The international community must engage in serious discussions on whether cyber intelligence collection is necessary. If it is, what should be the boundaries? Any ambiguity or hesitation on the part of major players will lead others to mimic U.S. behavior.

In little more than a generation, the Internet has become a vital substrate for economic, social, and political interactions, and it has unlocked enormous gains. Along with greater interdependence, however, come vulnerability and conflict. Attacks by states and non-state actors have increased, threatening the stability of cyberspace.

Although Moore’s law about the doubling of computing power every two years means that cyber time moves quickly, human habits, norms, and state practices change more slowly.

Bitcoin fell 1.2 percent to $13,580.50 at 11:36 a.m. in London as China is escalating its clampdown on cryptocurrency trading, targeting online platforms and mobile apps that offer exchange-like services.

On Sunday, China's fourth annual World Internet Conference commenced in scenic Wuzhen. The annual gathering is organized by the Cyberspace Administration of China to discuss internet policies and is primarily used as a platform to promote the internet under President Xi's notion of cyber sovereignty.

The policy of ‘internet sovereignty’ has officially given the Chinese authorities the right to control internet content. An ongoing campaign carried out by the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology aims at “cleaning and standardizing” the internet environment. When in China, foreign businesses are required to abide by Chinese internet laws and regulations. How will this affect their willingness to invest in China?

Since China joined the internet in 1994, China-US cyber relations have gone through three stages. What might the fourth stage look like?

Artificial intelligence presents an existential threat to humanity. As with other existential threats like global warming and weapons of mass destruction, we need a treaty to manage its risks—and soon.

Currently, there is no sufficient distinction in international law or norms to be made between simple system breaches and more malicious actions that damage or destroy systems, and that will almost certainly become necessary for the United States and China alike.

China’s Cybersecurity Law has elicited rather negative responses from foreign businesses, governments and NGOs. Perhaps ironically, the U.S. thus seems to have fallen victim to what Beijing has long feared would happen to them: ideological infiltration by a geostrategic adversary aimed at upsetting the political system.