Telecommunications
Regulation:
Domestic and International
MSIS 5600
Information Warfare and International
Law
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
1
Communications without
intelligence is noise; intelligence
without communications is
irrelevant.
General Alfred M. Gray, USMC
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
2
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
3
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?
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
4
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?
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
5
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”)
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
6
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
7
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
8
Information Warfare Defined
Information 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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
9
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
10
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
11
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
12
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
13
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
14
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
15
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
16
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”
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
17
Physical Destructiveness
Propaganda Computer intrusion
disrupting communiBroadcast
cations
Computer intrusion
causing dam failure
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
Thermonuclear
attack
18
Physical Intrusiveness
Infoblockade
Computer intrusion
Espionage
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
Invasion
19
Character of Target
Church-run
hospital
Social
Service
System
Public
Switched
Network
Transportation
infrastructure
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
Munitions
Plant
Tank
20
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
21
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
22
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 indiscriminate war of attrition to eliminate the enemy
society altogether is not morally justified.
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
23
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 transmissions for national or domestic security
• Can’t transmit false or misleading signals
(station identification, etc.)
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
24
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
25
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
26
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)
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
27
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
28
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
29
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
30
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
31
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
32
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
33
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
34
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
35
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.
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
36
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
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
37
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)
(c) 2003 Charles G. Gray
38
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. Gray
39