkey, and Indiathat have wavered in the debate over whether to
develop an international framework to govern the Internet, one that would replace
the role that the United States has played as chief Internet steward. Traditionally,
that debate has featured America in the role as champion of a free and open Internet,
one that guarantees the right of all people to freely express themselves. Arguing against that ideal:
repressive regimes that have sought to limit connectivity and access to
information. The NSAs actions have shifted that debate, alienating key
Internet-freedom allies and emboldening some of the most repressive
regimes on the planet. Think of it as an emerging coalition between countries that object to how the
national oil company.

United States is going about upholding its avowed principles for a free Internet, and countries that have objected

allies in the European Union, for instance, are now

considering revoking data-sharing agreements with the United States and
requiring American website providers to prominently warn Europeans that their
data is subject to U.S. government surveillance. Meanwhile, repressive regimes
like Iran, Syria, and China are wresting control of information over their networks ,
poisoning popular applications and services, and undermining the foundations for the Internets
open, interconnected structure. NSA misdeeds undoubtedly further embolden
these regimes to do as they please. The motivations of those nations questioning
Americas de facto control over the global Internet may vary, but their responses are
all pointing in the same troubling direction: toward a Balkanized Internet.
Today, the Internet is in danger of becoming like the European train system, where
varying voltage and 20 different types of signaling technologies force operators to
stop and switch systems or even to another locomotive, resulting in delays,
inefficiencies, and higher costs. Netizens would fall under a complex array of
different jurisdictions imposing conflicting mandates and conferring conflicting
rights. And much as different signaling hampers the movement of people and the
trade of physical goods, an Internet within such a complex jurisdictional structure
would certainly hamper modern economic activity. The NSA has opened a Pandoras box
to those avowed principles all along. Our close

that treats citizens and foreigners differently (even defining both groups in myriad different ways). Its rules

impose geo-locational-based jurisdictional mandates (based upon the route of

your Internet traffic or the location of the data services and databases you use).
also

They also include requirements based upon ownership; the location of a companys headquarters may lead to
surveillance mandates covering services and infrastructure in other countries. This creates tremendous technical
challenges for startups and entrepreneurswho will have to overcome impossible compatibility hurdles just to get
up and runningstifling innovation at a moment when we need greater economic momentum, not dead weight.
Already,

a German citizen accessing a New York City data center via a Chinese fiber

line may find her data covered by an array of conflicting legal requirements
requiring privacy and active surveillance at the same time. Fracturing the
Internet undermines Internet freedom as well. The basic principle at the heart of Article 19 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rightsprotecting the right to freedom of opinion, expression, and the
opportunity to participate in the information societyis at risk. Brazil may not be pressing to assert control over

plenty of other countries with darker

motives are cheering Brazil on. The U.S. has done a disservice to all people already
living and working under repressive regimes by creating a new international norm
that massive-scale surveillance is acceptable. As others adopt the U.S. model,
particularly in areas where movements for fundamental freedoms are burgeoning
and fighting against oppression, there will be even less access to basic
communications, hampering the ability to interact online outside of the regimes
control and censorship. Furthermore, the NSA has made a remarkably myopic tradeoffoverreaching its
everything online or censor its own people, or spy on them, but

legal authorities for a slight boost in signals intelligence today that will lead to massive problems in response.
Even before all the recent revelations of NSA misbehavior, the United States was already facing calls for a more

Now, for
the sake of a free Internet, it is imperative for Washington to move fast to
restore a belief that America is a trustworthy Internet steward . Its time for bold
democratic global system of Internet regulation that gave other countries more say in setting rules.

leadership to defend our core principles. Reforms need to go far beyond pro-forma reviews carried out by
intelligence and administration insiders. There are precedents for the United States exercising restraint in order

As a country, we agreed to stop atmospheric testing of nuclear

weapons, not to stockpile or deploy chemical weapons, and not to militarize outer
space. There must be a cyberspace equivalent of this restrainta restoration of
balance that prioritizes civil rights, not surveillance, as vital to (inter)national
security. Is the benefit of spying on Brazils oil company worth the cost of antagonizing the people of our
to advance larger interests.

hemispheres second-largest democracy and giving China and Russia the moral high ground in debates over how
people around the world should access information? Do we really want a world where this behavior is normalized
and where its acceptable for every country to surveil and hack indiscriminately? The answer to that question

we need bold reforms from Washingtonwe need to curtail

our unhealthy addiction to surveillance and covert hacking. Only by being
radically transparent about the scope of current activities and ceasing
activities that transgress national norms will we regain global trust and
shift the rather bleak trajectory we are currently on.
seems pretty clear. Today

Preserving global internet stability is key to solve existential

crisis
DeNardis, 2014 Laura, tenured Professor and Associate Dean in the School of Communication at
American University, The Global War for Internet Governance, pg 15-18

The preservation of the Internet's stability and security parallels

other global collective action problems that have cumulative effects on all
nations. Some of these global problems obviously include environmental
protection, the prevention of terrorism, the eradication of infectious
diseases, and the protection of human rights. Similar to these global collective action
problems, the regional value of Internet infrastructure is dependent on the network
effects afforded by globally coordinated Inter-net governance functions . Universal
and consistent technical standards are the common denominator enabling
interoperability among computing devices. The international coordination of
Internet Globalization

Internet names and numbers ensures that each is globally unique . Cooperation at
Internet interconnection points collectively creates the Internet's global backbone.
Globally coordinated responses to Internet worms and viruses collectively
minimize the impact of new cybersecurity threats. International trade
agreements provide coordinated enforcement of intellectual property rights. The local
value of stable and secure global Internet governance is inestimable in
contemporary societies dependent on networked technologies to handle
basic business transactions, the movement of currency, and the exchange of
financial securities. The amount of money changing hands electronically measures
in the trillions range annually.1* Social life is also intertwined with digital life.
Reputation systems serve as social currency. Couples meet in online dating sites and social life materializes in

Press freedom and individual freedom of expression alike are

dependent on online infrastructures and the policies enacted to preserve both liberty and
social media platforms.

infrastructure reliability. Political campaigns rely on Internet-based fundraising and communi- cation with voters.

Law enforcement and national security efforts use digital infrastructures for
data gathering and information warfare. No less than economic security,
modern social life, culture, political discourse, and national security are at
stake in keeping the Internet globally opera- tional and secure.

Next is the Cloud Computing Scenario:

Domestic surveillance erodes American competitiveness in the
cloud-computing industryother countries are using the
specter of NSA surveillance as a selling point, costing
American companies billions
Kehl, Policy Analyst at New Americas Open Technology
Institute, 14
Daielle, Kevin Bankston, Policy Directorat OTI, Robyn Greene, Policy Counsel at
OTI, Robert Morgus, Research Associate at OTI, "Surveillance Costs: The NSA's
Impact on the Economy, Internet Freedom & Cybersecurity", July 2014, New
America's Open Technology Institute Policy Paper,
https://www.newamerica.org/downloads/Surveilance_Costs_Final.pdf
*trust gap in squo
*webhosting services are having an economic fallout- foreign companies are
benefiting
*180 billion dollar loss in 3 years
*long term drought for this market= econ collapse
Costs to the U.S. Cloud Computing Industry and Related Business Trust in
American businesses has taken a significant hit s ince the initial reports on the PRISM
program suggested that the NSA was directly tapping into the servers of nine U.S.
companies to obtain customer data for national security investigations .28 The
Washington Posts original story on the program provoked an uproar in the media and prompted the CEOs of
several major companies to deny knowledge of or participation in the program.29 The exact nature of the requests
made through the PRISM program was later clarified,30 but the public attention on

the relationship

between American companies and the NSA still created a significant trust
gap, especially in industries where users entrust companies to store sensitive
personal and commercial data. Last years national security leaks have also had a commercial and
financial impact on American technology companies that have provided these records, noted
Representative Bob Goodlatte, a prominent Republican leader and Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, in

have experienced backlash from both American and foreign

consumers and have had their competitive standing in the global marketplace
damaged.31 Given heightened concerns about the NSAs ability to access data
stored by U.S. companies, it is no surprise that American companies offering
cloud computing and webhosting services are among those experiencing
the most acute economic fallout from NSA surveillance. Within just a few weeks of
May 2014. They

the first disclosures, reports began to emerge that American cloud computing companies like Dropbox and
Amazon Web Services were starting to lose business to overseas competitors.32 The CEO of Artmotion, one of
Switzerlands largest offshore hosting providers, reported in July 2013 that his company had seen a 45 percent
jump in revenue since the first leaks,33 an early sign that the countrys perceived neutrality and strong data and

Foreign
companies are clearly poised to benefit from growing fears about the security
ramifications of keeping data in the United States. In a survey of 300 British and
Canadian businesses released by PEER 1 in January 2014,36 25 percent of
respondents indicated that they were moving data outside of the U.S. as a result of
the NSA revelations. An overwhelming number of the companies surveyed
indicated that security and data privacy were their top concerns, with 81 percent
stating that they want to know exactly where their data is being hosted. Seventy
percent were even willing to sacrifice performance in order to ensure that their
data was protected.37 It appears that little consideration was given over the past decade to the potential
privacy protections34 could potentially be turned into a serious competitive advantage.35

economic repercussions if the NSAs secret programs were revealed.38 This failure was acutely demonstrated by
the Obama Administrations initial focus on reassuring the public that its programs primarily affect nonAmericans, even though non-Americans are also heavy users of American companies products. Facebook CEO
Mark Zuckerberg put a fine point on the issue, saying that the government blew it in its response to the scandal.
He noted sarcastically: The government response was, Oh dont worry, were not spying on any Americans. Oh,
wonderful: thats really helpful to companies [like Facebook] trying to serve people around the world, and thats
really going to inspire confidence in American internet companies.39 As Zuckerbergs comments reflect,

certain parts of the American technology industry are particularly vulnerable to

international backlash since growth is heavily dependent on foreign markets. For
example, the U.S. cloud computing industry has grown from an estimated $46
billion in 2008 to $150 billion in 2014, with nearly 50 percent of worldwide cloudcomputing revenues coming from the U.S.40 R Street Institutes January 2014
policy study concluded that in the next few years, new products and services that
rely on cloud computing will become increasingly pervasive. Cloud computing is
also the root of development for the emerging generation of Web-based
applicationshome security, outpatient care, mobile payment, distance learning,
efficient energy use and driverless cars, writes R Streets Steven Titch in the
study. And it is a research area where the United States is an undisputed
leader.41 This trajectory may be dramatically altered, however, as a
consequence of the NSAs surveillance programs. Economic forecasts after
the Snowden leaks have predicted significant, ongoing losses for the cloudcomputing industry in the next few years. An August 2013 study by the
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) estimated that revelations
about the NSAs PRISM program could cost the American cloud computing industry $22
to $35 billion over the next three years.42 On the low end, the ITIF projection suggests that U.S.

cloud computing providers would lose 10 percent of the foreign market share to European or Asian competitors,
totaling in about $21.5 billion in losses; on the high-end, the $35 billion figure represents about 20 percent of the

Because the cloud computing industry is undergoing

rapid growth right nowa 2012 Gartner study predicted global spending on
cloud computing would increase by 100 percent from 2012 to 2016, compared to a
3 percent overall growth rate in the tech industry as a whole43 vendors in this
sector are particularly vulnerable to shifts in the market . Failing to recruit
new customers or losing a competitive advantage due to exploitation by rival
companies in other countries can quickly lead to a dwindling market share . The
ITIF study further notes that the percentage lost to foreign competitors could go
higher if foreign governments enact protectionist trade barriers that effectively cut
out U.S. providers, citing early calls from German data protection authorities to
suspend the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor program (which will be discussed at length in the next
section).44 As the R Street Policy Study highlights, Ironically, the NSA turned the competitive
edge U.S. companies have in cloud computing into a liability , especially in Europe.45 In a
follow up to the ITIF study, Forrester Research analyst James Staten argued that the think
tanks estimates were low, suggesting that the actual figure could be as high as
$180 billion over three years.46 Staten highlighted two additional impacts not
considered in the ITIF study. The first is that U.S. customersnot just foreign companies
would also avoid US cloud providers, especially for international and overseas
business. The ITIF study predicted that American companies would retain their domestic market share, but
Staten argued that the economic blowback from the revelations would be felt at home, too. You dont have
to be a French company, for example, to be worried about the US government
snooping in the data about your French clients, he wrote.47 Moreover, the analysis highlighted
a second and far more costly impact: that foreign cloud providers, too, would lose
as much as 20 percent of overseas and domestic business because of
similar spying programs conducted by other governments . Indeed, the NSA
companies foreign market share.

disclosures have prompted a fundamental re-examination of the role of intelligence services in conducting
coordinated cross-border surveillance, according to a November 2013 report by Privacy International on the
Five Eyes intelligence partnership between the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New

as the surveillance landscape around the world becomes

more clear, it could have a serious negative impact on all hosting and outsourcing
services, resulting in a 25 percent decline in the overall IT services market, or
about $180 billion in losses.49 Recent reports suggest that things are, in fact,
moving in the direction that analysts like Castro and Staten suggested .50 A survey
of 1,000 [Information and Communications Technology (ICT)] decision-makers from France,
Germany, Hong Kong, the UK, and the USA in February and March 2014 found that the
disclosures have had a direct impact on how companies around the world
think about ICT and cloud computing in particular.51 According to the data from NTT
Communications, 88 percent of decision-makers are changing their purchasing
behavior when it comes to the cloud, with the vast majority indicating that the
location of the data is very important. The results do not bode well for recruitment
of new customers, either62 percent of those currently not storing data in the
cloud indicated that the revelations have since prevented them from moving their
ICT systems there. And finally, 82 percent suggested that they agree with
proposals made by German Chancellor Angela Merkel in February 2014 to have separate
data networks for Europe, which will be discussed in further detail in Part III of this report. Providing
direct evidence of this trend, Servint, a Virginia-based webhosting company,
Zealand.48 Staten predicts that

reported in June 2014 that international clients have declined by as much as half,
dropping from approximately 60 percent of its business to 30 percent since the
leaks began.52 With faith in U.S. companies on the decline, foreign
companies are stepping in to take advantage of shifting public perceptions .
As Georg Mascolo and Ben Scott predicted in a joint paper published by the Wilson Center and the New America
Foundation in October 2013, Major commercial actors on both continents are preparing offensive and defensive

For
example, Runbox, a small Norwegian company that offers secure email service,
reported a 34 percent jump in customers since June 201 3.54 Runbox markets itself as a safer
strategies to battle in the market for a competitive advantage drawn from Snowdens revelations.53

email and webhosting provider for both individual and commercial customers, promising that it will never

Since the NSA

revelations, the company has touted its privacy-centric design and the fact that its
servers are located in Norway as a competitive advantage. Being firmly located in Norway,
disclose any user data unauthorized, track your usage, or display any advertisements.55

the Runbox email service is governed by strict privacy regulations and is a safe alternative to American email
services as well as cloud-based services that move data across borders and jurisdictions, company
representatives wrote on its blog in early 2014.56 F-Secure, a Finnish cloud storage company, similarly

Presenting
products and services as NSA-proof or safer alternatives to Americanmade goods is an increasingly viable strategy for foreign companies hoping
to chip away at U.S. tech competiveness.58
emphasizes the fact that its roots [are] in Finland, where privacy is a fiercely guarded value.57

The current business climate in the technology sector will do

lasting damage to American economic competitivenessonly
meaningful government reform can change the economic
trajectory
Kehl, Policy Analyst at New Americas Open Technology
Institute, 14
Daielle, Kevin Bankston, Policy Directorat OTI, Robyn Greene, Policy Counsel at
OTI, Robert Morgus, Research Associate at OTI, "Surveillance Costs: The NSA's
Impact on the Economy, Internet Freedom & Cybersecurity", July 2014, New
America's Open Technology Institute Policy Paper,
https://www.newamerica.org/downloads/Surveilance_Costs_Final.pdf
*declining prices in overseas markets
* secure alternatives
Costs to Overseas Tech Sales The economic impact of NSA spying does not end
with the American cloud computing industry. According to The New York Times, Even as
Washington grapples with the diplomatic and political fallout of Mr. Snowdens leaks, the
more urgent issue, companies and analysts say, is economic.59 In the past year,
a number of American companies have reported declining sales in overseas
markets like China (where, it must be noted, suspicion of the American government was already high
before the NSA disclosures), loss of customers including foreign governments, and
increased competition from non-U.S. services marketing themselves as
secure alternatives to popular American products. There is already
significant evidence linking NSA surveillance to direct harm to U.S.

economic interests. In November 2013, Cisco became one of the first companies to publicly
discuss the impact of the NSA on its business, reporting that orders from China fell 18 percent
and that its worldwide revenue would decline 8 to 10 percent in the fourth quarter ,
in part because of continued sales weakness in China. 60 New orders in the developing world fell
12 percent in the third quarter, with the Brazilian market dropping roughly 25 percent
of its Cisco sales.61 Although John Chambers, Ciscos CEO, was hesitant to blame
all losses on the NSA, he acknowledged that it was likely a factor in declining Chinese sales62
and later admitted that he had never seen as fast a decline in an emerging market as the drop in China in late
2013.63 These numbers were also released before documents in May 2014 revealed that the NSAs Tailored
Access Operations unit had intercepted network gearincluding Cisco routersbeing shipped to target
organizations in order to covertly install implant firmware on them before they were delivered.64 In response,

these actions
will undermine confidence in our industry and in the ability of technology
companies to deliver products globally.65 Much like Cisco, Qualcomm, IBM,
Microsoft, and Hewlett-Packard all reported in late 2013 that sales were
down in China as a result of the NSA revelations.66 Sanford C. Bernstein
analyst Toni Sacconaghi has predicted that after the NSA revelations, US
technology companies face the most revenue risk in China by a wide margin , followed
by Brazil and other emerging markets.67 Industry observers have also questioned whether
companies like Applewhich hopes to bring in significant revenue from iPhone
sales in Chinawill feel the impact overseas.68 Even AT&T reportedly faced
intense scrutiny regarding its proposed acquisition of Vodafone, a European wireless carrier, after
journalists revealed the extent of AT&Ts collaboration with the NSA.69 American
companies are also losing out on business opportunities and contracts with
large companies and foreign governments as a result of NSA spying . According
to an article in The New York Times, American businesses are being left off some requests
for proposals from foreign customers that previously would have included them. 70
This refers to German companies, for example, that are increasingly uncomfortable giving their
business to American firms. Meanwhile, the German government plans to change
its procurement rules to prevent American companies that cooperate with the
NSA or other intelligence organizations from being awarded federal IT contracts. 71
The government has already announced it intends to end its contract with Verizon ,
which provides Internet service to a number of government departments.72 There are indications that
Verizon is legally required to provide certain things to the NSA, and thats one of
the reasons the cooperation with Verizon wont continue, a spokesman for the
German Interior Ministry told the Associated Press in June.73 The NSA disclosures
have similarly been blamed for Brazils December 2013 decision to award a $4.5
billion contract to Saab over Boeing, an American company that had previously
been the frontrunner in a deal to replace Brazils fleet of fighter jets .74 Welber Barral, a
Chambers wrote in a letter to the Obama Administration that if these allegations are true,

former Brazilian trade secretary, suggested to Bloomberg News that Boeing would have won the contract a year

a source in the Brazilian government told Reuters that the NSA

problem ruined it for the Americans.76 As we will discuss in greater depth in the next section,
earlier,75 while

Germany and Brazil are also considering data localization proposals that could harm U.S. business interests and
prevent American companies from entering into new markets because of high compliance costs. Cost to Public Trust in
American Companies The pressure is increasing on American companies to respond to the revelations in order to mitigate potential backlash and prevent foreign companies from
poaching their business. According to the R Street Institute study, It appears the NSAs aggressive surveillance has created an overall fear among U.S. companies that there is guilt
by association from which they need to proactively distance themselves.79 Some companies have tried to regain trust by publicly stating that they are not part of PRISM or other
NSA programs, issuing disclaimers along the lines of those published by Amazon and Salesforce in June 2013.80 Others that have been directly linked to the NSA programs have
publicly criticized the American government and called for greater transparency in order to rebuild user confidence and counteract potential economic harms.81 To that end, nine
major American companiesAOL, Apple, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoojoined together in the Reform Government Surveillance campaign in
January 2014, where they launched a website and wrote an open letter to government leaders laying out principles for surveillance reform, including an end to bulk collection and
opposition to data localization requirements.82 Since the launch, the coalition has urged reform on Capitol Hill through outreach and letters to Congress, supported the February
2014 The Day We Fight Back activist campaign, and hired a lobbyist to bolster their efforts to curb the NSAs reach.83 This unlikely, public partnership of some of Internets biggest
rivals speaks to the seriousness of the threats to their collective business interests.84 Indeed, according to an April 2014 Harris poll commissioned by a data security company, nearly
half of the 2,000 respondents (47 percent) have changed their online behavior since the NSA leaks, paying closer attention not only to the sites they visit but also to what they say and

do on the Internet.85 In particular, 26 percent indicated that they are now doing less online shopping and banking since learning the extent of government surveillance programs.
Clearly, there are significant financial incentives for companies to distance themselves from the programs, and as a result, they are expending capitalactual and politicalto do so.
Other companies have taken it a step further, developing new products or taking additional precautions to assure customers that their data is safe from the NSA. Many tech
companies feel they have no choice but to try to develop NSA resistant products because customers from China to Germany threaten to boycott American hardware and cloud services
they view as compromised, wrote USA Today in February 2014.86 Companies like Yahoo and Google have devoted increased resources to hardening their systems against NSA
surveillance in order to assure users that their data is adequately protected.87 Yahoo implemented automatic encryption on its email service in January 2014, and in March 2014
began encrypting all traffic that moved between its data centers, as well as queries on its homepage and its messaging service.88 Googles Vice President for Security Engineering,
Eric Grosse, referred to efforts to protect users data from government surveillance as an arms race, when discussing the companys move last fall to encrypt all information
travelling between its data centers.89 In June 2014, Google unveiled a source code extension for the Chrome browser called End-to-End which is designed to make email encryption
easy, and announced a new section of its transparency report called Safer Email which details the percentage of email that is encrypted in transit and identifies the providers who
support encryption.90 These changes are part of a new focus on encouraging users and companies to harden their systems against NSA surveillance, and the strategy appears to be
working. Almost immediately, Comcast announced its plans to work with Google to encrypt all email traffic exchanged with Gmail after the cable company was described as one of the
worst offenders in the new report.91 Meanwhile, Microsoft has been publicizing its policy that allows customers to store their data in Microsoft data centers in specific countries.92
John E. Frank, deputy general counsel at Microsoft, told The New York Times, Were hearing from customers, especially global enterprise customers, that they care more than ever
about where their content is stored and how it is used and secured.93 IBM is reportedly spending over a billion dollars to build overseas data centers in an effort to reassure foreign
customers that their data is protected from U.S. surveillance.94 In reference to foreign customers asking about whether their data is protected from government snooping, an IBM
executive said, My response is protect your data against any third party whether its the NSA, other governments, hackers, terrorists, whatever, adding that it is time to start
talking about encryption and VPNs and all the ways you can protect yourself.95 Finally, faced with an impossible choice between maintaining user trust and complying with
government requests, a handful of American companies that provide secure email services have had to shut down their operations altogether. Lavabit, a secure email service provider
that experienced a 1,900 percent increase in account registrations after the Snowden revelations, shuttered its business after it became clear that user data could not be protected
from government surveillance. When the NSA could not read Lavibits communications directly by breaking its encryption, the agency obtained orders compelling the company to
hand over information related to its encryption keys, which would have given the NSA the ability to decrypt the communications of all 400,000 of Lavabits customers.96 Silent Circle,
a secure communications provider that saw a 400 percent revenue increase following the Snowden revelations, followed Lavabits lead and shut down its secure mail service,

It is abundantly clear that the NSA

surveillance programs are currently having a serious, negative impact on
the U.S. economy and threatening the future competitiveness of American
technology companies. Not only are U.S. companies losing overseas sales and
getting dropped from contracts with foreign companies and governmentsthey are
also watching their competitive advantage in fast-growing industries like cloud
computing and webhosting disappear, opening the door for foreign companies who
claim to offer more secure alternative products to poach their business. Industry
efforts to increase transparency and accountability as well as concrete steps to
promote better security by adopting encryption and other best practices are
positive signs, but U.S. companies cannot solve this problem alone. Its not
explaining that the decision was made because we see the writing on the wall.97

blowing over, said Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith at a recent conference. In June of 2014, it is clear it is

Without meaningful government reform and better

oversight, concerns about the breadth of NSA surveillance could lead to
permanent shifts in the global technology market and do lasting damage to
the U.S. economy.
getting worse, not better.98

Our evidence is reverse casual- the cloud-computing industry

is necessary to save the economythe information economy
affects all organizations and is ripe for innovation
Coviello, Executive Vice President, EMC Corporation, 11
Art, "Can Cloud Computing Save The American Economy?", March 13 2011, Forbes,
www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2011/03/13/can-cloud-computing-save-theamerican-economy/
The American dream is in peril from the confluence of sky rocketing deficits, high
unemployment, and the ticking time bomb of an aging baby boomer generation,
with its coincident increase in the burden of entitlements as a percentage of GDP . For
the first time, the next generation of Americans, our grandchildren, risk having a lower standard of living than we

We will not save

or cut our way back to economic prosperity. The way forward is innovation.
America must innovate its way out of economic stagnation and back to economic
growth. As has been the case for the last 150 years, Americans have always responded well in a crisis and yet
enjoyed. It is not a problem that can be remedied with tax increases and budget reductions.

again, we are well positioned to lead the world out of this one. Want proof? American businesses systemically and
culturally react fast. Two years after the economic downturn began the United States was generating 97% of its

economic output with only 90% of the labor. This sort of gain in productivity ultimately translates into increased
economic activity, the ability to pay down debt and a higher standard of living for those of us who are employed.

productivity gains
from working harder can only take us so far. Innovation and technology can and
must take us the rest of the way, creating new jobs and new industries . Our so
called information economy, for example, is ripe for innovation. Today, all
organizations are dependent on information technology. What makes me
optimistic about the future is that we have not even begun to scratch the surface of
all that can be accomplished by actually applying information technology
pervasively. We have spent trillions of dollars worldwide for the computers to create
and process information, networks to move it around and the hardware to store it.
But we are at a point where we spend 60 to 70% of IT budgets just to maintain
those systems and infrastructures. No wonder progress in applying IT is so slow. This is the
technology equivalent of every organization in the world, big or small, investing the
capital and human resources to build and operate their own electricity producing
power plants. But instead, picture a world where software platforms are available
online and easily customizable. Picture a world where compute power is generated
off site, available in quantities when and where you need it. And picture a world
where information is safely stored, efficiently managed and accessible, when and
where you need it. These are cloud infrastructures. The economies of scale,
flexibility and efficiency they offer will not only save organizations massive amounts
of capital and maintenance costs but emancipate them to apply and use
information as never before. An unbelievable opportunity to raise productivity while
creating unprecedented opportunities for businesses and workers. Now picture a healthUnfortunately it does not directly address the issue of unemployment. The fact is that

care system where a doctor has medical records at his fingertips, can see x-rays with the click of a mouse, is able to
learn and apply the latest diagnostic and surgical technique from anywhere in the world. Think of the efficiencies in
hospital supply chains, the delivery of prescription drugs, the processing of billing and insurance claims, reductions
in fraud, and the application of best practices for cost controls. The capacity for improvement is endless. As a

But for us to seize the

opportunity before us its imperative that we move from isolated centers of
excellence to connected systems of excellence. Pick any industry and systemic improvements like
these are available. A new age of innovation and technology advancement is within our
grasp an opportunity for job creation, greater productivity and economic growth.
The time for cloud computing is now. We need government and industry to
accelerate broad scale adoption of cloud infrastructures so we can reap the rewards
of a true information based economy. As I said at the outset, Americans respond well in a crisis. It is
matter of fact, these innovations are already being applied in isolated pockets.

the nature of our society: egalitarian, free, open and competitive that make us the most adaptive, inventive and
resilient country in the world. Time again for us to lead.

Competitiveness is vital to hegemony and conflict suppression

Hubbard, Open Society Foundations program assistant, 2010
(Jesse, Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Analysis, 5-28,
http://isrj.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/hegemonic-stability-theory/)
*regression analysis
*instability- bad economy

*If lose economic powers other hegemons challenge

Regression analysis of this data shows that Pearsons r-value is -.836. In the case of
American hegemony, economic strength is a better predictor of violent
conflict than even overall national power, which had an r-value of -.819. The data is also well within
the realm of statistical significance, with a p-value of .0014. While the data for British hegemony was not as striking, the same
overall pattern holds true in both cases. During both periods of hegemony, hegemonic strength was negatively related with violent
conflict, and yet use of force by the hegemon was positively correlated with violent conflict in both cases. Finally, in both cases,
economic power was more closely associated with conflict levels than military power. Statistical analysis created a more
complicated picture of the hegemons role in fostering stability than initially anticipated. VI. Conclusions and Implications for
Theory and Policy To elucidate some answers regarding the complexities my analysis unearthed, I turned first to the existing
theoretical literature on hegemonic stability theory. The existing literature provides some potential frameworks for understanding
these results. Since economic strength proved to be of such crucial importance, reexamining the literature that focuses on
hegemonic stability theorys economic implications was the logical first step. As explained above, the literature on hegemonic
stability theory can be broadly divided into two camps that which focuses on the international economic system, and that which
focuses on armed conflict and instability. This research falls squarely into the second camp, but insights from the first camp are

economic
instability between the First and Second World Wars could be attributed to the lack
of an economic hegemon (Kindleberger 1973). But economic instability obviously has spillover effects into the
still of relevance. Even Kindlebergers early work on this question is of relevance. Kindleberger posited that the

international political arena. Keynes, writing after WWI, warned in his seminal tract The Economic Consequences of the Peace that
Germanys economic humiliation could have a radicalizing effect on the nations political culture (Keynes 1919). Given later
events, his warning seems prescient. In the years since the Second World War, however, the European continent has not relapsed
into armed conflict. What was different after the second global conflagration? Crucially, the United States was in a far more
powerful position than Britain was after WWI. As the tables above show, Britains economic strength after the First World War was
about 13% of the total in strength in the international system. In contrast, the United States possessed about 53% of relative
economic power in the international system in the years immediately following WWII. The U.S. helped rebuild Europes economic
strength with billions of dollars in investment through the Marshall Plan, assistance that was never available to the defeated
powers after the First World War (Kindleberger 1973). The interwar years were also marked by a series of debilitating trade wars
that likely worsened the Great Depression (Ibid.). In contrast, when Britain was more powerful, it was able to facilitate greater
free trade, and after World War II, the United States played a leading role in creating institutions like the GATT that had an
essential role in facilitating global trade (Organski 1958). The possibility that economic stability is an important factor in the

Another
theory that could provide insight into the patterns observed in this research is that
of preponderance of power. Gilpin theorized that when a state has the
preponderance of power in the international system, rivals are more likely
to resolve their disagreements without resorting to armed conflict (Gilpin
1983). The logic behind this claim is simple it makes more sense to challenge a weaker hegemon than a stronger one. This
overall security environment should not be discounted, especially given the results of my statistical analysis.

simple yet powerful theory can help explain the puzzlingly strong positive correlation between military conflicts engaged in by the
hegemon and conflict overall. It is not necessarily that military involvement by the hegemon instigates further conflict in the
international system. Rather, this military involvement could be a function of the hegemons weaker position, which is the true
cause of the higher levels of conflict in the international system.

Additionally, it is important to note that

military power is, in the long run, dependent on economic strength. Thus, it is
possible that as hegemons lose relative economic power, other nations are
tempted to challenge them even if their short-term military capabilities are
still strong. This would help explain some of the variation found between the economic and military data. The results of
this analysis are of clear importance beyond the realm of theory. As the debate rages over the role of the United States in the
world, hegemonic stability theory has some useful insights to bring to the table. What this research makes clear is that a strong
hegemon can exert a positive influence on stability in the international system. However, this should not give policymakers a

If anything,
this research points to the central importance of economic influence in fostering
international stability. To misconstrue these findings to justify anything else would
be a grave error indeed. Hegemons may play a stabilizing role in the international
system, but this role is complicated. It is economic strength, not military
dominance that is the true test of hegemony. A weak state with a strong
military is a paper tiger it may appear fearsome, but it is vulnerable to even a
short blast of wind.
justification to engage in conflict or escalate military budgets purely for the sake of international stability.

Great power war

Zhang et al., Carnegie Endowment researcher, 2011
(Yuhan, Americas decline: A harbinger of conflict and rivalry, 1-22,
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflictand-rivalry/, ldg)
*no one can challenge USA and attack us
*bandwagon so they dont just attack USA but USA and squad
*without hegemony there will be trade blocs and regional power wars
This does not necessarily mean that the US is in systemic decline, but it encompasses a trend that appears to be negative and
perhaps alarming. Although the US still possesses incomparable military prowess and its economy remains the worlds largest, the

the global
distribution of power is shifting, and the inevitable result will be a world that is
less peaceful, liberal and prosperous, burdened by a dearth of effective conflict
regulation. Over the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to
seriously challenge the US military. Under these circumstances, motivated by both
opportunity and fear, many actors have bandwagoned with US hegemony and
accepted a subordinate role. Canada, most of Western Europe, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and
the Philippines have all joined the US, creating a status quo that has tended to mute great power conflicts. However, as
the hegemony that drew these powers together withers, so will the pulling power
behind the US alliance. The result will be an international order where power is
more diffuse, American interests and influence can be more readily challenged, and conflicts or wars may
be harder to avoid. As history attests, power decline and redistribution result in
military confrontation. For example, in the late 19th century Americas emergence as a regional power saw it launch
once seemingly indomitable chasm that separated America from anyone else is narrowing. Thus,

its first overseas war of conquest towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in US power and
waning of British power, the American Navy had begun to challenge the notion that Britain rules the waves. Such a notion would
eventually see the US attain the status of sole guardians of the Western Hemispheres security to become the order-creating
Leviathan shaping the international system with democracy and rule of law. Defining this US-centred system are three key
characteristics: enforcement of property rights, constraints on the actions of powerful individuals and groups and some degree of

As a result of such political stability, free markets,

liberal trade and flexible financial mechanisms have appeared. And, with this,
many countries have sought opportunities to enter this system, proliferating stable
and cooperative relations. However, what will happen to these advances as Americas influence declines? Given that
equal opportunities for broad segments of society.

Americas authority, although sullied at times, has benefited people across much of Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe,
the Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to this question could affect global society in a

Public imagination and academia have anticipated that a posthegemonic world would return to the problems of the 1930s: regional blocs, trade
conflicts and strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral institutions such as the
IMF, the World Bank or the WTO might give way to regional organisations. For
example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to fill the vacuum left by
Washingtons withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free markets
would become more politicised and, well, less free and major powers would
compete for supremacy. Additionally, such power plays have historically possessed
a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and 1970s, US economic power declined relative to the rise of the Japanese and
profoundly detrimental way.

Western European economies, with the US dollar also becoming less attractive. And, as American power eroded, so did

A world without American

hegemony is one where great power wars re-emerge, the liberal international
system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves
international regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in 1973).

into restrictive, anti-globalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that
will inevitably be devoid of unrivalled US primacy.

Econ decline causes nuclear war

Harold James 14, Professor of history at Princeton Universitys Woodrow Wilson
School who specializes in European economic history, 7/2/14, Debate: Is 2014,
like 1914, a prelude to world war?, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globedebate/read-and-vote-is-2014-like-1914-a-prelude-to-world-war/article19325504/

As we get closer to the centenary of Gavrilo Princips act of terrorism in Sarajevo, there is an ever more vivid fear:

it could happen again . The approach of the hundredth anniversary of 1914 has put a
spotlight on the fragility of the worlds political and economic security systems . At the
beginning of 2013, Luxembourgs Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker was widely ridiculed for evoking the shades
of 1913. By now he is looking like a prophet. By 2014, as

the security situation in the South China

Sea deteriorated, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe cast China as the equivalent to Kaiser Wilhelms
Germany; and the fighting in Ukraine and in Iraq is a sharp reminder of the dangers of
escalation. Lessons of 1914 are about more than simply the dangers of national and sectarian animosities.
The main story of today as then is the precariousness of financial globalization , and
the consequences that political leaders draw from it.

In the influential view of Norman Angell in his 1910 book

the interdependency of the increasingly complex global economy

made war impossible. But a quite opposite conclusion was possible and equally
plausible and proved to be the case . Given the extent of fragility, a clever twist to
the control levers might make war easily winnable by the economic hegemon. In
the wake of an epochal financial crisis that almost brought a complete global
collapse, in 1907, several countries started to think of finance as primarily an
instrument of raw power, one that could and should be turned to national advantage. The 1907 panic
The Great Illusion,

emanated from the United States but affected the rest of the world and demonstrated the fragility of the whole
international financial order. The aftermath of the 1907 crash drove the then hegemonic power Great Britain - to
reflect on how it could use its financial power. Between 1905 and 1908, the British Admiralty evolved the broad
outlines of a plan for financial and economic warfare that would wreck the financial system of its major European
rival, Germany, and destroy its fighting capacity. Britain used its extensive networks to gather information about
opponents. London banks financed most of the worlds trade. Lloyds provided insurance for the shipping not just
of Britain, but of the world. Financial networks provided the information that allowed the British government to
find the sensitive strategic vulnerabilities of the opposing alliance. What pre-1914 Britain did anticipated the
private-public partnership that today links technology giants such as Google, Apple or Verizon to U.S. intelligence
gathering. Since last year, the Edward Snowden leaks about the NSA have shed a light on the way that global
networks are used as a source of intelligence and power. For Britains rivals, the financial panic of 1907 showed
the necessity of mobilizing financial powers themselves. The United States realized that it needed a central bank
analogous to the Bank of England. American financiers thought that New York needed to develop its own
commercial trading system that could handle bills of exchange in the same way as the London market. Some of

the dynamics of the pre-1914 financial world are now re-emerging. Then an
economically declining power , Britain, wanted to use finance as a weapon against its
larger and faster growing competitors, Germany and the United States. Now America is in turn obsessed
by being overtaken by China according to some calculations, set to become the worlds largest
economy in 2014. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, financial institutions
appear both as dangerous weapons of mass destruction , but also as potential instruments for
the application of national power. In managing the 2008 crisis, the dependence of foreign banks on U.S. dollar
funding constituted a major weakness, and required the provision of large swap lines by the Federal Reserve. The
United States provided that support to some countries, but not others, on the basis of an explicitly political logic,

as Eswar Prasad demonstrates in his new book on the Dollar Trap. Geo-politics is intruding into banking
practice elsewhere. Before the Ukraine crisis, Russian banks were trying to acquire assets in Central and Eastern
Europe. European and U.S. banks are playing a much reduced role in Asian trade finance. Chinese banks are
being pushed to expand their role in global commerce. After the financial crisis, China started to build up the
renminbi as a major international currency. Russia and China have just proposed to create a new credit rating
agency to avoid what they regard as the political bias of the existing (American-based) agencies. The next stage
in this logic is to think about how financial power can be directed to national advantage in the case of a diplomatic
tussle. Sanctions are a routine (and not terribly successful) part of the pressure applied to rogue states such as
Iran and North Korea. But financial pressure can be much more powerfully applied to countries that are deeply
embedded in the world economy. The test is in the Western imposition of sanctions after the Russian annexation
of Crimea. President Vladimir Putins calculation in response is that the European Union and the United States
cannot possibly be serious about the financial war. It would turn into a boomerang: Russia would be less affected

The threat of systemic

disruption generates a new sort of uncertainty, one that mirrors the decisive feature
of the crisis of the summer of 1914. At that time, no one could really know whether
clashes would escalate or not. That feature contrasts remarkably with almost the entirety of the Cold
War, especially since the 1960s, when the strategic doctrine of M utually A ssured D estruction
left no doubt that any superpower conflict would inevitably escalate . The idea of
than the more developed and complex financial markets of Europe and America.

network disruption relies on the ability to achieve advantage by surprise, and to win at no or low cost. But it is
inevitably a gamble, and raises prospect that others might, but also might not be able to, mount the same sort of

there is an enhanced temptation to roll the dice, even though

the game may be fatal.

operation. Just as in 1914,

Prioritize stopping flashpoints of war over structural violence

stats prove this is a better approach to stop injustice
Joshua Goldstein, Intl Rel Prof @ American U, 2001, War and Gender, p. 412
First, peace activists face a dilemma in thinking about causes of war and working for
peace. Many peace scholars and activists support the approach, if you want peace,
work for justice. Then, if one believes that sexism contributes to war one can work
for gender justice specifically (perhaps among others) in order to pursue peace. This
approach brings strategic allies to the peace movement (women, labor, minorities),
but rests on the assumption that injustices cause war. The evidence in this book
suggests that causality runs at least as strongly the other way. War is not a
product of capitalism, imperialism, gender, innate aggression, or any other
single cause, although all of these influence wars outbreaks and outcomes.
Rather, war has in part fueled and sustained these and other injustices.9 So,if you
want peace, work for peace. Indeed, if you want justice (gender and others), work
for peace. Causality does not run just upward through the levels of analysis, from
types of individuals, societies, and governments up to war. It runs downward too.
Enloe suggests that changes in attitudes towards war and the military may be the
most important way to reverse womens oppression. The dilemma is that peace
work focused on justice brings to the peace movement energy, allies, and moral
grounding, yet, in light of this books evidence, the emphasis on injustice as the
main cause of war seems to be empirically inadequate.