Cyberwars for the ultimate good? - 4 views

• 
  #1 Elaine Ong on 13 Oct 09

   

  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/politics/02cyber.html?_r=1
  
  In 2003, the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies made plans for a cyberattack to freeze billions of dollars in the bank accounts of Saddam Hussein and cripple his government's financial system before the United States invaded Iraq.But the attack never got the green light.
  
  
  Where should we draw the line when proposing attacks on computer networks, between our own purposes or for the promotion of the ultimate good? During these attacks, be it on bank accounts, power grids, or telecommunications network, there is always the consideration that it will not only affect the targeted area, but cause inconvenience to other people as well. For example in the late 1990s, the American military attacked a Serbian telecommunications network and accidentally affected the Intelsat satellite communications system, whose service was hampered for several days. Perhaps the intention started out as good (by the way how do we define good if its just part of their strategy/propaganda?), but in the process, it defeated the purpose of achieving the beneficence for the most number of people, and incur many other 'casualties of war' in the process.
  
  The U.N. Charter basically says that a nation cannot use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation. But what kinds of cyberattacks count as force is a hard question, because force is not clearly defined.
  
  Cyberwars can also be a good alternative for wars, where nobody gets killed and everyone can join in. Could cyberwar be a form of ethical political protest? But then again, it is always only those who have the expertise, that can engage in these wars- educated elites perhaps? But by shutting down websites or defacing those which you do not agree with, isn't that suppressing certain voices and violating the rights to freedom of speech?

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/politics/02cyber.html?_r=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/politics/02cyber.html?_r=1</a> <br /> <br /> In 2003, the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies made plans for a cyberattack to freeze billions of dollars in the bank accounts of Saddam Hussein and cripple his government's financial system before the United States invaded Iraq.But the attack never got the green light. <br /> <br /> <br /> Where should we draw the line when proposing attacks on computer networks, between our own purposes or for the promotion of the ultimate good? During these attacks, be it on bank accounts, power grids, or telecommunications network, there is always the consideration that it will not only affect the targeted area, but cause inconvenience to other people as well. For example in the late 1990s, the American military attacked a Serbian telecommunications network and accidentally affected the Intelsat satellite communications system, whose service was hampered for several days. Perhaps the intention started out as good (by the way how do we define good if its just part of their strategy/propaganda?), but in the process, it defeated the purpose of achieving the beneficence for the most number of people, and incur many other 'casualties of war' in the process. <br /> <br /> The U.N. Charter basically says that a nation cannot use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation. But what kinds of cyberattacks count as force is a hard question, because force is not clearly defined. <br /> <br /> Cyberwars can also be a good alternative for wars, where nobody gets killed and everyone can join in. Could cyberwar be a form of ethical political protest? But then again, it is always only those who have the expertise, that can engage in these wars- educated elites perhaps? But by shutting down websites or defacing those which you do not agree with, isn't that suppressing certain voices and violating the rights to freedom of speech?</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top