April 2009

The United States has no clear military policy about how the nation might respond to a cyberattack on its communications, financial or power networks, a panel of scientists and policy advisers warned Wednesday, and the country needs to clarify both its offensive capabilities and how it would respond to such attacks. The report, based on a three-year study by a panel assembled by the National Academy of Sciences, is the first major effort to look at the military use of computer technologies as weapons. The potential use of such technologies offensively has been widely discussed in recent years, and disruptions of communications systems and Web sites have become a standard occurrence in both political and military conflicts since 2000. The report, titled "Technology, Policy, Law, and Ethics Regarding U.S. Acquisition and Use of Cyberattack Capabilities," concludes that the veil of secrecy that has surrounded cyberwar planning is detrimental to the country's military policy. The report's authors include Adm. William A. Owens, a former vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff; William O. Studeman, former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and Walter B. Slocombe, former under secretary of defense for policy. Scientists and cyberspecialists on the panel included Richard L. Garwin, an I.B.M. physicist.

Deep inside the current swine flu scare, there may be a silver lining for federal employees -- greater acceptance of telework in musty bureaucracies. Although increased telecommuting has been a federal workplace goal for many years, statistics show a difference between theory and practice. Part of the problem has been managers who are reluctant to approve at-home working arrangements because they can't see -- which really means they don't trust -- staffers who aren't in their cubicles. John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management, wants to change that mind-set. And the swine flu emergency provides a timely, if unfortunate, backdrop to showcase the need for agencies to continue government operations if circumstances make working in the office risky. Saying "I'm here to put some giddyap into telework," Berry yesterday announced a plan to boost telecommuting by federal employees.

It is too soon to say who will be the biggest loser among media companies in this recession. But Clear Channel Communications is vying for the title. Clear Channel, the nation's largest radio station operator and an outdoor billboard company, last year became the biggest leveraged buyout ever in the media business, after it was taken private by Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital. Now its revenues are plunging and so is its cash flow, making it harder to meet the payments on the billions in debt accumulated in the process of buying out its public investors. If it violates some of its loan agreements, those interest payments rise sharply. Bishop Cheen, who follows corporate bonds for Wachovia, wrote recently that Clear Channel was on track to become the biggest default among media companies and therefore the biggest workout ever in the industry. The company's options may be limited. Many financially pressed concerns have been able to persuade creditors to exchange debt for equity and thus avoid a default and a bankruptcy filing. At Clear Channel, getting creditors to go along with such a plan could be tough because the original deal was fraught with so much ill will, including an unusual court fight.

National Economic Council member and special assistant to President Barack Obama Susan Crawford said rural communications networks that connect to major Internet arteries will be key investments that will come from the $7.2 billion in broadband stimulus money. Telephone carriers and cable operators have said Obama's goal of blanketing the country with high-speed Internet can't be accomplished without significant investment in so-called "backhaul" networks that stretch to hard-to-reach communities. There is some debate, however, about whether those networks should be financed with government money or private-sector investments. Extending cable to rural communities can be prohibitively expensive for Internet carriers, which is why those areas tend to have few connectivity options.

Speaking at a briefing sponsored by the Media Access Project, Crawford suggested that government investment in backhaul networks would allow "a variety of service providers" to offer Internet access in the "last mile" of connectivity in rural areas. Crawford said she is "fascinated" by Australia's recent announcement (see http://benton.org/node/24949) that it will spend some $30 billion to bring fiber networks to every home. Similar plans are being considered by the Netherlands and Singapore. "These governments understand that a wholesale network can deliver massive economic benefits," she said. "A digital economy requires fiber." A similar investment by the United States would cost several times more than the government has committed thus far.