Yesterday the Armed Forces Minister and Lib Dem MP for North Devon, Nick Harvey, gave a speech to Chatham House about the cyber-based threats to Britain’s security.

Nick Harvey’s speech started with a welcome nod in the direction of liberal optimism with technology often offering the opportunity to increase people’s freedom and choices. However, he quickly moved on to darker territory:

As a liberal, I am excited about the capacity of the internet and digital technology to increase the freedom and opportunity available to our citizens – to enhance people’s ability to control their own lives and make their own choices – and to expand their horizons.

But I also recognise that when it comes to cyber space, the old adage that man is wolf to his fellow man has sadly proven itself correct once more.

Wherever he expands his dominance, whether it be on land, sea or air, or whether it be in cyber space, mankind carries his essential nature with him.

The speech continued to make references to the good that comes from the cyber world, but concentrated on the threats from terrorists and other countries:

For me this is about protecting people’s privacy and livelihood not diminishing them – this is about protecting the freedom and opportunity cyber space brings…

It can only be a matter of time before terrorists begin to use cyber space more systematically, not just as a tool for their own organisation, but as a method of attack [and] as Iain Lobban, the Director of GCHQ said recently, we have seen the use of cyber techniques by one nation on another to bring diplomatic or economic pressure to bear.

Harvey went on to outline what the government is doing, including not only defensive measures but active consideration of how cyber warfare could be used on behalf of the UK:

The Strategic Security and Defence Review has launched a transformative National Cyber Security Programme supported by £650m of new investment over the next four years…

This will overhaul not only our approach to tackling cyber crime, but also how we can improve the UK’s ability to defend itself from cyber attack, whether from terrorists, states, or other hostile actors … [and] including the capability to exploit the weaknesses of our opponents.

Cyber capabilities may provide the kind of precise and tailored effects which a conventional attack cannot.

If, for example, we were able to switch off the lights for a window of opportunity, then this would provide decision makers with greater options.

There is much discussion on the legal frameworks which apply to acts of aggression or force in cyberspace and those that apply during armed conflict itself.

Such issues raise important points of law, which Nick Harvey addressed – rightly stressing the importance of the questions but disagreeing with those who have argued that major changes to international law are required:

I would argue that the established law governing the use of force and the law governing the conduct of hostilities are equally applicable to cyberspace as they are to traditional domains.

When applying the law relating to the use of force, one of the difficult issues will be interpreting or determining whether an action or effect constitutes a use of force or an armed attack.

For traditional domains, we assess an action and make a determination based on the act, its effects, and the context to determine whether it constitutes a prohibited use of force and/or potentially an armed attack.

We then judge what an appropriate, necessary, proportionate, and targeted response should be, applying well established legal principles.

Why should assessing and responding to a cyber attack be different?

Of course the issue of attribution in cyber space will be difficult.

As will the issue of intent.

But as I said earlier, just because it will be difficult, doesn’t mean it will be impossible.