Difference between revisions of "Four Quadrants"

From Identifying Difficult Problems in Cyberlaw
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 112: Line 112:
===Four Quadrants: Elaborated===
===Four Quadrants: Elaborated===
Professor Zittrain mapped existing political systems onto his four quadrants.  The result was presented in his article:
Professor Zittrain mapped existing political philosophies onto his four quadrants.  The result was presented in his article:

Revision as of 23:00, 19 December 2010




The Four Quadrants

In his article, The Fourth Quadrant, Professor Zittrain develops a four quadrant framework for thinking about the Internet. This framework looks at two criteria: (1) how generative something is, and (2) how singular it is.

The generativity of a phenomena is assessed on a scale from entirely “top-down” to entirely “bottom-up.” The range of singularity runs from “hierarchy” to “polyarchy.” This is captured in the following chart from the article:

Zittrain Four Quadrants.png

Professor Zittrain uses precise (sometimes unconventional) definitions of these terms:

  • Top-down: systems in which “there is a separation between those who make the rules and those who live under them . . . .”
  • Bottom-up: systems where the rules can come from any person without separation between the people who make the rules and people who live under them.
  • Hierarchy: “a system for which there is no alternative, either because it does not exist, because it would be too costly, or because law precludes it.”
  • Polyarchy: being able to choose between multiple regimes or systems.

To see how Professor Zittrain's definition of hierarchy differs from the lay person understanding, see Wikipedia.


This section will summarize the proposals of various cyber security authors. The next section will attempt to map these proposals onto Professor Zittrain's framework.






Wesley Clark

“Sabotaged circuits cannot be patched; they are the ultimate sleeper cell.”

General Clark's article, Securing the Information Highway, focuses on the problem of compromised hardware -- usually chips with rogue transistors built in that allow another party to gain control of a system. Clark believes this is the greatest threat for cyber security.

  • Software attacks, on the other hand, “are generally detectable, are mostly curable, and, until now, have been largely containable through the use of software patches."

Two challenges with enhancing hardware security:
1. Ensuring authenticity.
2. Detecting malevolent function inside the device.
Other problems that are making things worse:
1. Americans have a false sense of security.
2. We’re not doing anything – the longer we wait, the better adversaries will get.

Clark’s Solution:

We need to learn from the open-source community and create security standards that allow us to quickly discover and correct security flaws.

  • We “need to endow U.S. networks, software, and even hardware with a digital immune system—one that is openly described and freely discussed.”

Clark proposes a two-step approach:
1. Diversify the digital infrastructure.
  • We need more diversity in both hardware and software (operating systems) to make it harder to attack large sections at once.
2. Secure the supply chain for hardware.
  • Embed compact authentication codes directly into devices.
  • Anti-tamper safeguards after devices are produced
Note that this doesn’t mean we have to manufacture everything here – that’s a practical impossibility given the demand. We just need to ensure foreign-made products are “authentic and secure.”



In its report for the Council on Foreign Relations, Internet Governance in an Age of Cyber Insecurity, Knake examines the current position of the United States in dealing with cyber-security at the international level and the challenges faced by the international community.

Knake points out that while the US have refused to cooperate at the international level on a new governance for the internet, China, Russia and other non democratic regimes have been organizing a united front to promote a new model for the internet, tightly controlled by states. According to Knake, a free and open internet is in the US’ national interest and therefore the government should actively fight the threats arising from cyber crime, espionage and warfare while at the same time preserving the democratic infrastructure of the web.

In order to reach this goal Knake indicates three basic principles, to be implemented through a three-part agenda the US should implement:

- Take a networked and distributed approach
- Establish accountability of states for their actions, the actions of their citizens, and their systems
- Start be cleaning up the US national network

The above three principles should be implemented through the following three-part agenda:

1. Create a stronger sets of international regimes to fight crime in cyberspace

Knake appears to be a supporter of a hands-off approach to the Internet. He points out that so far the US has only maintained control of one necessary infrastructure component (the DNS, Domain Name System) which needs active management, but otherwise has taken the position that the role of the government should be limited. According to Knake this approach should be adapted at changing times and increased cyber threats at the international level. New times demand the development of new international instruments to fight cyber crime and implement real-time mechanisms for international cooperation in fighting and investigating cross-border attacks.

Russia has been pushing since 1998 for a UN treaty to address conflicts in cyberspace creating a centralized international body to tackle cyber security issues. Knake, however, opposes a state-centric intergovernmental organization in that contrary to US interests, but rather supports a cooperative solution involving non-governmental organizations and the private sector in the development of new norms and the implementation of a more secure infrastructure.

In certain areas, however, governmental intervention is the only practicable solution, where decentralized and inclusive approach does not work. Cyber crime (and relating problems of investigating, apprehending and prosecuting cyber criminals) is one of these areas. Council of Europe's convention on cybercrime helped in establishing laws to criminalize computer crimes and a mechanism for cross-border cooperation. However, according to Knake, it did not lead to a reduction of cybercrime. Further, such convention only envisages bilateral and prosecutorial mechanisms, ineffective in preventing attacks or tackling an attack when it occurs.

Knake suggested the creation of national level criminal laws and development of less formal mechanisms of cooperation through a “light” intergovernmental body. Knake's goal is a stronger international governance of the internet, but “tailored to specifically address a narrow set of security concerns surrounding crime and warfare”. An approach clearly opposed to Russia's and China's “information security”.

2. Constrain state actors in cyberspace

In order to solve the attribution problem (i.e., the extreme difficulties in tracking the origin of attacks in the cyberspace) Knake suggests that US should commit to pursue criminal prosecution of citizens engaging in hacktivism against foreign countries. Foreign states should do the same, and failure to cooperate in doing so should be deemed as a sign of complicity. States should be accountable for their actions, as well as those of their citizens and their systems.

In the past decade US has been focusing on cybercrime and refused to enter into negotiations on warfare and espionage. Knake says US should now overthrow the perception that US wants to maintain exploitation and attack capabilities at a level above other states. While keeping such capabilities is in the US interest, giving away such perception may be detrimental, and refusing in particular to enter into negotiations on state limitations to cyber warfare attracts critics.

Knake suggests a renewed engagement of the US, but not as set forth in current treaty options. The Russian proposal, for instance, would commit signatories to abstain from developing offensive cyber capabilities while not providing any mechanism for the verification of their compliance. His proposed solution would be not to focus on limiting state actors offensive capabilities, bur rather limiting their penetration into civilian infrastructures (power grids, financial infrastructures).

3. Secure the internet's underlying technology

Knake suggests that it is now time to shift the focus of international and local attention from coordination and interoperability to security. The development of more secure technical protocols is much needed, Knake argues, and the government should provide guidance in the technical area. The private sector should be involved in a centralized forum established by the government to coordinate the internet governance agenda, including big US corporations such as Microsoft and Symantec.

Mapping Onto the Four Quadrants

Four Quadrants: Elaborated

Professor Zittrain mapped existing political philosophies onto his four quadrants. The result was presented in his article:

Four Quadrants Detail.png

Mapping the Proposals

Where We Think They Go

More Clear


Quadrant 1
Quadrant 2
  • Wesley Clark: Clark's proposal clearly falls in the second quadrant. His call to diversify the digital infrastructure is a polyarchical solution. Additionally, Clark intends for the government to promulgate all of these rules, which is a top-down solution.
Quadrant 3

Quadrant 4

Less Clear

Quadrant 4 or 1?

  • Knake: At a first sight Knake's set of proposals appears to fall within the fourth quadrant. He is in fact proposing a Networked and distributed approach, to be implemented through the active involvement of a wide range of participants from the technical community, the private sector, as well as users and consumer groups, to shape policy and avoid state-centric processes. Not a single forum, at either national or international level, bur rather a range of forums.
At a deeper reading of Knake's arguments, however, it appears more clear that - in his mind - the US should nurture and indirectly control his proposed "light intergovernmental body". When Knake urges the US to be involved in international negotiations concerning the fight of cyber crime, he does so to avoid a "perception" that would eventually turn out to be detrimental to the US. Even private actors, such as Microsoft and Symantec, would be captured in the governmental sphere, by being made aware of the goals of the US government and actively help in achieving such goals.

Recent Developments and Future Concerns