Just Information Warfare

Abstract

In this article I propose an ethical analysis of information warfare, the warfare waged in the cyber domain. The goal is twofold: filling the theoretical vacuum surrounding this phenomenon and providing the conceptual grounding for the definition of new ethical regulations for information warfare. I argue that Just War Theory is a necessary but not sufficient instrument for considering the ethical implications of information warfare and that a suitable ethical analysis of this kind of warfare is developed when Just War Theory is merged with Information Ethics. In the initial part of the article, I describe information warfare and its main features and highlight the problems that arise when Just War Theory is endorsed as a means of addressing ethical problems engendered by this kind of warfare. In the final part, I introduce the main aspects of Information Ethics and define three principles for a just information warfare resulting from the integration of Just War Theory and Information Ethics.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    For an analysis of revolution in military affairs considering both the history of such revolutions and the effects of the development of the most recent technologies on warfare see (Benbow 2004) (Blackmore 2011).

  2. 2.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11693214 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6665145.stm.

  3. 3.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/29/world/main7100197.shtml.

  4. 4.

    For an annotated time line of cyber attacks see NATO’s website http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2013/Cyber/timeline/EN/index.htm.

  5. 5.

    This is an autonomous weapon system designed to detect and destroy radar emitters http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/uav/harpy/harpy.html.

  6. 6.

    This is a UK drone which can autonomously search, identify and locate enemies although it should be stressed that it can only engage with a target upon the authorization of mission command http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Taranis.

  7. 7.

    For a more detailed analysis of LoA see (Floridi 2008).

  8. 8.

    The USA only spent $400 million in developing technologies for cyber conflicts: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/05/cyberwar-cassandras-get-400-million-in-conflict-cash/The UK devoted £650 million to the same purpose:http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1896098/british-military-spend-gbp650-million-cyber-warfare.

  9. 9.

    Note that MQ-1 Predators and EADS Barracuda, and the Northrop–Grumman X-47B are Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles used for combat actions and they are different from Unmanned Air Vehicles, like for example Northrop–Grumman MQ-8 Fire Scout, which are used for patrolling and recognition purposes only.

  10. 10.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/us/coast-to-coast-simulating-onslaught-against-power-grid.html.

  11. 11.

    The need to define concepts such as those of harm, target and violence is stressed both by scholar who argue in favor of the ontological difference of the cyber warfare (Dipert 2013) and exploit this point to claim that JWT is not an adequate framework to address IW and by those who actually maintain that JWT provides sufficient element to address the case of IW (Lucas 2013).

  12. 12.

    See (Withman 2013) for an analysis of validity of JWT with respect to contemporary violent warfare.

  13. 13.

    It is worthwhile noticing that the problem engendered by the application of the principle of last resort to the soft-cases of IW may also be addressed by stressing that these cases do not fall within the scope of JWT as they may be considered cases of espionage rather than cases of war, and as such they do not represent a ‘first strike’ and the principle of last resort should not be applied to them. One consequence of this approach is that JWT would address war scenarios by focusing on traditional cases of warfare, such as physical attacks, and on the deployment of robotic weapons, disregarding the use of cyber attacks. This would be quite a problematic consequence because, despite the academic distinction between IW and traditional warfare, the two phenomena are actually not so distinct in reality. Robotic weapons fight on the battlefield side by side with human soldiers, and military strategies comprise both physical and cyber attacks. By disregarding cyber attacks, JWT would be able to address only partially contemporary warfare, while it should take into consideration the whole range of phenomena related to war waging in order to address the ethical issues posed by it (for a more in depth analysis of this aspect see (Taddeo 2012)).

  14. 14.

    “ICRC Databases on International Humanitarian Law”.

  15. 15.

    On this point see also (Dipert 2010, p. 400).

  16. 16.

    The reader may recall the informational LoA mentioned in Sect. 2. Information Ethics endorses an informational LoA, as such it focuses on the informational nature as a common ground of all existing things.

  17. 17.

    For more details on the information-based ontology see (Floridi 2002). The reader interested in the debate on the Informational ontology and the principles of Information Ethics may whish to see (Floridi 2007).

References

  1. Abiola A, Munoz J, Buchanan W (2004) Analysis and detection of cruising computer viruses. In: EIWC

  2. Arquilla J (1998) Can information warfare ever be just? Ethics Inf Technol 1(3):203–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arquilla J (2013) Twenty years of cyberwar. J Mil Ethics 12(1):80–87. doi:10.1080/15027570.2013.782632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arquilla J, Ronfeldt David F (eds) (1997) In Athena’s camp: preparing for conflict in the information age. Rand, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  5. Asaro P (2008) How just could a robot war be? In: Brey P, Briggle A, Waelbers K (eds) Current issues in computing and philosophy. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 50–64

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barrett ET (2013) Warfare in a new domain: the ethics of military cyber-operations. J Mil Ethics 12(1):4–17. doi:10.1080/15027570.2013.782633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Benbow T (2004) The magic bullet?: understanding the “revolution in military affairs”. Brassey’s, London

    Google Scholar 

  8. Blackmore T (2011) War X. Univ of Toronto Pr

  9. Bok S (1999) Lying: moral choice in public and private Life, 2nd edn. Vintage Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bowden M (2011) Worm: the first digital world war. Atlantic Monthly Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brenner J (2011) America the vulnerable: new technology and the next threat to national security. Penguin Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Clarke RA (2012) Cyber war: the next threat to national security and what to do about it. 1st Ecco pbk. ed. New York: Ecco

  13. Denning D (2007) The ethics of cyber conflict. In: Himma KE, Tavani HT (eds) Information and computer ethics. Wiley, Hoboken, USA

  14. Dipert R (2010) The ethics of cyberwarfare. J Mil Ethics 9(4):384–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dipert R (2013) The essential features of an ontology for cyberwarfare. In: Panayotis Yannakogeorgos, Adam Lowther (eds) Conflict and cooperation in cyberspace. Taylor & Francis, pp 35–48. http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/abs/10.1201/b15253-7

  16. Floridi L (2002) On the intrinsic value of information objects and the infosphere. Ethics Inf Technol 4(4):287–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Floridi L (2006) Information ethics, its nature and scope. SIGCAS Comput Soc 36(3):21–36

    Google Scholar 

  18. Floridi L (2007) Understanding information ethics. APA Newsl Philos Comput 7(1):3–12

    Google Scholar 

  19. Floridi L (2008) The method of levels of abstraction. Mind Mach 18(3):303–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Floridi L (2013) Ethics of information. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  21. Floridi L (2014) The fourth revolution, how the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  22. Floridi L, Sanders J (2001) Artificial evil and the foundation of computer ethics. Ethics Inf Technol 3(1):55–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Floridi L, Sanders JW (2004) On the morality of artificial agents. Mind Mach 14(3):349–379. doi:10.1023/B:MIND.0000035461.63578.9d

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gelven M (1994) War and existence: a philosophical inquiry. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hepburn RW (1984) “Wonder” and other essays: eight studies in aesthetics and neighbouring fields. University Press, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  26. ICRC Databases on International Humanitarian Law. 00:00:00.0. http://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/470

  27. Libicki M (1996) What is information warfare?. National Defense University Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lucas GR (2013) Jus in silico: military restrictions on the use of Cyber Warfare. In: Allhoff F, Evans NG, Henschke A (eds) Routledge handbook of war and ethics. Routledge, Oxford

  29. NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (2013) Tallinn manual on the international law applicable to cyber warfare: prepared by the international group of experts at the invitation of the NATO cooperative cyber defence centre of excellence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. Perry D (2006) Repugnant philosophy’: ethics, espionage, and covert action. In: Goldman J (ed) Ethics of spying: a reader for the intelligence professional

  31. Schmitt MN (1999) The principle of discrimination in 21st century warfare. SSRN scholarly paper ID 1600631. Rochester, NY: Social science research network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1600631

  32. Schmitt MN (2013) Cyberspace and international law: the penumbral mist of uncertainty. Harvard 126(176):176–180

    Google Scholar 

  33. Schwartau W (1994) Information warfare: Chaos on the electronic superhighway. 1st edn. Thunder’s Mouth Press, New York: Emeryville, CA; Distributed by Publishers Group West

  34. Shulman MR (1999) Discrimination in the laws of information warfare. SSRN scholarly paper ID 1287181. Rochester, NY: Social science research network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1287181

  35. Taddeo M (2012) Information warfare: a philosophical perspective. Philos Technol 25(1):105–120

    Google Scholar 

  36. Taddeo M (2013) Cyber Security and Individual Rights, Striking the Right Balance. Philos Technol 26(4):353–356

    Google Scholar 

  37. Taddeo M, Vaccaro A (2011) Analyzing peer-to-peer technology using information ethics. Inf Soc 27(2):105–112. doi:10.1080/01972243.2011.548698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Toffler A, Toffler A (1997) Foreword: the new intangibles. In: Arquilla John, Ronfeldt David F (eds) In Athena’s camp preparing for conflict in the information age. Santa Monica, Rand

    Google Scholar 

  39. Turilli M, Floridi L (2009) The ethics of information transparency. Ethics Inf Technol 11(2):105–112. doi:10.1007/s10676-009-9187-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Turilli M, Vaccaro A, Taddeo M (2010) The case of on-line trust. Knowledge, technology and policy 23.3–4 (3–4, Special issue on Trust in Technology): 333–345

  41. Turilli M, Vaccaro A, Taddeo M (2011) Internet neutrality: ethical issues in the internet environment. Philos Technol 25(2):133–151. doi:10.1007/s13347-011-0039-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Waltz E (1998) Information warfare: principles and operations. Artech House, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  43. Walzer M (2006) Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations, 4th edn. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  44. Withman J (2013) Is just war theory obsolete? In: Fritz Allhoff, Nicholas G. Evans, Adam Henschke (eds) Routledge handbook of ethics and war: just war theory in the 21st century, Routledge, p 23–34

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariarosaria Taddeo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taddeo, M. Just Information Warfare. Topoi 35, 213–224 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-014-9245-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cyber conflicts
  • Entropy
  • Information Ethics
  • Information war
  • Just War Theory
  • War