November 21, 2013: Stuxnet Evolution: NSA input turned stealth weapon into internet-roaming spyware

First discovered in June 2010, Stuxnet is a computer worm that has officially made cyberwarfare a reality. The primary focus of the malware targeted Siemens Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems that were used to control uranium enrichment infrastructures. After infecting the industrial controller systems, Stuxnet sped up uranium enrichment centrifuge rotors while faking control sensor signals so the system doesn’t shut down. The NSA, in collaboration with the Israel Defense Forces, created Stuxnet to target Iran. Symantec released a study of the spread of Stuxnet and found that 58.85% of affected computers were located in Iran followed by 18.22% in Indonesia. Although not the first attack on an industrial system, Stuxnet has received the most attention and has raised the ethical dilemmas of cyberwarfare to the public.

When I first read this article, I was really interested in Stuxnet yet at the same time was extremely conflicted about its application – hacking could bring about a lot of productive, beneficial changes but also like all technology, could be used for harm. I always knew that cyber hacking was occurring and we definitely have the technology and resources to exploit it (as with banking and identity theft) but I never considered it on an international governmental level. Cyberwar will become the new form of warfare, and bring with it new technological ethical dilemmas to add onto the already highly controversial topic of war.

The biggest ethical issues I see with the realization of cyberwar is that this advancement blurs the lines even more of what justifies the start of a war along with which technologies can be used and in what context. Although the concept of a cyberwar is more appealing because it removes the physical human casualties associated with war and the expenses and risks of deploying troops, the same ethical dilemmas are still present. We can attack another nation from thousands of miles away (the same arguments for deploying robots in war) in the safety of our own homes; cyberwar is a lot easier, but the question of whether we should go to war still remains.

International humanitarian laws don’t cover technological cyberspace warfare so how do we justify a war? Is it possible to wage a just cyberwar? Traditionally, we are given moral permission to go to war only in the circumstance of self-defense; war should be considered a horrible last resort but with the introduction of cyberwar, it makes declaring war a lot easier because it gets rid of the physical casualties and subdues a lot of the emotive reactions that comes with war.

There a 4 main aspects of the practice of cyberwarfare that I am most interested by from an ethical perspective:

1. How should the national military/defense respond to a cyberattack since it doesn’t cause any direct physical harm to people/isn’t a traditional form of aggression? Should we treat a cyberattack like we treat a normal attack? Does it count as a trigger for war when it’s installed and has been set off already, or the act of installing the malware is an attack and we should declare war, or about unsuccessful attempts to install the malware?
2. How should we reciprocate in our defense? In traditional “just-war” ethics, we retaliate only as much damage in defending as the attacker did in the first place. In the case of cyberwar however, most times the victim can’t assess exactly how much damage was received; should we respond physically? What if the malware spirals out of control and does more collateral damage than was originally intended by the attacker?
3. Is it right for us to declare war on an entire nation, even though the actions of a cyberattack may just be that of one person? What if we blame the wrong person or can’t figure out who the attacker is?
4. What role should the engineer play in the development of malware? Is it more acceptable (or dismissable) for an engineer to help in the production of a malware versus a traditional weapon that causes direct physical harm? What responsibilities do engineers have towards the government?

The idea of genetically modifying humans has been a hotly debated topic for years now, and The Telegraph’s article brings up an interesting point of ethical obligation in this process of rationally designing our fetuses. In the discussion, Mark brought up many good points about how this would essentially take the place of evolution, that it would be the start of a slippery slope, and that a greater disparity in the economic conditions of people would be created.

The comparison between genetically modifying babies and acting as the “hand of god” in place of evolution was very thought provoking as we discussed what it means to be artificial. The argument that genetically modifying organisms goes against natural selection and evolution was examined as the idea was brought up that humans genetically modifying their offspring is part of the natural plan. This concept that maybe being able to genetically choose traits is the natural plan and that we may be going against it is extremely scary and one that can’t be answered. People often intertwine their religious morality and beliefs when debating this question.

Mark did focus on the most relevant issues of where we would stop if we did start genetically modifying our babies and the creation of inherently better children based upon economic advantages but he did not fully explain his emotional reaction to the article. We could also examine more the ethical problems specific to engineering rather than the general ethics and morality of genetically modifying the babies. Mark mentioned that parents would essentially be given the role of engineers to engineer their children. The engineering ethical question of whether we should give people the power to essentially control the future development and evolution of humankind is the one facing us today. Every person has a different understanding of what is right or what is a good characteristic and every culture defines wanted traits differently. Even if we have the technology to genetically change children, do engineers have the right to make it accessible (disregarding economic situations) to everyone to use? We would basically be given the power to change the innate nature of our kids without their consent.

In the past, there have been issues of whether we should genetically modify organisms and recently, there has been an increase in genetically modified plants and foods. In the beginning, there was a huge controversy and commotion rose at the idea of genetically modifying the foods we eat, but I feel that it has died down significantly. Although there are still those who promote natural organic foods, genetically modified foods is not as taboo as it was when first introduced. As Mark pointed out, this is a slippery slope and if we start doing it, maybe genetically modified babies won’t be a big issue either. This could also be drawn to human nature to quickly adapt and to become accustomed to things, and whether that is advantageous or not is still to be determined. Further discussion of how the children would react if they found out when they were older would also be an interesting topic to explore.