Why Should Data Centers Be Able to Defend Themselves?
New wars have erased the line between military targets and private infrastructure, and the US must establish legal frameworks that allow data centers and critical infrastructure to independently defend against threats such as drone attacks.
According to Ambassador Arjan's report, National Interest published a note and wrote: Modern warfare no longer differentiates between military objectives and commercial infrastructure; As shown by Iran's recent alleged attacks against data centers in Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps quickly claimed responsibility for the drone and missile attacks in March and April and announced plans to carry out more attacks against companies such as Microsoft and Apple.
Experts predict that targeted attacks against data centers will increase in the future due to the increasing dependence of the US military on these centers. Amazon has also confirmed that its destroyed infrastructure in the Middle East is now "no longer salvageable".
Geopolitical security risks, which were usually associated with governments and their militaries, have now extended to private companies as well.
The United States has tried to reduce the threat caused by the expansion of drone warfare through the Safer Skies Act; A law that would allow trained local, state and tribal governments to take countermeasures against drones and legally respond to threats.
However, the law left out private companies and provided them with virtually no significant protection.
When security becomes a determining variable
Physical security has become an unprecedented part of corporate risk management in the United States and abroad. Whether through unidentified spy balloons or foreign military drones, critical installations at home and abroad are more vulnerable than ever.
Recent legislation shows that the US Congress has acknowledged the existence of this security problem; However, private companies are still limited from taking direct action against these threats.
This raises a fundamental question: If government entities can legally defend themselves against attacks, why shouldn't the private sector be allowed to protect their own facilities?
The necessity of independent defense of critical infrastructure
Private owners and managers naturally have a greater incentive to invest in the protection of their assets.
The U.S. government cannot deploy anti-drone security forces at vulnerable facilities, as doing so would be a huge drain on government resources.
To fill this gap, the government can allow companies to use protection tools; Of course, by setting reasonable limits to prevent abuse, rather than keeping a complete monopoly of defense capabilities.
Of course, companies should not have unlimited freedom to shoot down any flying device they deem dangerous.
But a complete ban on private defense is not a good solution either.
طرح پیشنهادی سناتور تام کاتن، جمهوری‌خواه از ایالت آرکانزاس، با عنوان «قانون دفاع هوایی از زیرساخت‌های حیاتی» (Critical Infrastructure Airspace Defense Act)، به برخی تاسیسات خصوصی مشخص اجازه می‌دهد در برابر تهدیدهای معتبر پهپادی از خود دفاع کنند.
این طرح شامل تاسیساتی مانند نیروگاه‌های هسته‌ای، مراکز کنترل شبکه برق و دیگر زیرساخت‌های حیاتی است.
در صورت تصویب، این قانون اختیارات دفاعی را گسترش داده و به نیروهای آموزش‌دیده فدرال ابزارهای لازم برای حفاظت از زیرساخت‌های مشخص در برابر پهپادهای غیرمجاز در مناطق تحت مسئولیتشان را خواهد داد.
Why is it necessary to define control mechanisms?
با توجه به اینکه جنگ‌ها به‌طور فزاینده‌ای بر غیرنظامیان تاثیر می‌گذارند، چرا توانایی آنها برای محافظت از خود نباید هم‌زمان افزایش یابد؟
To prevent abuse, this program can be combined with certain control mechanisms; از جمله مراکز آموزشی تعیین‌شده، برنامه‌های صدور گواهینامه، قواعد مشخص درگیری، الزام به ارائه گزارش پس از حادثه برای تضمین پاسخگویی و دیگر چارچوب‌های نظارتی.
حملات انجام‌شده در بحرین و امارات نشان‌دهنده روند رو به رشد تبدیل شدن زیرساخت‌های تجاری به خسارت‌های جانبی در درگیری‌های منطقه‌ای است.
An increasing number of American companies have facilities and operational centers abroad; Often in strategically important areas. دولت آمریکا نمی‌تواند تضمین کند که نیروهای امنیتی خود را برای دفاع از تمامی این مراکز مستقر خواهد کرد.
In such circumstances, creating legal options for private defense is the most logical next line of defense.
If the United States expects private companies to build and maintain the infrastructure on which the country depends—as seen in the U.S. government's contracts with companies like Palantir and Amazon—it should not prevent those same companies from investing in reasonable measures to protect themselves.
National security is no longer neatly divided between the goals of government and the assets of private companies. These two areas are often intertwined; Whether in the form of data centers, power grids or communication structures.
To protect these infrastructures, the government must recognize them as critical infrastructures and work with private owners to develop the ability to defend these facilities.