When U.S. senator John McCain told Ukrainian television that the allegedly Russian-backed breach of the Democratic National Committee’s server was an act of war, Michael Schmitt cringed.
p
Schmitt, a professor of law at the U.S. Naval War College and University of Exeter in England, has spent years trying to defuse talk of cyberattacks, an expression used to describe everything from remotely disabling a city’s power grid to stealing a Facebook password. The concern, for Schmitt and others, is that overheated rhetoric could prompt dangerous diplomatic missteps.
p
We’re very nervous when people say ‘cyberattack,’ because a ‘cyberattack’ opens the door to a state responding at very highest level of severity, Schmitt said in a recent interview. If there’s any area where we need to be careful, it’s this.
p
Schmitt is one of a group of academics campaigning to change the language around electronic subterfuge. Their work on a recently published handbook, the Tallinn Manual 2.0 , is meant to help policymakers to distinguish serious attacks from minor incidents. Other experts are directly lobbying journalists and politicians to moderate their tone.
p
Words matter, said Thomas Rid, who teaches at the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. Words affect intelligence operations; words affect military operations; words affect the behavior of allies and enemies. And of course words shape what lawmakers think and what laws are made. So if we’re not precise, we’re literally escalating a problem.
p
Professionals are trying to knock back talk of cyberattacks, too. When Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe described the massive data breach at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management as one of America’s most damaging cyberattacks, one of America’s top spymasters corrected him.
p
I would say that this was espionage, then-National Security Agency Director James Clapper said. I think there is a difference between an act of espionage, which we conduct as well,…