You mentioned particularly some of the Baltic states and some of the cybersecurity issues. What became a problem at that time was whether that was considered an attack on the state. In NATO, during that particular time, there was an enormous discussion on whether that constituted an attack and whether that would trigger article 5 for defence of Lithuania at the time.
The United States, first of all, is far ahead of us in terms of thinking that through from a policy standpoint. Certainly President Obama has spoken about it. It recognizes the cyberworld as one of five domains of warfare, meaning that if air is a domain of warfare, if land is a domain of warfare, if sea is a domain of warfare, then so is space and so is cyberspace. The Americans are becoming quite clear that there is a certain amplitude of a state-sponsored attack—as opposed to a criminal attack or as opposed to hacking, which are different things—that could potentially affect either the economic or energy infrastructure of the United States. Those things are also cyber-controlled, and that would be a considered an attack against the state.
Really, that's the genesis of where Ferry and I started to speak about codes of conduct. We have Geneva conventions to govern warfare and other domains and we have limitations on what we do, or at least understandings between nation states, but that has not yet emerged in cyberspace.