The Great Cyber Solarium Dialogue

Abstract

The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes a provision by U.S. Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) to establish a Cyberspace Solarium Commission. The 14-member commission is charged with the task of “develop[ing] a consensus on a strategic approach to defending the United States in cyberspace against cyber attacks of significant consequences.”

But here’s the dilemma: If the purpose of the commission is to produce a national cyber doctrine and encourage a “deliberate, structured debate,” then why is participation limited to only 14 hand-selected cybersecurity and national security experts? And who chooses these experts? Isn’t such cherry-picking likely to result in confirmation bias, or at least fuel other forms of cognitive bias?

Cyberspace is everyone’s space; is it not therefore reasonable to incorporate a more diverse cross-section of society to debate these issues?

So, if a greater cross-section of the people, cannot be included in the commission, why not bring the ‘commission-concept’ to the people -- in the form of a Platonic-style dialogue. The ancient Greek Philosophers Socrates and Plato valued this form of testing arguments because “reasoning and truth can only be gained through dialogue. They saw the search for truth as a process of assertions and testing those assertions.”

Reader, you are invited to join the Cyberspace Solarium Dialogue.

Keywords: cyber, war, international law, international relations, cybersecurity, cyber law, peace, conflict, strategy, espionage