Skip to main content

Blind Justice? The Role of Distinction in Electronic Attacks

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ethics and Policies for Cyber Operations

Part of the book series: Philosophical Studies Series ((PSSP,volume 124))

  • 835 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter questions the direct applicability of the just war tradition’s principle of distinction to electronic attacks involving computer network exploitation (CNE). It offers three principle challenges to maintaining the norm of distinction in electronic attacks that are rooted in the impossibility of foreknowledge of the object of attack in a computer network. In lay terms, without significant inside assistance it is impossible for a hostile agent seeking to exploit a computer network from knowing the network’s architecture and role prior to conducting hostile exploitation of the network. Due to this lack of knowledge, it is impossible for the hostile agent to be certain that initial exploitation will be free of negative consequences. This draws attention to the understanding of hostile action in both CNE and computer network attacks (CNA). This impossibility of foreknowledge leads to three challenges in applying the principle of distinction to cyber attacks: the access problem – where if CNE is considered to be an attack, then our understanding of distinction collapses, the boundary problem – where it may be impossible for an agent to know the boundaries or couplings of the system that they are attacking, and the levels problem – where humans are held accountable for non-human agency inherent in the deployment of autonomous software programmes (‘viruses’, ‘malware’, etc). This chapter argues that these problems are surmountable, but not with an understanding of distinction that is directly transposed from human interactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example, the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984, or the UK’s Computer Misuse Act of 1990.

References

  • Amini, P. 2008. Kraken Botnet Infiltration. DVLabs. http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2008/04/28/kraken-botnet-infiltration.

  • BBC Online. 2015. Is cyber-warfare really that scary?. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-32534923.

  • Betz, D.J., and T. Stevens. 2013. Analogical reasoning and cyber security. Security Dialogue 44(2): 147–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boothby, B. 2013. How will weapons reviews address the challenges posed by new technologies? Military Law & Law of War Review 52:37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. 2009. Frames of war: When is life grievable? London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvin, S., and M.J. Williams. 2014. Law, science, liberalism and the American way of warfare: The quest for humanity in conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, A.J. 2012. The ethics of war. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, E., F. Jahanian, and D. McPherson. 2005. The zombie roundup: Understanding, detecting, and disrupting botnets. In: Proceedings of the USENIX SRUTI workshop, vol. 39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dandeker, C. 1990. Surveillance, power & modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein, Y. 2012. The principle of distinction and cyber war in international armed conflicts. Jounal of Conflict and Security Law 17(2): 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dittrich, D., F. Leder, and W. Tillmann. 2010. A case study in ethical decision making regarding remote mitigation of botnets. Financial Cryptography and Data Security, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6054, 216–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, David. 2012. Morality and war: Can war be just in the twenty-first century? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiß, R., and H. Lahmann. 2012. Cyber warfare: Applying the principle of distinction in an interconnected space. Israel Law Review 45(3): 381–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grayling, A.C. 2007. Among the dead cities: Is the targeting of civilians in war ever justified? London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabay, M.E. 2009. Computer security handbook, 5th ed. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsey, J.T. 2008. Hacking into international humanitarian law: The principles of distinction and neutrality in the age of cyber warfare. Michigan Law Review 106: 1427–1451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korzak, E. 2011. Computer network attacks, self-defence and international law. In International law, security and ethics: Policy challenges in the post-9/11 world, ed. A. Hehir, N. Kurt, and A. Mumford, 147–163. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langner, R. 2011. Stuxnet: Dissecting a cyberwarfare weapon. IEEE Security & Privacy 9(2): 49–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langner, R. 2013. To kill a centrifuge a technical analysis of what Stuxnet’s creators tried to achieve. The Langner Group, Arlington. Online at http://www.langner.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/To-kill-a-centrifuge.pdf.

  • Lee, R.M., M.J. Assante, and T. Conway. 2014. ICS CP/PE (Cyber-to-Physical or Process Effects) case study paper – German steel mill cyber attack. SANS ICS. Online at https://ics.sans.org/media/ICS-CPPE-case-Study-2-German-Steelworks_Facility.pdf.

  • Levine, A. 2012. Hacking by China not necessarily a “hostile act”. CNN. http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/14/hacking-by-china-not-necessarily-a-hostile-act/.

  • Libicki, M.C. 2012. The specter of non-obvious warfare, 88–101. Fall: Strategic Studies Quarterly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubell, N. 2013. Lawful targets in cyber operations: Does the principle of distinction apply? International Law Studies 89: 252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavropoulou, E. 2015. Targeting in the cyber domain: Legal challenges arising from the application of the principle of distinction to cyber attacks. Journal of Law & Cyber Warfare 4: 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzetti, M., and D.E. Sanger. 2013. Security leader says U.S. would retaliate against cyberattacks. The New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purves, D., R. Jenkins, and B.J. Strawser. 2015. Autonomous machines, moral judgment, and acting for the right reasons. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, online at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10677-015-9563-y.

  • Ramsey, P. 2002. The just war: Force and political responsibility. Oxford: Rowan & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rid, T. 2012. Cyber war will not take place! Journal of Strategic Studies 35(1): 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rid, T. 2013a. Cyber war will not take place. London: Hurst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rid, T. 2013b. More attacks less violence. Journal of Strategic Studies 36(1): 139–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roscini, M. 2014. Cyber operations and the use of force in international law, 17. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser, E. 2013. Command and control. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M.N., et al. 2013. Tallinn manual on the international law applicable to cyber warfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schneier, B. 2014. There’s no real difference between online espionage and online attack. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/03/theres-no-real-difference-between-online-espionage-and-online-attack/284233/.

  • Schneier, B. 2015. Data and Goliath: The hidden battles to collect your data and control your world. New York: WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey, N. 2010. Saying ‘No!’ to lethal autonomous targeting. Journal of Military Ethics 9(4): 369–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J. 2013. Cyber war will take place! Journal of Strategic Studies 36(1): 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, M. 2003–2004. Torture. 48 New York Law Review 201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawser, B.J. 2013. Introduction: The moral landscape of unmanned weapons. In Killing by remote control: The ethics of an unmanned military, ed. B.J. Strawser. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • The United Nations Office at Geneva. 2014. Report of the 2014 informal meeting of experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS). Geneva: UN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. 2006. Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. London: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jack McDonald .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McDonald, J. (2017). Blind Justice? The Role of Distinction in Electronic Attacks. In: Taddeo, M., Glorioso, L. (eds) Ethics and Policies for Cyber Operations. Philosophical Studies Series, vol 124. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45300-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics