Commentary
For Lukashenko, abandoning Western internet services and embracing Russian equivalents would mean tying himself even closer to Moscow.
Artyom Shraibman
{
"authors": [
"Tim Maurer"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"Cyber and Digital Policy"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy",
"Technology and International Affairs"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy",
"Technology"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
‘Proxies’ and Cyberspace
States use proxies to project power through cyberspace, some capable of causing significant harm. But there is a lack of clarity on what, exactly, the term ‘proxy’ means.
By Tim Maurer
Published on Dec 17, 2016
Source: Journal of Conflict and Security Law
States use proxies to project power through cyberspace, some capable of causing significant harm. In recent years, media outlets have published reports about proxies using Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) from Northeast Asia to India, Pakistan, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. Two of the landmark documents providing insight into how the international community thinks about rules of the road for cyberspace explicitly reference the term ‘proxies’. However, neither report defines ‘proxy’, nor does the term easily translate into non-English languages. This article therefore reviews what this term means and how it has been used in various contexts. It focuses on the subset of proxies that are non-state actors used by a state actor, analysing the different logical distinctions and levels of detachment between a state and a non-state actor’s activity. The goal is 2-fold: first, to provide a framework to think about the diverse array of existing proxy definitions; second, to conceptualise the relationships between a state and non-state proxies that can offer a guide for political decision-makers and a roadmap for future research on proxy actors and cyberspace.
This article was originally published in the Journal of Conflict and Security Law.
About the Author
Tim Maurer
Former Senior Fellow, Technology and International Affairs Program
Dr. Tim Maurer was a senior fellow in Carnegie’s Technology and International Affairs program.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
- Why Is Belarus’s Approach to Online Censorship So Different From Russia’s?
- Who Is Responsible for the Demise of the Russian Internet?Commentary
The Russian state has opted for complete ideological control of the internet and is prepared to bear the associated costs.
Maria Kolomychenko
- What’s Having More Impact on Russian Oil Export Revenues: Ukrainian Strikes or Rising Prices?Commentary
Although Ukrainian strikes have led to a noticeable decline in the physical volume of Russian oil exports, the rise in prices has more than made up for it.
Sergey Vakulenko
- Russia Is Meddling for Meddling’s Sake in the Middle EastCommentary
The Russian leadership wants to avoid a dangerous precedent in which it is squeezed out of Iran by the United States and Israel—and left powerless to respond in any meaningful way.
Nikita Smagin
- Will Hungary’s New Leader Really Change EU Policy on Russia and Ukraine?Commentary
Orbán created an image for himself as virtually the only opponent of aid to Ukraine in the entire EU. But in reality, he was simply willing to use his veto to absorb all the backlash, allowing other opponents to remain in the shadows.
Maksim Samorukov
