The 2016 Presidential election exposed the cyber-war
waged by the adversaries of the United States.
How did it happen?
How did we let it happen? What
did we miss?
Cyber-defenses must be developed now to prevent the 2016
cyber-attack from repeating in the 2020 election. But if we don’t understand
how our adversaries succeeded, countermeasures will not be effective.
We thought we knew a
lot about cyber-war, but our adversaries knew more. We did not recognize the subtle aspects of the new
“information-terrorism” war. What exactly did Russia and China do? How did we
miss it? What can we do to fight the new cyber-information war?
How could I analyze
all the information? We know what happened in the 2016 cyber-attack, but
what were the conditions that led to that event ? My practical approach was to
reverse engineer the known events and work backwards over the long history of US
vs. Russia and China conflicts.
My research process was similar to the crime mysteries from
TV, movies and books. The story opens with the discovery of a crime. The
detectives investigate the scene, look for clues, motives and possible suspects,
backtracks every possible step that led up to the crime
The Margin of Error diagnosis is similar to the criminal investigation,
but we are starting with far more information than a typical crime story. We
know:
ü
The crime: the infiltration of digital news
and social media with fake information
and hacking of the 2016 presidential
election.
ü
The perpetrators: the adversaries of the United
States, primarily Russia, China and to a lesser extent, Iran and North Korea.
ü
The likely motives: the malicious intentions of
our adversaries for economic, political
and global influence, and to harm the United States and the 2016 presidential election.
ü
The obvious weapons used in the crime: mass
media, social media, hacking of digital files.
ü
All the basics of the crime have been confirmed
by the first investigation teams and the
U.S. intelligence agencies about the scope and actions of external
“meddling” in the U.S. elections.
So, our mystery is
not a whodunit, or why they did it, or what weapons were used.
Our mystery is how
the cyber- weapons were brought into our space undetected and used so
effectively.
The second familiar
crime concern – is the perpetrator still at large ? Are we still at risk for
another similar crime? The answers are yes.
The Margin of Error War diagnoses the
long-term war against the US and the 2016 turning point, when we lost the first
epic cyber-battle of the 21st century. Russia, and friends, found
the subtle and unrecognized techniques to manipulate the news and voters –
right in front of us– to shift political polls, in critical areas, just enough,
within the “margin of error”.
The internet has leveled the global battlefields. All
combatants now have the same capabilities to wage cyber-war using unregulated
digital media. And digital communications technology has advanced far faster
than our systems to ensure their safe and legitimate use.
Our adversaries did not have to use the digital media to
influence every vote in America, their plan was simpler and easier. The basic
strategy had two components that we missed in real-time:
·
Aggravate and accelerate every conflict that was
already present in the US, to increase divisiveness.
·
Change the minds of just 2% of the people, in
critical states. The elections in three states, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania
were each decided by less than 1%. Our adversaries were able to manipulate news
and opinions, nudge just enough votes to be undetected, because the shifts in
the political polls were “within the margin of error”.
We have one more chance before 2020 to get the cyber-war
right.
We have a government and professionals who have the
knowledge to develop the hi-tech cyber defenses. But we also need new
information defenses that will give us more confidence in the credibility of
the news and the providers.
There are regulations for accrediting or inspecting food, airplanes, water, colleges,
almost everything in our life to help ensure they are safe and accurately
presented. But we have no standards for the critical news that affects our
lives. We can develop the standards to make sure that most news and political
polls provide the most accurate, reliable and honest information possible.(Yes,
can stay within First Amendment rights).Two things we can do now:
·
Create an accreditation system for news and
information providers. No one will be prohibited from publishing news, but
accreditation will be an additional step for sources that want to be
acknowledged as willing to meet standards of transparency and legitimacy.
·
Develop robust standards for political polling.
General practices are currently observed, but they are insufficient to ensure
that surveys and political polls are designed and conducted to minimize bias
and help make them more comparable. The disclaimer of poll results must be sued
recognizing the “margin of error”, is
not a safeguard, its an excuse.
You have to judge what you believe about our diagnosis and
proposals, but you can’t disagree with the current state of global conflicts.
The conflicts are real; the identities of terrorists are not in question. Most
of the tools, tactics and actions are documented. This book is about how it
happened, how easily it happened, and what we can do while we still have time
to combat our adversaries and preserve America institutions and democracy.
Yes, the truth can be
more alarming than fiction.
Richard Spitzer
847-736-2424
