most ambitious efforts occurred in World War I, when British and German forces systematically attempted to destroy the others' worldwide communications systems by cutting their cables with surface ships or submarines. During the Cold War, the United States Navy and National Security Agency (NSA) succeeded in placing wire taps on Soviet underwater communication lines in Operation Ivy Bells. In modern times, the widespread use of end-to-end encryption minimizes the threat of wire tapping. Environmental impact The main point of interaction of cables with marine life is in the benthic zone of the oceans where the majority of cable lies. Studies in 2003 and 2006 indicated that cables pose minimal impacts on life in these environments. In sampling sediment cores around cables and in areas removed from cables, there were few statistically significant differences in organism diversity or abundance. The main difference was that the cables provided an attachment point for anemones that typically could not grow in soft sediment areas. Data from 1877 to 1955 showed a total of 16 cable faults caused by the entanglement of various whales. Such deadly entanglements have entirely ceased with improved techniques for placement of modern coaxial and fibre-optic cables which have less tendency to self-coil when lying on the seabed. Security implications Submarine cables are problematic from a security perspective because maps of submarine cables are widely available. Publicly available maps are necessary so that shipping can avoid damaging vulnerable cables by accident. However, the availability of the locations of easily damaged cables means the information is also easily accessible to criminal agents. Governmental wiretapping also presents cybersecurity issues. Legal issues Submarine cables suffer from inherent issues. Since cables are constructed and installed by private consortia, there is a problem with responsibility from the outset. Firstly, assigning responsibility inside a consortium can be hard: since there is no clear leading company which could be designated as responsible, it can lead to confusion when the cable needs maintenance. Secondly, it is hard to navigate the issue of cable damage through the international legal regime, since it was signed by and designed for nation states, rather than private companies. Thus it is hard to decide who should be responsible for damage costs and repairsthe company who built the cable, the company who paid for the cable, or the government of the countries where the cable terminates. Another legal issue is the outdating of legal systems.