Defining cyberwarfare...in hopes of preventing it - Daniel Garrie

定義網路戰……以避免它發生 - Daniel Garrie

譯者: Geoff Chen 審譯者: Marssi Draw

Wars are a tragic part of our history

戰爭是我們歷史悲劇的一部分

and will almost certainly be a tragic part of our future.

幾乎可以肯定的是 它也是我們未來悲劇的一部分

Since the establishment of the United Nations,

自聯合國成立以來

wars of aggression have been outlawed

侵略戰爭已被禁止

and multilateral conventions refer to armed conflict

多邊公約指的是武裝衝突

instead of war.

而不是戰爭

But the wars of the future

但未來的戰爭

won't be like the wars of our past.

將和我們以往經歷過的戰爭不同

Alongside traditional warfare,

除了傳統的戰爭

our future will include cyberwarfare,

我們的未來將包括網路戰

remotely fighting our enemies

在遠端打擊我們的敵人

through the use of a new class of weapons,

透過對新武器的使用

including computer viruses

包括電腦病毒

and programs to alter the enemy's ability to operate.

和程式來改變敵人的應變能力

And not only is cyberwarfare not covered

不只網路戰

by existing legal frameworks,

不被現有的法律框架所管轄

but the question of what exactly constitutes cyberwarfare

對於什麼才算構成網路戰

is still highly debated.

仍然眾說紛紜

So, how can we deal with cyberwarfare

如果我們甚至不知道 網路戰的定義為何

if we can't even agree on what it means?

我們要如何面對它呢？

One way forward is to envision situations

一個方式是，設想

where new international laws may be needed.

我們可能需要新的國際法的情況

Imagine a new kind of assassin,

想像一種新的殺手

one that could perpetrate a crime

一種沒開一槍

without firing a single shot

就可能犯罪的殺手

or even being in the same country.

或甚至在同一個國家

For example, an individual working for the government

例如，一名為政府工作的個人

uses a wireless device to send a signal

使用無線設備發送一組信號

to another foreign leader's pacemaker.

到一名外國領導人的心搏器中

This device directs the pacemaker to malfunction,

這個設備使心搏器發生故障

ultimately resulting in the foreign leader's death.

最終導致外國領導人死亡

Would this cyber assassination

這種網路暗殺事件

constitute an act of war?

算是構成一種戰爭行為嗎？

As a second example,

第二個例子

imagine an allied group of nations

想像一個聯合幾國的集團

cooperatively infiltrating the computer systems

合作侵入敵國核軍艦

of an enemy nation's nuclear warship.

的電腦系統

This attack results in a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier

這次攻擊幾乎導致核動力航母

almost melting down,

爆炸熔解

which was stopped just short

它只是簡單地被終結

of killing thousands of soldiers and civilians.

而不以殺害成千上萬的 士兵和平民為代價

As a defensive measure,

作為一種防禦措施

the enemy country responds

敵國發動防禦性攻擊

by unleashing a defensive cyberattack

作為回應

that results in the allied nations' power grids going down.

這導致盟國國內的電網癱瘓

Hospitals can no longer treat patients,

這使得醫院無法治療病患

entire regions without heat or clean water,

整個地區缺乏熱的或乾淨的水源

all ultimately causing tens of thousands civilian deaths.

最終會造成數萬名平民死亡

The origin of the power failure

電源故障的起因

was the counterattack,

便是反擊

but the fragile infrastructure,

但脆弱的基礎設施

feeble cybersecurity,

脆弱的網路安全

and the antiquated state of the power grid

和陳舊的電網設施

all contributed to the deaths of the civilians.

都是導致平民死亡的原因

Could the country fight back?

該國應該反擊嗎？

Who would they fight?

他們將對誰而戰？

And would their retaliation be considered an act of war?

他們的報復行動 應該被視為一種戰爭行為嗎？

Do they constitute war crimes against humanity?

他們構成危害人類罪的戰爭罪嗎？

Who is to be held responsible?

誰應該負責？

The computer programmers who wrote the code?

是寫程式的電腦工程師？

The military project manager

還是監督寫程式的

who oversaw the creation of the code?

軍事專案管理者？

The commander who hit the button,

還是按下按鈕

setting off the event?

引爆這起事件的指揮官？

The hardware engineer who created the computers,

是那些知道他們要啟動攻擊

knowing that they were intended to enable an attack?

而製造電腦硬體的工程師嗎？

Because war has been with us for so long,

因為我們與戰爭相處了許久

we have laws to deal with figuring out

我們有法律來釐清

who should be held accountable

誰應為他們在戰鬥中的行動

for their actions in combat.

承擔責任

These legal frameworks aim to contain

這些法律框架的目標是

and prevent atrocities from being more atrocious.

要管制，並防止更殘暴的暴行

Commandeering civilian planes

強行徵募民用飛機

and using them as weapons,

並將它們用作武器

dropping atomic bombs,

投放原子彈

the use of gas chambers or poisonous gas in conflict,

使用毒氣室，或在衝突中施放有毒氣體

all of these actions, if committed,

如果犯下所有這些行動

constitute acts of war and war crimes

便構成了戰爭行為與罪責

under customary international law

這些事根據國際習慣法

and the Hague conventions.

和海牙公約

Again, the current legal framework stays silent

再次，目前的法律框架

on hypothetical questions and countless others

對這些假設性問題 和無數其他的問題不聞不問

because there are no easy answers,

因為簡單的答案並不存在

and there are only two ways

若要在這些問題上取得進展

to make progress on these questions:

只有兩種方法：

peace or new laws.

和平，或是新法律

So, what hypothetical but plausible scenarios

那麼，在不斷衍生的網路戰定義中

can you imagine falling under

你可以想像有哪些

the burgeoning definition of cyberwarfare,

合理的新方案嗎？

and how might you design

你要如何設計

an international legal framework

一套國際法框架

to deter these activities?

來阻止這些活動？