(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray1 Telecommunications Regulation: Domestic and International MSIS 5600...

(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray 1

Telecommunications Regulation:

Domestic and International

MSIS 5600

Information Warfare and International Law


Communications without intelligence is noise; intelligence without communications is irrelevant.

General Alfred M. Gray, USMC


There are two powers in the world, the sword and the mind. In the long run the sword is always beaten by the mind.

Napoleon Bonaparte


Questions to be Considered• What is “information warfare” (IW)?

• Who are the ”combatants” in IW?– Nation-states?– Non-governmental entities (terrorists?)?

• What are (in the information age)?– “Force”– “Armed attack”– “Armed aggression”

• What role is played by “intent” in IW?


Terms of Reference• National sovereignty• Inviolability of national boundaries• Belligerents• Kinetic (physical) vs. electronic conflict• National sovereignty

– Treaty of Westphalia, 1648• Exclusive authority over events within the borders

• What is crime –– Who commits it?– What does the law say about it?


Sources of International Law

• Treaties/Conventions

• Resolutions (Generally non-binding)

• Customary Law– Opinio Juris (“General practice accepted as law”)

• Conventional Law– Jus Cogens (Acceptance and recognition by a

“large majority” of states”)


UN Definitions Related to War

• War inherently includes armed forces, force and violence– US and allies understand this to not include

economic coercion

• Aggression – the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state

• First use of armed force is prima facie evidence of aggression


More UN Definitions• Aggression is limited to the use of force

• Attacks – acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offense or defense

• Not clear if IW constitutes an “armed attack”

• An attack on a social system might be part of a war, but would not alone constitute an act of war

• A state of “war” can exist without actual fighting


Information Warfare DefinedInformation warfare is the offensive and

defensive use of information and information systems to deny, exploit, corrupt, or destroy an adversary’s information, information-based processes, information systems, and computer-based networks while protecting one’s own. Such actions are designed to achieve advantages over military or business adversaries.

Dr. Ivan Goldberg


Possible IW Scenarios• Trap door

– Control code in a PSTN switch

• Mass dialing attack– Overwhelm a local (or LD) phone system

• Logic bomb– Misroute trains into collisions

• Video morphing– Broadcast propaganda or misinformation

• Mass e-mail attack– Paralyze a significant network


More Possible IW Scenarios• Worms and viruses

– Damage data and disrupt systems

• “Infoblockade” (Okay under UN Article 41)– Stop or restrict electronic information at the border

• Clandestine database access– Disclose confidential personal, medical or financial

data for blackmail, extortion or widespread social disruption and/or embarrassment


IW Computer Intrusion• Modify pharmaceutical manufacturing

formulas

• Change blood types in military/civilian hospitals

• Corrupt bank databases, causing financial panic (banks shut down to find/repair)

• Disrupt C3 on the battlefield

• Manipulate commodity exchanges, power grid, municipal traffic control, air traffic control or navigation systems


Characteristics of International Law

• Not created by legislatures or courts

• Not enforced by police and courts

• Established by agreement

• Established by explicit or tacit agreement, among parties who will be bound by it– Similar to private contracts

• International Court of Justice– No established enforcement power – Depends on political and diplomatic pressures


Violation of International Law

• A state may choose to violate international law -– When int’l law conflicts with pursuit of their

fundamental interests• For example, national security

– Nation is willing to withstand international objections and criticism


Historic “Information Warfare”

• Camouflage (Macduff brought Burnham Wood to Dunsinane (Macbeth, Act V)

• Greeks used sun reflected from bright shields

• US Civil War – both sides cut telegraph wires

• Breaking cipher codes in all wars


IW Challenges to International Law• Dual-use nature of IT blurs distinction

between military and civilian targets– 90+% of US military telecommunications is

handled over “civilian” facilities

• Damage is different from traditional warfare– Disruption, corruption or manipulation of data

may cause intangible damage– Damage to civil society or government services

may be more like economic sanctions than war


More IW Challenges• Radio waves challenge the concept of

national, territorial sovereignty– Sovereignty may not be suited in an

increasingly “wired” world– Signals don’t stop at international borders

• Targets are hard to define– Military (good target) vs. civilian (not good)– Intangible damage may not even be the kind

protected by the “humanitarian law of war”


Physical Destructiveness

Propaganda Broadcast

Computer intrusion disrupting communi-cations

Computer intrusion causing dam failure

Thermonuclear attack


Physical Intrusiveness

Infoblockade Computer intrusion Espionage Invasion


Character of Target

Church-run hospital

Social Service System

Public Switched Network

Transportation infrastructure

Munitions Plant

Tank


The Legality of IW

• IW not explicitly prohibited– General rule – it is legal if not expressly

prohibited– General principles may still apply

• Territory of neutral states is inviolable– Attack through a network, satellite, or computer

in a neutral country same as planes flying over• Considered illegal, and perhaps an act of war

against the neutral


Principles of a “Just War”• jus ad bellum

– Just cause• Good reason to go to war

– Competent authority• Legitimate – authorized by the government

– Right intention• Seeks to restore a just peace

– Limited objectives• War is just only if its goals are limited

– Last resort• Exhaust all peaceful means of resolution

– Reasonable hope of success


Concept of jus in bello• Applicable after a war starts• Discrimination – Military force must be

applied only against the political leadership and military forces of the state. Discriminate between soldiers and civilians. Minimize civilian casualties.

• Proportionality – The destruction inflicted by military forces in war must be proportional to the goals they seek to realize. An indiscrimi-nate war of attrition to eliminate the enemy society altogether is not morally justified.


IW and the ITU• Radio interference rules do not apply

between belligerents

• Offshore radio stations are banned

• Governments obliged to protect the secrecy of international correspondence– States retain the right to stop radio or wire trans-

missions for national or domestic security

• Can’t transmit false or misleading signals (station identification, etc.)


IW and the IFRB

• Interference and interoperability are the major concerns

• No authority to enforce its decisions

• Violations are more likely to be breaches of contract than acts of war requiring a “kinetic response”

• States usually respect the rules against interference, expecting that their own communications will be similarly protected


IW and Space• 1967 Multilateral “Outer Space Treaty”

– Equal access for exploration, no WMD

• 1971 Intelsat Agreement and 1976 Inmarsat Convention specify only nondiscrimination between nations

• 1979 “Moon Treaty” (US has not ratified)– Equal access for exploration, no WMD

• No prohibition to IW using satellites• Orbital surveillance, navigation, weapons

guidance and military comm are all legal


Practical Considerations• Espionage, universally a crime under domestic

law, does not violate international law

• Orbital remote sensing with radar/radio permitted during war or peace

• “Protection of undersea cables” rules exempt belligerents

• Radio/TV jamming used in both war and peace since 1934

• Ruses are legitimate (Trojan Horse, old and new)


International Humanitarian Law

• St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868– The only legitimate object of war is to weaken

the enemy’s military forces– Civilians cannot be the subject of an attack

• Hague Convention of 1907, Geneva Convention of 1949, etc.

• Permissible methods of hurting an enemy are not unlimited

• Cruelty of war must be mitigated and limited


Humanitarian Law Examples• Covered

– Attack on an air traffic control system– Destruction of pipelines by surging oil through– Causing meltdown of a nuclear reactor– Trigger release of toxic chemicals

• Not covered– Disrupting a university intranet– Downloading financial records– Cyber espionage not causing injury, death or

destruction


Manipulating Enemy Perceptions

• Spurring internal turmoil - lawful– Manipulate perceptions of leaders or populace– Spoofing intelligence information

• Database modification to mark an infantry HQ as a hospital - unlawful

• Perfidy - unlawful– Feigning truce, surrender, civilian status– Attacking in the uniform of the enemy


Responding to an IW Attack• How to identify an event as an actual attack

– Up to 500,000 “hacks” per year on DoD systems– Distinguish between an attack and “buggy”

software– AT&T network failure 1990

• Faulty software – not a hacker attack

• USAF Rome Lab, 1994 – hackers in the UK downloaded all S. Korean nuclear data– Feared N. Korea would interpret as an act of war


Extradition of IW Attackers• State cannot respond until source is found• Options are unsettled and potentially

unsatisfactory• Extradition treaty required – no underlying

right of extradition under international law• Jurisdictional disputes are common• “Double criminality” – act must be criminal

in both countries involved– Pakistan wanted Madonna and Michael Jackson

• “Political offenses” exempt


Alternatives to Extradition

• Diplomatic pressure

• Economic sanctions

• Multilateral pressure

• Abduction– Not illegal under US law– State has a right to try, even if capture was

technically illegal


US (Air Force) IW Objectives• Corruption

– Make data nonsensical or inaccurate

• Deception– Alteration of information, creating false

knowledge, masquerading

• Delay– Slow the flow of information, and acquisition

of new knowledge

• Denial– Adversary denied access to information


More US IW Objectives• Disruption

– Destruction of existing knowledge, delay in the acquisition and dissemination of new knowledge

• Degradation– Reduction in the capacity to provide or process

information

• Destruction– Destruction of information before it can be

transmitted


US Tools of IW• US Embassies worldwide• Carnivore• USS Jimmy Carter (Seawolf class submarine)

– Undersea cable tapping (including fiber)– Remotely operated surveillance vehicle– Transport for Navy Seals– Advanced communications send/receive mast

• Navy surface ships /Air Force planes• Special operations forces tap land lines• Special collection services agents

– Steal cipher keys, plant bugs, etc.


Echelon Monitoring Stations

Yakima, WA Menwith Hill Guam

Sugar Grove, VA Morwenston Shoal Bay, AU

Buckley Field, CO Bad Aibling Waihpai, NZ

Ft. Gordon, GA Cyprus Pine Gap, AU

Medina Annex, TX Diego Garcia Geraldton, AU

Ft. Meade, MD Misawa Leitrim, Canada

Sabana Sea, PR Kunai, HI


Voice Analysis/Recognition• “How” you say it is as important as “what”

you say• Decision tree classifier – pattern recognition

– Pitch– Vowel duration– Loudness– Word content– Falling/rising pitch in sentence

• Hope to detect code words (unusual inflections)


Conclusions• International law is unsettled vis a vis IW

• Clarify definitions of– Armed attack– Force– Others

• Uniform application of humanitarian law

• US should pursue Harmonization of IW laws

• Use the aviation example to protect worldwide information systems

(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray1 Telecommunications Regulation: Domestic and International MSIS 5600...

Documents

Transcript of (c) 2003 Charles G. Gray1 Telecommunications Regulation: Domestic and International MSIS 5600...