TEDxParis 2010
Guy-Philippe Goldstein: How cyberattacks threaten real-world peace
蓋-菲利普 戈斯坦：網路戰爭如何影響我們真實的世界
Filmed:
Readability: 5.3
558,059 views
世界各國 -- 針對其他國家的電腦系統進行無跡可循的無聲攻擊。（還記得超級病毒“震網蠕蟲“吧！）在一場 TEDx巴黎的演講會上，
Guy-Philippe Goldstein - Author
Guy-Philippe Goldstein is the author of Babel Minute Zero, a novel that examines the reality of cyberwar in our current geopolitical topography. Full bio
Guy-Philippe Goldstein is the author of Babel Minute Zero, a novel that examines the reality of cyberwar in our current geopolitical topography. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:15
Good afternoon.
0
0
1000
大家午安
00:16
If you have followed
1
1000
2000
如果各位有在關注
00:18
diplomatic news in the past weeks,
2
3000
2000
過去幾週的國際外交新聞的話，
00:20
you may have heard of a kind of crisis
3
5000
2000
可能會注意到關於
00:22
between China and the U.S.
4
7000
2000
中美之間
00:24
regarding cyberattacks
5
9000
2000
網路攻擊事件的新聞
00:26
against the American company Google.
6
11000
2000
遭受攻擊的對象是美國科技公司谷歌
00:28
Many things have been said about this.
7
13000
2000
外界對於這次的攻擊事件眾說紛紜
00:30
Some people have called a cyberwar
8
15000
2000
有人把它視為中美兩國間網路開戰
00:32
what may actually be
9
17000
2000
其實這事件比較有可能是
00:34
just a spy operation --
10
19000
2000
一個間諜行動 --
00:36
and obviously, a quite mishandled one.
11
21000
2000
而且很顯然是個相當失敗的行動。
00:38
However, this episode reveals
12
23000
3000
這則小插曲也顯露出
00:41
the growing anxiety in the Western world
13
26000
2000
西方國家對
00:43
regarding these emerging cyber weapons.
14
28000
3000
數位武器問題的關切日益升高。
00:46
It so happens that these weapons are dangerous.
15
31000
2000
這個問題則肇因於數位武器所具有的危險性。
00:48
They're of a new nature:
16
33000
2000
數位武器
00:50
they could lead the world
17
35000
2000
足以導致全球
00:52
into a digital conflict
18
37000
2000
陷入數位化的戰爭
00:54
that could turn into an armed struggle.
19
39000
2000
最終甚至演變爲真實世界的軍事衝突
00:56
These virtual weapons can also destroy the physical world.
20
41000
4000
這些虛擬武器亦具備足以摧毀我們實體世界的力量。
01:01
In 1982, in the middle of the Cold War
21
46000
3000
在1982年，冷戰期間
01:04
in Soviet Siberia,
22
49000
2000
西伯利亞承載量高達三千噸
01:06
a pipeline exploded with a burst of 3 kilotons,
23
51000
4000
的輸油管線發生爆炸
01:10
the equivalent of a fourth of the Hiroshima bomb.
24
55000
2000
釋放的能量相當於四分之一廣島核彈的威力
01:12
Now we know today -- this was revealed
25
57000
2000
這個事件，
01:14
by Thomas Reed,
26
59000
2000
乃是由雷根總統任內的前美國空軍部長
01:16
Ronald Reagan's former U.S. Air Force Secretary --
27
61000
2000
湯馬士．里得所披露出來的 --
01:18
this explosion was actually the result
28
63000
3000
這次爆炸實際上是
01:21
of a CIA sabotage operation,
29
66000
2000
由於美國中央情報局的突襲行動所導致，
01:23
in which they had managed
30
68000
2000
美軍在該行動中入侵蘇聯的
01:25
to infiltrate the IT management systems
31
70000
2000
輸油管線的資訊管理系統
01:27
of that pipeline.
32
72000
2000
進行破壞。
01:29
More recently, the U.S. government revealed
33
74000
3000
此外，最近美國政府才揭露
01:32
that in September 2008, more than 3 million people
34
77000
3000
2008年九月，在巴西的聖埃斯皮里圖州
01:35
in the state of Espirito Santo in Brazil
35
80000
3000
超過三百萬人口所經歷的
01:38
were plunged into darkness,
36
83000
2000
大規模停電事件
01:40
victims of a blackmail operation from cyber pirates.
37
85000
5000
也是網路駭客的傑作。
01:45
Even more worrying for the Americans,
38
90000
2000
更令美國擔憂的是
01:47
in December 2008 the holiest of holies,
39
92000
3000
在2008年十二月
01:50
the IT systems of CENTCOM,
40
95000
2000
中央司令部IT管理系統
01:52
the central command
41
97000
2000
負責阿富汗和伊拉克地區
01:54
managing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
42
99000
3000
的控制中心
01:57
may have been infiltrated by hackers
43
102000
2000
很有可能已經被駭客滲透
01:59
who used these:
44
104000
3000
他們透過
02:02
plain but infected USB keys.
45
107000
2000
已經內置病毒的USB設備
02:04
And with these keys, they may have been able
46
109000
2000
以這些特殊USB駭客設備
02:06
to get inside CENTCOM's systems,
47
111000
2000
入侵中央司令部的內部系統
02:08
to see and hear everything,
48
113000
2000
駭客可以一窺內部一切機密信息
02:10
and maybe even infect some of them.
49
115000
2000
甚至動手改變它們
02:12
As a result, the Americans take the threat very seriously.
50
117000
2000
正因如此，美國很嚴肅的看待這件事
02:14
I'll quote General James Cartwright,
51
119000
2000
我在這裡引述參謀長聯席會議副主席
02:16
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
52
121000
2000
詹姆士 · 卡特萊上校的一段話
02:18
who says in a report to Congress
53
123000
2000
副主席在上呈議會的報告書中提到
02:20
that cyberattacks could be as powerful as
54
125000
3000
網路攻擊的威力之強大就如
02:23
weapons of mass destruction.
55
128000
3000
大規模毀滅性武器一樣
02:26
Moreover, the Americans have decided
56
131000
2000
美國已經決定
02:28
to spend over 30 billion dollars
57
133000
2000
在未來的五年
02:30
in the next five years
58
135000
1500
投入超過三百億美元
02:32
to build up their cyberwar capabilities.
59
136500
1500
來儲備網絡武器實力
02:34
And across the world today, we see
60
139000
2000
甚至將其觸角佈局全球
02:36
a sort of cyber arms race,
61
141000
3000
我們看到像這樣的網路軍備競賽
02:39
with cyberwar units
62
144000
2000
建構如北韓或伊朗
02:41
built up by countries like North Korea
63
146000
2000
一樣的網絡民兵
02:43
or even Iran.
64
148000
1000
及作戰中心
02:44
Yet, what you'll never hear
65
149000
2000
雖然你不曾聽到
02:46
from spokespeople
66
151000
2000
美國五角大廈或法國國防部
02:48
from the Pentagon or the French Department of Defence
67
153000
3000
的發言人發表過相關聲明
02:51
is that the question isn't really
68
156000
2000
問題其實不在
02:53
who's the enemy, but actually
69
158000
2000
我們將網路武器的矛頭指向誰
02:55
the very nature of cyber weapons.
70
160000
3000
而是電子武器的本質
02:58
And to understand why, we must look at how,
71
163000
2000
我們必須瞭解開發網路軍備是如何
03:00
through the ages, military technologies
72
165000
3000
種下了歐戰可能的種子
03:03
have maintained or destroyed
73
168000
2000
軍事科技
03:05
world peace.
74
170000
2000
絕對有能力影響這個世界的秩序
03:08
For example,
75
173000
2000
維護或是破壞世界的和平
03:10
if we'd had TEDxParis
76
175000
1000
如果在350年前
03:11
350 years ago,
77
176000
2000
我們就有TEDx巴黎
03:13
we would have talked about the military innovation of the day --
78
178000
3000
當我們討論軍備科技時
03:16
the massive Vauban-style fortifications --
79
181000
3000
很有可能講得是傳統沃邦式防禦堡壘
03:19
and we could have predicted
80
184000
2000
聽到這裡我們已可得知
03:21
a period of stability in the world or in Europe.
81
186000
3000
歐洲的政局穩固了一陣子沒有征戰
03:24
which was indeed the case in Europe
82
189000
3000
沒錯 歐洲在1650年到1750年
03:27
between 1650 and 1750.
83
192000
2000
這一百年顯得相當寧靜
03:29
Similarly, if we'd had this talk
84
194000
3000
再者，我們將TEDx巴黎時空
03:32
30 or 40 years ago, we would have seen
85
197000
3000
轉換到三四十年前
03:35
how the rise of nuclear weapons,
86
200000
2000
我們便會發現新興核武正在世界展露頭角
03:37
and the threat of mutually assured destruction they imply,
87
202000
4000
而蘇美兩大勢力正彼此
03:41
prevents a direct fight between the two superpowers.
88
206000
3000
以核武作為威脅
03:45
However, if we'd had this talk 60 years ago,
89
210000
2000
我們再將時空拉到六十年前
03:47
we would have seen how the emergence
90
212000
3000
已經可見新型戰鬥機
03:50
of new aircraft and tank technologies,
91
215000
3000
和坦克車的出現
03:53
which give the advantage to the attacker,
92
218000
3000
這對陸軍在歐洲大陸
03:56
make the Blitzkrieg doctrine very credible
93
221000
3000
採取閃電戰的攻擊方式
03:59
and thus create the possibility of war in Europe.
94
224000
3000
提供很大的優勢
04:02
So military technologies
95
227000
2000
軍備科技的發展與
04:04
can influence the course of the world,
96
229000
2000
世界秩序息息相關
04:06
can make or break world peace --
97
231000
2000
它有能力搗毀或建立起世界的秩序
04:08
and there lies the issue with cyber weapons.
98
233000
2000
但網路武器的發展也引起幾個議題
04:10
The first issue:
99
235000
2000
第一個隱憂
04:12
Imagine a potential enemy announcing
100
237000
3000
假設敵國向你宣稱
04:15
they're building a cyberwar unit,
101
240000
2000
他們正在建構電子戰組織
04:17
but only for their country's defense.
102
242000
2000
但目的僅是為了抵禦他國的攻擊
04:19
Okay, but what distinguishes it
103
244000
3000
好 我們該怎麼劃分
04:22
from an offensive unit?
104
247000
2000
防衛性及攻擊性的電子軍備？
04:24
It gets even more complicated
105
249000
2000
更棘手的是
04:26
when the doctrines of use become ambiguous.
106
251000
4000
沒有明文規範這些模糊地帶
04:30
Just 3 years ago, both the U.S. and France
107
255000
4000
就在三年前，美法兩國都
04:34
were saying they were investing militarily in cyberspace,
108
259000
4000
聲稱他們正在開發電子軍備
04:38
strictly to defend their IT systems.
109
263000
2000
僅用於保護他們的IT訊息系統
04:41
But today both countries say
110
266000
3000
但如今美法兩國改變說法
04:44
the best defense is to attack.
111
269000
2000
聲稱主動出擊就是抵禦駭客的最佳辦法
04:46
And so, they're joining China,
112
271000
2000
於是他們沿用中國的說法
04:48
whose doctrine of use for 15 years has been
113
273000
4000
中國遵循十五年
04:52
both defensive and offensive.
114
277000
3000
攻防兼備的原則
04:55
The second issue:
115
280000
2000
第二個問題
04:57
Your country could be under cyberattack
116
282000
4000
每個國家都有可能因為遭受電子攻擊
05:01
with entire regions plunged into total darkness,
117
286000
3000
而區域性斷電陷入黑暗
05:04
and you may not even know
118
289000
2000
但你不會知道
05:06
who's attacking you.
119
291000
2000
攻擊者是誰
05:08
Cyber weapons have this peculiar feature:
120
293000
1800
網路武器有幾項危險的特徵
05:10
they can be used
121
294800
1500
他們不留痕跡的
05:12
without leaving traces.
122
296300
1700
進行破壞
05:13
This gives a tremendous advantage to the attacker,
123
298000
2000
這無疑對攻擊者而言是很大的優勢
05:15
because the defender
124
300000
2000
因為受害者
05:17
doesn't know who to fight back against.
125
302000
2000
甚至不知道該對誰回擊
05:19
And if the defender retaliates against the wrong adversary,
126
304000
2000
受害者若胡亂回敬敵人的虛擬砲火
05:21
they risk making one more enemy
127
306000
3000
只會增加樹立更多敵人的風險
05:24
and ending up diplomatically isolated.
128
309000
2000
下場便是外交孤立
05:26
This issue isn't just theoretical.
129
311000
2000
這並不是假想的情況
05:28
In May 2007, Estonia was the victim of cyberattacks,
130
313000
2000
2007年五月 愛沙尼亞遭受駭客攻擊
05:30
that damaged its communication
131
315000
3000
癱瘓通訊系統
05:33
and banking systems.
132
318000
2000
和金融系統
05:35
Estonia accused Russia.
133
320000
2000
愛沙尼亞指控俄羅斯
05:37
But NATO, though it defends Estonia,
134
322000
2000
北大西洋公約組織雖然為愛沙尼亞辯護
05:39
reacted very prudently. Why?
135
324000
2000
反應卻甚為保守 為什麼呢？
05:41
Because NATO couldn't be 100% sure
136
326000
2000
北大西洋公約組織沒有證據也無法百分之百確定
05:43
that the Kremlin was indeed behind these attacks.
137
328000
5000
俄羅斯涉入這次的攻擊事件
05:48
So to sum up, on the one hand,
138
333000
3000
簡言之
05:51
when a possible enemy announces
139
336000
2000
當你在懷疑敵國
05:53
they're building a cyberwar unit,
140
338000
2000
建構一支電子攻擊部隊
05:55
you don't know whether it's for attack
141
340000
2000
你無從得知他是為了防禦
05:57
or defense.
142
342000
1000
抑或是攻擊
05:58
On the other hand,
143
343000
1000
另一方面
05:59
we know that these weapons give an advantage to attacking.
144
344000
4000
我們知道這些武器可具備攻擊的優勢
06:03
In a major article published in 1978,
145
348000
3000
紐約哥倫比亞大學的羅伯．杰維斯教授
06:06
Professor Robert Jervis of Columbia University in New York
146
351000
2000
在1978年發表的一篇重要文章中
06:08
described a model to understand
147
353000
2000
曾提出一個模式
06:10
how conflicts could arise.
148
355000
2000
來說明衝突是如何產生的。
06:12
In this context,
149
357000
3000
在這篇文章中 杰維斯寫道
06:15
when you don't know if the potential enemy
150
360000
2000
當你懷疑卻又無從得知你的敵人
06:17
is preparing for defense or attack,
151
362000
3000
是在防禦或是準備進攻
06:20
and if the weapons give an advantage to attacking,
152
365000
2000
而以電子武器攻擊又是如此不著痕跡
06:22
then this environment is
153
367000
2000
這樣的情形
06:24
most likely to spark a conflict.
154
369000
4000
反而更容易產生衝突
06:28
This is the environment that's being created
155
373000
2000
我們現存的世界像個戰場無處不充斥著電子武器
06:30
by cyber weapons today,
156
375000
2000
戰場已從一次世界大戰的歐洲大陸
06:32
and historically it was the environment in Europe
157
377000
3000
變成今日的虛擬戰場
06:35
at the onset of World War I.
158
380000
4000
電子武器的本質
06:39
So cyber weapons
159
384000
2000
就是非常不穩定且危險的
06:41
are dangerous by nature,
160
386000
2000
相較從前，電子武器
06:43
but in addition, they're emerging
161
388000
3000
正在一個快速劇變的環境中進化
06:46
in a much more unstable environment.
162
391000
2000
過去在冷戰時期的戰爭
06:48
If you remember the Cold War,
163
393000
2000
是非常艱苦殘酷的
06:50
it was a very hard game,
164
395000
2000
但至少情勢和角色是明確穩定的
06:52
but a stable one played only by two players,
165
397000
2000
美國和蘇聯兩股強大的力量在政治和外交上較勁
06:54
which allowed for some coordination between the two superpowers.
166
399000
2000
我們的世界正朝著多極化發展
06:57
Today we're moving to a multipolar world
167
402000
5000
其中錯綜複雜的平衡關係
07:02
in which coordination is much more complicated,
168
407000
1000
如我們在哥本哈根所見
07:03
as we have seen at Copenhagen.
169
408000
3000
這樣相互牽制的微妙關係
07:06
And this coordination may become even trickier
170
411000
3000
在電子戰揭開序曲後更難平衡
07:09
with the introduction of cyber weapons.
171
414000
3000
為什麼？因為沒有一個國家
07:12
Why? Because no nation
172
417000
2000
可以確定它的鄰國
07:14
knows for sure whether its neighbor
173
419000
3000
不會突然發動電子攻擊
07:17
is about to attack.
174
422000
2000
所以每個國家都活在這片陰影下
07:19
So nations may live under the threat
175
424000
2000
諾貝爾獎得主湯馬士 · 斯契林
07:21
of what Nobel Prize winner Thomas Schelling
176
426000
3000
稱之為 “面對突襲的交互恐懼”
07:24
called the "reciprocal fear of surprise attack,"
177
429000
2000
雙方都因恐懼鄰國下ㄧ秒的突襲
07:26
as I don't know if my neighbor
178
431000
2000
不論對方是否真的會發動攻擊
07:28
is about to attack me or not --
179
433000
2000
雖無法預測
07:30
I may never know --
180
435000
2000
但以不成為受害者為前提
07:32
so I might take the upper hand
181
437000
2000
我應該主動出擊
07:34
and attack first.
182
439000
3000
就在上個星期
07:37
Just last week,
183
442000
2000
2010年一月26日一篇刊登在紐約的文章寫到
07:39
in a New York Times article dated January 26, 2010,
184
444000
4000
美國國家安全局高層
07:43
it was revealed for the first time that
185
448000
2000
首度對外承認
07:45
officials at the National Security Agency
186
450000
3000
曾經考慮過先發制人發佈電子攻擊
07:48
were considering the possibility of preemptive attacks
187
453000
4000
因為憂慮美國會遭受
07:52
in cases where the U.S. was about
188
457000
3000
駭客攻擊
07:55
to be cyberattacked.
189
460000
3000
這些先發制人的攻擊
07:58
And these preemptive attacks
190
463000
2000
可能不僅僅限於
08:00
might not just remain
191
465000
1000
網絡的虛擬世界
08:01
in cyberspace.
192
466000
3000
在2009年五月
08:05
In May 2009, General Kevin Chilton,
193
470000
5000
美國核武部隊指揮官
08:10
commander of the U.S. nuclear forces,
194
475000
3000
凱文．齊爾頓上將
08:13
stated that in the event of cyberattacks against the U.S.,
195
478000
5000
表示所有針對美國的網絡攻擊事件
08:18
all options would be on the table.
196
483000
3000
籌碼都清楚呈現
08:21
Cyber weapons do not replace
197
486000
2000
數位武器無法取代
08:23
conventional or nuclear weapons --
198
488000
2000
常規武器或是核武
08:25
they just add a new layer to the existing system of terror.
199
490000
5000
電子戰只是增加了戰爭一個面向
08:30
But in doing so, they also add their own risk
200
495000
3000
但無論誰這麼做 都等同增加自己
08:33
of triggering a conflict --
201
498000
2000
與他國產生摩擦的風險
08:35
as we've just seen, a very important risk --
202
500000
2000
我們已預見危機在前
08:37
and a risk we may have to confront
203
502000
2000
但我們必須共同承擔面對
08:39
with a collective security solution
204
504000
3000
集合智囊團並提出權宜之計
08:42
which includes all of us:
205
507000
2000
所有的人包括 我們的歐洲盟友
08:44
European allies, NATO members,
206
509000
2000
北大西洋公約組織的成員們
08:46
our American friends and allies,
207
511000
2000
美國及其盟國
08:48
our other Western allies,
208
513000
2000
其它西方國家盟友
08:50
and maybe, by forcing their hand a little,
209
515000
2000
或許我們應該團結起來
08:52
our Russian and Chinese partners.
210
517000
3000
與俄羅斯和中國的夥伴
08:55
The information technologies
211
520000
2000
法國學者喬．德．侯斯奈
08:57
Joël de Rosnay was talking about,
212
522000
1500
所談到的那些資訊科技
08:59
which were historically born from military research,
213
523500
2500
追本溯源乃是由軍事研究產生而來，
09:01
are today on the verge of developing
214
526000
2000
到今日已發展成
09:03
an offensive capability of destruction,
215
528000
3000
具有毀滅性的攻擊力量，
09:06
which could tomorrow, if we're not careful,
216
531000
4000
如果我們不正視這個問題，
09:10
completely destroy world peace.
217
535000
3000
明日它或許就會將和平世界摧毀殆盡。
09:13
Thank you.
218
538000
2000
謝謝各位。
09:15
(Applause)
219
540000
3000
（掌聲）
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Guy-Philippe Goldstein - AuthorGuy-Philippe Goldstein is the author of Babel Minute Zero, a novel that examines the reality of cyberwar in our current geopolitical topography.
Why you should listen
By day, Guy-Philippe Goldstein is a management consultant. At night, he writes gripping political thrillers treating of cyberwar. He's a graduate of France’s prestigious Hautes Études Commerciales, and has an MBA from Northwestern University. Babel Minute Zero is his first novel.
Guy-Philippe Goldstein | Speaker | TED.com