Notwithstanding inherent differences between the counterterrorist financing regime and the regulatory regime governing communication service providers, there are clear benefits in taking lessons learnt from longstanding efforts on terrorist financing into account when developing a response to the online terrorist threat.
Western governments are shedding their inhibitions about naming and shaming states suspected of infiltrating their critical national infrastructure. This is a good step, but should be just the beginning.
A clear differentiation is required between trade and technology wars, Huawei and politicised arrests of foreign nationals. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is deliberately confusing them, and President Trump is not helping.
Increased media speculation about the possibility of a cyber-attack on the London or New York stock exchanges has ignored the nature of the threat, which is likely to seek to cause disruption rather than make money, and the counter-measures that can hinder a catastrophic attack
The damage to US and allied interests lies less in the embarrassment the leaked cables may have caused and more in the real intelligence they have provided to well-organised and sophisticated international terrorist groups.