Cyberspace Is A Consensual Hallucination

By Robert Dewar for Center for Security Studies (CSS)

Robert Dewar contends that cyberspace does non exist. As a result, it is a misconception for states to care for cyberspace equally an existent domain of warfare with land, sea, air too outer space. In response, politicians too academics should admit that this virtual domain is precisely that—virtual. By doing so, states volition encounter they already direct maintain the norms too legal frameworks inward house to bargain with a hit of cybersecurity threats too risks. Cyberspace – an of import purpose of modern life too the source of numerous modern safety concerns – is beingness treated equally a domain where the usual rules exercise non apply, a seat stemming from a cardinal misconception: cyberspace does non exist.

In the terminal thirty years, the virtual domain known equally “cyberspace” has enjoyed increasing recognition from political too military machine actors. Malicious too weaponized code such equally viruses too worms emerged equally annoyances inward the 1980s, too developed into sophisticated tools capable of disabling equipment inward nuclear facilities, equally Stuxnet did inward 2010. Specially designed DDoS attacks direct maintain targeted state infrastructures, equally was the representative inward Republic of Estonia inward 2007. On the political side, 7 countries opened embassies inward the virtual platform Second Life betwixt 2007 too 2008. The rising of cyber-crime too cyber-terrorism has captured popular, journalistic, too political imagination and, due to the ever increasing degree of technical sophistication of malicious digital tools, safety too military machine policy is struggling to continue up. Politicians too theorists utter of a revolution inward military machine affairs too the imminent outbreak of cyberwar, with battles beingness fought inward cyberspace. As a result, non entirely has cyberspace locomote a domain inward which personal too commercial transactions pick out place, but it has been described equally the 5th domain of warfare with land, sea, air too outer space.

Key Points

What is labelled “cyberspace” is a combination of physical devices connected to each other too the information these devices shop too share.

There is a two-fold misconceptualisation of cyberspace: showtime equally a domain inward which activity tin flame pick out place; too bit equally i where current, longstanding rules too norms exercise non apply

By moving away from the mistaken conceptualization of cyberspace equally an existent domain, states tin flame encounter that they already direct maintain frameworks inward house to to a greater extent than effectively secure themselves against a hit of cybersecurity threats too risks

All of these normative changes, policy developments, publications, legal formulations, strategies too prognostications of doom are, however, built precisely about a cardinal misunderstanding: cyberspace is non a place, conceptual or actual, inward which a fight, allow lone a war, tin flame pick out house or hold upward fought. It is, equally Gibson1 described it inward his 1984 novel “Neuromancer”, a “consensual hallucination”: a made-up, quasi-fictional entity beingness considered real. This poses a number of problems for policy-makers too researchers. As land, ocean air too outer infinite evolved into battlegrounds, novel processes were developed to combat inward these domains. Should the same hold upward truthful for cyberspace? Should novel political theories, regulatory systems or social norms hold upward developed to address the really existent safety challenges of the cyber-age, or are these challenges but older, long-standing issues wrapped upward inward novel digital too online jargon? To paraphrase Saalman2, should novel vino hold upward poured into novel bottles, or are the bottles non novel at all? To overcome this misconception, politicians too academics should admit that the virtual domain is precisely that – virtual – too does non exist. Then it volition hold upward clearer that the safety challenges faced inward the digital historic menstruum are non novel too that electrical flow frameworks tin flame hold upward applied to “cyber” issues: onetime vino tin flame hold upward poured into onetime bottles.

LAN network cables plugged into a Bitcoin mining estimator server are pictured inward Bitminer Factory inward Florence, Italy, Apr 6, 2018. Picture taken Apr 6, 2018. Alessandro Bianchi / Reuters

Inventing a digital domain

The concept described equally “cyberspace” inward political too academic debate is inward actuality a gestalt entity made upward of 2 split constructs, i physical, the other digital too “virtual”. The physical entity is the Internet, an interconnected network of digital devices which communicate with each other over wired or wireless connections. These physical pieces of applied scientific discipline include smartphones, tablets, routers, computers too “smart” devices such equally Internet-enabled TVs. The Internet hosts an additional virtual entity called the World Wide Web. The Web is a vast too continually growing collection of inter-referencing pieces of information produced inward a digital format commonly called “webpages”. These webpages are complex pieces of estimator code, stored collectively on large digital repositories (servers). When a user of the Internet requests information from the Web, their device communicates with a serial of other devices to access that information inward a digital form, ordinarily through browsers such equally Firefox or Chrome.

The devices which brand upward the network, too the information they host, are increasing exponentially inward technological complexity, multifariousness too volume. However, the cardinal description inward a higher house remains the same i instantly equally was the representative inward the 1960s with the evolution of ARPANET, the precursor to the modern Internet. To depict this vast organization of interconnected technologies too estimator code equally an existent house is a conceptual error to a greater extent than at abode inward science-fiction (such equally the Matrix or Tron’s “grid”) than inward policy evolution or academic research. “Cyberspace” is so a social construct. Language too vocalization communication acts are beingness used to depict too hence pick out into beingness a completely non-existent entity. This socio-linguistic construction poses problems for policy-making too academic study, especially inward the fields of safety too defense.

New vino into novel bottles?

Despite the uncomplicated technical reality of the nature of its digital networks, cyberspace is treated equally though it is a realm where normal, or at to the lowest degree longstanding rules don’t apply. In 1993 Arquilla too Ronfeldt3 declared that cyber state of war was coming. They wrote that the evolution of novel digital weapons, coupled with an increasingly networked too digitalized guild meant that cyberspace would hold upward the novel battleground. This quasi-military linguistic communication established a conceptual path dependency with the final result that, inward 2010, then-US Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III declared that cyberspace was the 5th domain of warfare after land, sea, air too outer space4. Military strategists too regime policy-makers leapt on this description too a wealth of policy has been produced from this viewpoint, i which argues that the advent of the cyber-age is creating a revolution inward military machine affairs which requires novel ways of waging war, novel strategic theories, novel social norms of acceptable conduct too novel safeguards, especially given the growth inward state utilization of cybertools too techniques against perceived adversaries. There is an increasing trunk of academic persuasion calling for cyber arms-control regulation too non-proliferation treaties similar to those inward house for nuclear, biological too chemic weapons, equally good equally calling for novel civilian legislation to hold upward established to ensure the prophylactic usage of cyberspace, or at the really to the lowest degree to minimize malicious actions.

The practical work for law- too policy makers is that the speed of digitalization too penetration of Internet-enabled smart applied scientific discipline into every expression of human life too discourse agency that regulatory too legislative systems precisely about the footing are struggling to continue upward with novel technology. The ongoing debate precisely about reconciling personal rights to privacy with the commercial needs of social media platforms too the law-enforcement needs of police delineate forces too state safety agencies ever appears to hold upward several steps behind the curve. Politicians too academics alike are so seeking to educate bespoke solutions to these cyber-problems: novel vino is beingness developed to create total novel bottles. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 novel expanse inward which human interaction takes house has evolved – cyberspace – too with it has come upward novel normative requirements too regulatory idiosyncrasies.

This is the crux of the problem. When developing policy too legislation politicians, law-makers too a number of academics are treating cyberspace equally though it were a domain inward which the usual rules of law enforcement too armed conflict exercise non apply. The reality is really different. The tools malicious actors are using may direct maintain evolved too locomote to a greater extent than complex given the advent of the digital age, but the motivations too goals of those actors direct maintain non changed. Cyber-crime such equally hacking into banks too stealing client information or funds is soundless criminal offence too champaign of report to law enforcement; cyber-espionage such equally accessing classified regime systems is soundless espionage too champaign of report to international law too existent conventions. Cyber-warfare is but the bear of conflict operations using the latest applied scientific discipline available, something the military machine has done for centuries. The safety challenges faced earlier the cyber-age stay the same, irrespective of the improver of a “cyber” prefix. Accepting or acknowledging that cyberspace is non an actual domain enables us to realize this.

It should hold upward pointed out, however, that this tendency of misconceptualisation is non universal. From a military, cyberdefense perspective this conundrum has been inadvertently addressed past times the publication inward 2013 of the Tallinn Manual on The International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. This is a collection of legal persuasion applying established international humanitarian law (IHL) too the laws of armed conflict (LOAC) to cyberwarfare operations with the aim of codifying too clarifying rules of hateful solar daytime of the month too action. Crucially, IHL too LOAC were applied to cyberwarfare non because warfare conducted inward cyberspace was a novel number which needed novel rules, but because the issues, motivations, goals of combatants too questions regarding the nature of an armed assail were unchanged regardless of the utilization of novel technology. There needed to hold upward no novel international law; electrical flow frameworks but needed to hold upward to a greater extent than effectively applied. Such was the finish of the panel of experts who produced the Tallinn Manual too its successive editions.

Why nosotros should wake from the consensual hallucination

One enquiry remains, however: does it affair how cyberspace is perceived? The empirical reality is that cyberspace is beingness treated equally a specific existent domain similar land, sea, air too space. This mantra has been repeated so many times past times so many people, including people of influence, that it has gone viral too is instantly beingness accepted equally fact. No total of disagreement with that conceptualization is going to modify global collective views.

There are 2 reasons why this misconceptualisation is important. The showtime is but that it is ever meliorate to direct maintain an accurate description of an entity than a mistaken one. Given that the Internet has facilitated the spread of inaccuracies too falsehoods such equally mistaken tidings stories, striving for correct, accurate information is becoming ever to a greater extent than important. The bit ground is that the drive to educate novel policy, laws too social regulation (the Tallinn Manual notwithstanding) has come upward at a high terms inward fourth dimension too resources, costs which tin flame hold upward meliorate allocated to tackling the actual social too safety problems beingness faced such equally online criminal activity. States should follow the precedent laid past times the Tallinn Manual too non rush to create novel solutions for cyber-problems. Those problems are non novel but past times virtue of beingness digital. Only the tools involved direct maintain changed.

The solution to these 2 issues is relatively simple: acknowledging that cyberspace is non real, too so is non a house where dissimilar social, political or military machine rules or laws apply. One way to laissez passer this digital Weltanschauung is to movement away from the focus on a fictional place, cyberspace, inward which the activity occurs too instead pay closer attending to the goals too motivations of malicious actors. This would exhibit that the intent behind the activity is the same equally inward the existent footing (be that espionage, criminal offence or warfare) too policy-makers volition uncovering that at that spot are already established normative too legal frameworks for dealing with these issues. Tweaks to ensure relevance may hold upward required, such equally ensuring that citizens are aware that illegal activities such equally harassment are soundless illegal whether they are conducted online or not, but novel norms are non the answer.

If this is achieved so responding effectively to safety threats too risks highlighted past times the exponential growth inward the complexity too penetration of digital applied scientific discipline into all aspects of human life volition hold upward made much easier. Law too policy makers would encounter that this is non a affair onetime vino into novel bottles, or fifty-fifty of “new” vino into novel bottles, but of onetime vino into onetime bottles.

Selected Sources

1 W. Gibson, Neuromancer (London: Victor Gollancz, 1984), 67.

2 Lora Saalman, “Pouring New Wine into New Bottles: China-US Deterrence Relations inward Cyberspace,” Whitehead J. Dipl. & Int’l Rel. 17 (2015): 23.

3 John Arquilla too David Ronfeldt, “Cyberwar Is Coming!,” Comparative Strategy 12, no. 2 (1993): 141 – 65, https://doi. org/10.1080/01495939308402915.

4 William J. Lynn III, “Defending a New Domain,” Foreign Affairs, September 1, 2010, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66552/william-j-lynn-iii/defending-a-new-domain.

Trending Kini: