Advertisement

Dual-Use and Dilemmas for Cybersecurity, Peace and Technology Assessment

  • Thea RiebeEmail author
  • Christian Reuter
Chapter

Abstract

Dual-use in information technology is a pressing issue: how can we prevent, control or manage the risk of a harmful application of IT? How can dual-use awareness and regulation help to mitigate the risks to peace and security on the national and international level? As the cyberspace has been declared a military domain, IT is of increasing importance for civil and military infrastructures. How can researchers, developers and decision makers make sure that IT is not misused to cause harm? For nuclear, biological and chemical technologies this has been discussed as the dual-use problem. This chapter illustrates the approaches towards different dual-use concepts, how to conduct a technology assessment and provides insight into the implementation of dual-use assessment guidelines at TU Darmstadt, the so-called Civil Clause.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

Recommended Reading

  1. Forge, J. (2010). A note on the definition of “dual use.” Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(1), 111–118.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9159-9.
  2. Lin, H. (2016). Governance of Information Technology and Cyber Weapons. In E. D. Harris (Ed.), Governance of Dual use Technologies: Theorie and Practice (pp. 112–157). American Academy of Arts & Sciences.Google Scholar

Bibliography

  1. Adamsky, D. (2010). The Culture of Military Innovation: The Impact of Cultural Factors on the Revolution in Military Affairs in Russia, the US, and Israel. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alavi, H., & Khamichonak, T. (2017). EU and US export control regimes for dual use goods: An overview of existing frameworks. Romanian Journal of European Affairs, 17(1), 59–74.Google Scholar
  3. Bezuidenhout, L. (2013). Data Sharing and Dual-Use Issues. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 83–92.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9298-7.
  4. Buchanan, B. (2016). The Cybersecurity Dilemma. London: C. Hurst & Co.Google Scholar
  5. Capurro, R. (2017). Homo Digitalis: Beiträge zur Ontologie, Anthropologie und Ethik der digitalen Technik. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  6. Carr, J. (2013). The misunderstood acronym: Why cyber weapons aren’t WMD. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 69(5), 32–37.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340213501373.
  7. Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. New York: St. Martins Press.Google Scholar
  8. DFG, & Leopoldina. Scientific Freedom and Scientific Responsibility: Recommendations for Handling Security-Relevant Research (2014). Retrieved from https://www.leopoldina.org/uploads/tx_leopublication/2014_06_DFG-Leopoldina_Scientific_Freedom_Responsibility_EN.pdf.
  9. Drew, T. W., & Mueller-Doblies, U. U. (2017). Dual use issues in research – A subject of increasing concern? Vaccine, 35(44), 5990–5994.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.07.109.
  10. European Commission. (2018a). Dual-use export controls. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/trade/import-and-export-rules/export-from-eu/dual-use-controls/.
  11. European Commission. (2018b). Guidance Note - Research involving dual-use items. Brussels. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/guide_research-dualuse_en.pdf.
  12. European Commission. (2018c). Horizon 2020 Programme - Guidance How to complete your ethics self-assessment. Brussels. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/ethics/h2020_hi_ethics-self-assess_en.pdf.
  13. Forge, J. (2010). A note on the definition of “dual use.” Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(1), 111–118.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9159-9.
  14. Gehring, P. (2015). Zivilklausel der TU Darmstadt - nun auch einvernehmliche Entscheidung für ein Umsetzungverfahren. Hoch 3.Google Scholar
  15. Gehring, P. (2018, June). Die Zivilklausel der TU Darmstadt und das Verfahren zu ihrer Umsetzung. Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  16. Grunwald, A. (2002). Technikfolgenabschätzung - Eine Einführung. Berlin: Edition Sigma.Google Scholar
  17. Grunwald, A. (2011). Responsible Innovation: Bringing together Technology Assessment, Applied Ethics, and STS research. Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, 31, 10.Google Scholar
  18. Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a rational society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  19. Harris, E. D. (Ed.). (2016). Governance of Dual-Use Technologies: Theory and Practice. Cambridge MA: American Academy of Arts & Sciences.Google Scholar
  20. Herz, J. (1959). Political Realism and Political Idealism. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hubig, C. (2012). Zivilklausel an Universitäten. Forschung & Lehre, (October).Google Scholar
  22. Hummel, H. (2017). Zivilklausel auf japanisch: Japanische Universitäten ächten Militärforschung. Wissenschaft & Frieden, (2).Google Scholar
  23. Jervis, R. (1976). Persecption and misperception in international politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jonas, H. (1980). Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Frankfurt a.M.: Insel-Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Knappmeier, N. (2004). Das Wesen der Informatik … Was ist das Wesen der Informatik? Beispiel: RFID Toller Fortschritt ! Fazit. Inforz (Vol. 1). Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  26. Knezo, G. J. (2005). Technology Assessment in Congress : History and Legislative Options. Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://congressionalresearch.com/RS21586/document.php
  27. Leng, C. (2013). Die dunkle Seite: Informatik als Dual-Use-Technologie. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00287-012-0675-7.pdf.
  28. Liebert, W. (2011). Wissenschaft und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung. In M. Eger, B. Gondani, & R. Kröger (Eds.), Verantwortungsvolle Hochschuldidaktik (pp. 15–34). Berlin: Lit.Google Scholar
  29. Liebert, W. (2013). Dual-use-Forschung und -Technologie. In A. Grunwald & M. Simonidis-Puschmann (Eds.), Handbuch Technikethik (pp. 243–244). Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Liebert, W., & Schmidt, J. C. (2010). Towards a prospective technology assessment: Challenges and requirements for technology assessment in the age of technoscience. Poiesis Und Praxis, 7(1), 99–116.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-010-0079-1.
  31. Lin, H. (2016a). Attribution of Malicious Cyber Incidents: From Soup to Nuts. Journal of International Affairs, 70(1), 56–137.Google Scholar
  32. Lin, H. (2016b). Governance of Information Technology and Cyber Weapons. In E. D. Harris (Ed.), Governance of Dual-Use Technologies: Theorie and Practice (pp. 112–157). American Academy of Arts & Sciences.Google Scholar
  33. Lösch, A., Gammel, S., & Nordmann, A. (2008). Observieren – Sondieren – Regulieren: Zur gesellschaftlichen Einbettung nanotechnologischer Entwicklungsprozesse. Darmstadt. Retrieved from https://www.philosophie.tu-darmstadt.de/media/philosophie_nanobuero/pdf_2/observierensondierenregulieren.pdf.
  34. Meinrath, S. D., & Vitka, S. (2014). Crypto War II. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 31(2), 123–128.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2014.921320.
  35. Müller, H. (2017). Challanges of Control. In EU Non-Proliferation Consortium ELearning. Retrieved from https://nonproliferation-elearning.eu/learningunits/arms-control-basics/transcripts/LU01_VL2.pdf.
  36. NATO. Warsaw Summit Communiqué (2016). Retrieved from https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_133169.htm.
  37. Neuneck, G. (2013). Assessment of International and Regional Organizations and Activities. In J. A. Lewis & G. Neuneck (Eds.), The Cyber Index - International Security Trends and Realities (pp. 91–109). Geneva: UNIDIR.Google Scholar
  38. Nielebock, T., Meisch, S., & Harms, V. (Eds.). (2012). Zivilklauseln für Forschung, Lehre und Studium: Hochschulen zum Frieden verpflichten. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  39. Nordmann, A. (2007). Entflechtung – Ansätze zum ethisch-gesellschaftlichen Umgang mit der Nanotechnologie. In A. Gazsó, S. Greßler, & F. Schiemer (Eds.), nano – Chancen und Risiken aktueller Technologien (pp. 215–229). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Nordmann, A. (2018). Four Horsemen and a Rotten Apple: On the Technological Rationality of Nuclear Security. In A. Friedrich, P. Gehring, C. Hubig, A. Kaminski, & A. Nordmann (Eds.), Jahrbuch Technikphilosophie 2018 (pp. 283-297283–297). Nomos.Google Scholar
  41. Oltmann, S. (2015). Dual use research: investigation across multiple science disciplines. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(2), 327–341.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9535-y.
  42. OpenTA. (2018). NTA-Mitglieder. Retrieved from https://www.openta.net/mitglieder.
  43. Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093.
  44. Pyetranker, I. (2015). An Umbrella in a Hurricane: Cyber Technology and the December 2013 Amendment to the Wassenaar Agreement. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 13(2), 153–180.Google Scholar
  45. Resnik, D. B. (2009). What is “Dual Use” Research? A Response to Miller and Selgelid. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(1), 3–5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9104-3.
  46. Statista. (2018). Anzahl der Hochschulen in Deutschland in den Wintersemestern 2013/2014 bis 2017/2018 nach Hochschulart.Google Scholar
  47. TAB. (2014). TA at the German Bundestag A brief history of the Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag (TAB). Retrieved from http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/en/about-tab/history.html.
  48. TU Darmstadt. (2018). The Zivilklausel of TU Darmstadt. Retrieved from https://www.intern.tu-darmstadt.de/gremien/ethikkommisson/zivilklausel/zivilklausel.en.jsp.
  49. Tucker, J. B. (Ed.). (2012). Innovation, Dual Use, Security: Managing The Risks of Emerging Biological and Chemical Technologies. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. US National Research Council. (2006). Globalization, Biosecurity and the Future of the Life Sciences. Washington D.C. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.17226/11567.
  51. US Office of Export Control Cooperation; Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation. (2018). Common Dual-Use and Military Control Lists of the EU.Google Scholar
  52. von Massenbach, F. (2018). Initiative Hochschulen für den Frieden - Ja zur Zivilklausel. Retrieved from http://zivilklausel.de/index.php/impressum.
  53. von Schomberg, R. (2006). The Precautionary Principle and Its Normative Challenges. In E. Fischer, J. Jones, & R. von Schomberg (Eds.), Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects (pp. 19–42). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  54. von Schomberg, R. (2011). Introduction. In R. von Schomberg (Ed.), Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields (pp. 7–16). European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/mep-rapport-2011_en.pdf.
  55. Wassenaar Arrangement Secretariat. (1996). The Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies, (10). Retrieved from http://www.wassenaar.org.
  56. WHO. (2018). Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC). Retrieved from https://www.who.int/csr/durc/en/.

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TU Darmstadt, Science and Technology for Peace and Security (PEASEC)DarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Science and Technology for Peace and Security (PEASEC) Department of Computer ScienceTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations