No. 1 priority for US security: domestic terrorism, threat report says
America's intelligence-agency chiefs unveil the annual National Threat Assessment, saying that success against Al Qaeda means that domestic terrorism is now 'priority No. 1.' They also say they knew Egypt unrest was 'close,' but couldn't foresee when it would ignite.
(Page 2 of 2)
“The incredible loss of US intellectual property through cyberespionage is something that could sap American power not just in the long term but in the medium term,” says Kristen Lord, vice president of the Center for a New American Security, which is in the midst of conducting a year-long cybersecurity research project.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
“It’s something that companies we talked to are very worried about," she said. "Often, their systems have been penetrated, and they aren’t even aware of it.”
As a result, they are lobbying American intelligence agencies to share more information about how best to defend their systems.
The problem with combating cyberattacks, however, is that perpetrators are notoriously difficult to identify, making it hard to defend against the threat, let alone retaliate. “You don’t know if it’s a state actor, a group of individuals acting at the behest of a state actor, or a group of high school kids across the street,” Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller explained to the committee.
This means, he added, that today there are not just intelligence officers, but electronic and cyberprobes intruding into networks and extracting information that states hostile to America “previously needed to recruit agents to obtain.”
These cyberattacks, Mr. Mueller said, have the potential of “bringing down pieces of infrastructure if not adequately protected” – including electrical grids and airlines. “One of the things we’re hearing is about the threat of foreign governments creating cyberalliances with highly capable individuals,” Ms. Lord of CNAS adds, “including cybermercenaries who may also work with terrorist organizations.”
Even as they issued their warnings, the nation’s top intelligence officials were also called upon to defend their work in Egypt. Clapper endeavored to do that, noting that the intelligence community has long sounded the alarm on the political repression and economic hardship that contribute to instability in the Mideast.
Clapper argued, too, that events such as the uprising in Egypt are difficult to predict. The departure of an autocrat in Tunisia under mass popular pressure helped spark a movement in Egypt, he explained. “It’s hard to foretell the impact of a fruit vendor who had his fruit stolen and self-immolated … that served as a catalyst for more widespread outbreak” in Tunisia and, later, Egypt, Clapper noted.
That said, Mr. Panetta conceded that the CIA, for its part, needs “to do a better job evaluating the triggers” that can spark such events, including “the large numbers of youth and the whole role of the internet” that allows activists to quickly organize demonstrations. Panetta added that he has put together a 35-member task force to focus on “better collection on issues like popular sentiments” and “the strength of the opposition.”
In the agency’s defense, however, he offered an analogy, comparing such intelligence collecting to predicting an earthquake. “People can tell you where the tremors are, where the fault lines are – they can even tell you that the threat of something happening is close,” Panetta said. “But they can’t tell you when the earthquake is going to take place.”