It is widely believed that a cyberattack victim should not “hack back” against attackers. Among the chief worries are that hacking back is (probably) illegal and immoral; and if it targets foreign networks, then it may spark a cyberwar between states. However, these worries are largely taken for granted: they are asserted without much argument, without considering the possibility that hacking back could ever be justified. This policy paper offers both the case for and against hacking back—examining six core arguments—to more carefully consider the practice.

Though general awareness around it may be low, space cyberattacks are an increasingly urgent problem given the vital role that space systems play in the modern world. Open-source or public discussions about it typically revolve around only a couple generic scenarios, namely satellite hacking and signals jamming or spoofing. But there are so many more possibilities. The report offers a scenario-prompt generator – a taxonomy of sorts, called the ICARUS matrix – that can create more than 4 million unique scenario-prompts. We will offer a starting set of 42 scenarios, briefly describing each one, to begin priming the imagination-pump so that many more researchers can bring their diverse expertise and perspectives to bear on the problem. A failure to imagine novel scenarios is a major risk in being taken by surprise and severely harmed by threat actors who are constantly devising new ways, inventive and resourceful ways, to breach the digital systems that control our wired world. To stay vigilant, defenders likewise need to be imaginative to keep up in this adversarial dance between hunter and prey in cybersecurity. More than offering novel scenarios, we will also explore the drivers of the space cybersecurity problem, which include at least seven factors we have identified. For instance, the shared threat of space debris would seem to push rational states and actors to avoid kinetic conflicts in orbit, which weighs in favor of cyberoperations as the dominant form of space conflicts. Outer space is the next frontier for cybersecurity. To guard against space cyberattacks, we need to understand and anticipate them, and imagination is at the very heart of both cybersecurity and frontiers.

This report proposes principles for determining when it is required to credit an artificial intelligence (AI) writer for its contributions to scholarly work. We begin by critiquing a policy recently published by the journal Nature, which forbids acknowledging AI writers as authors. We question the justification and breadth of this policy. We then suggest two fundamental considerations that we think are more relevant: continuity (how substantially are the contributions of AI writers carried through to the final product?), and creditworthiness (would this kind of product typically result in academic or professional credit for a human author?). We draw upon brief reflections on the nature and value of authorship to justify these considerations. This report provides a starting point for academics and the broader scholarly community in the emerging debate on determining when and how to credit AI writers' contributions.

Technology has an outsized impact on the modern world; it is how we have tamed our frontiers. But that role is largely ignored when it comes to the Arctic frontier. Emerging technologies, especially AI, can enable desperately needed services and infrastructure-but they can also challenge ethics, law, and policy, as they usually do. For instance, autonomous icebreaker ships pose a dual-use dilemma since they can be used for both humanitarian and military purposes. As a lesson for other frontiers, this article will broadly introduce the potential role of AI in the changing Arctic and some of the ethical concerns that deserve attention before that future arrives.

and

Science fiction is replete with potboilers where robots take over the world for the greater good of the universe. A robot produces goods and services for society and consumes the undesirable, obsolete and redundant matter for its own energy needs. Robotics was dominated by behaviourism and low level of symbolism in the 1990s, image processing relies on cutting-edge algorithms and social robotics is structured on mirroring human beings. Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is an ailment where exposure to electrical signals from devices such as mobile phones, computers, WiFi routers and cellphone towers causes consistent headaches, uneasiness, hair loss and rashes. The growth of the computer industry from vacuum tubes to a silicon revolution has attracted research and development accounting for more than a trillion dollars annually. This exponential growth has allowed for other technologies such as virtual …

When we think about the values AI should have in order to make right decisions and avoid wrong ones, there's a large but hidden third category to consider: decisions that are not-wrong but also not-right. This is the grey space of judgment calls, and just having good values might not help as much as you'd think here. I'll use autonomous cars as my case study here, with lessons for broader AI: ethical dilemmas can arise in everyday scenarios such as lane positioning and navigation, not just in crazy crash scenarios. This is the space where one good value might conflict with another good value, and there's no "right" answer or even broad consensus on an answer; so, it's important to recognize the hard cases-which are potential limits-in the study of AI ethics.

There has been a rapid proliferation of the use of robots in warfare in recent years, and the United States military (which accounts for ∼40% of global military spending) has made further roboticization a priority within its research and development program. In this chapter, Patrick Lin, Keith Abney, and George Bekey review the state of robots within warfare and survey the wide array of legal and ethical issues raised by them. These include issues related to conducting a just war and determining responsibility for events in war, as well as issues related to the effects of the widespread use of robots on those involved in war and on society more generally. The authors argue that these technologies warrant a great deal more attention than they currently receive, given both the nature of them and the pace at which they are emerging.

After World War II, much debate unfolded about the ethical, legal, and social implications of military human enhancement, due in part to Adolf Hitler's war on the "genetically unfit" and the United States military's experimentation with psychedelic drugs such as LSD. Interest in that debate has waxed and waned since the 1940s. However, it would be foolish or perhaps even dangerous to believe that America and its modern allies have abandoned efforts to upgrade service members' bodies and minds to create the "super soldiers" necessary to match the increasing pace of modern warfare and dominate the strengthening militaries of China and North Korea. Slogans such as "be all that you can be and a whole lot more" still reign strong at the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and, according to some military futurists, the so-called "War on Terror" has only proven that military superpowers need a new type of soldier that is independent, network-integrated, and more lethal than ever before. Patterns of public risk perception, military expenditure, and new technological developments suggest that it is now time to re-open or reinvigorate the original debate. The authors' contribution comes in two parts. In this chapter, they provide a brief background to military human enhancement before defining it carefully and exploring the relevant controversies. In the second, they more explicitly examine the relevant legal, operational, and moral challenges posed by these efforts.

After World War II, much debate unfolded about the ethical, legal, and social implications of military human enhancement, due in part to Adolf Hitler's war on the “genetically unfit” and the United States military's experimentation with psychedelic drugs such as LSD. Interest in that debate has waxed and waned since the 1940s. However, it would be foolish or perhaps even dangerous to believe that America and its modern allies have abandoned efforts to upgrade service members' bodies and minds to create the “super soldiers” necessary to match the increasing pace of modern warfare and dominate the strengthening militaries of China and North Korea. Slogans such as “be all that you can be and a whole lot more” still reign strong at the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and, according to some military futurists, the so-called “War on Terror” has only proven that military superpowers need a new type of soldier that is independent, network-integrated, and more lethal than ever before. Patterns of public risk perception, military expenditure, and new technological developments suggest that it is now time to re-open or reinvigorate the original debate. The authors' contribution comes in two parts. In this chapter, they provide a brief background to military human enhancement before defining it carefully and exploring the relevant controversies. In the second, they more explicitly examine the relevant legal, operational, and moral challenges posed by these efforts.

This is the second chapter of two on military human enhancement. In the first chapter, the authors outlined past and present efforts aimed at enhancing the minds and bodies of our warfighters with the broader goal of creating the “super soldiers” of tomorrow, all before exploring a number of distinctions—natural vs. artificial, external vs. internal, enhancement vs. therapy, enhancement vs. disenhancement, and enhancement vs. engineering—that are critical to the definition of military human enhancement and understanding the problems it poses. The chapter then advanced a working definition of enhancement as efforts that aim to “improve performance, appearance, or capability besides what is necessary to achieve, sustain, or restore health.” It then discussed a number of variables that must be taken into consideration when applying this definition in a military context. In this second chapter, drawing on that definition and some of the controversies already mentioned, the authors set out the relevant ethical, legal, and operational challenges posed by military enhancement. They begin by considering some of the implications for international humanitarian law and then shift to US domestic law. Following that, the authors examine military human enhancement from a virtue ethics approach, and finally outline some potential consequences for military operations more generally.

Nation-states are struggling to formulate cyberpolicy, especially against foreign-based intrusions and attacks on domestic computer systems. These incidents are often framed in the context of cyberwarfare, which naturally implies that military organizations should respond to these incidents. This chapter will discuss why cyberwarfare is ethically difficult and why, until responsible cyberpolicy is developed, we may plausibly reframe the problem not as warfare but as private defense, i.e., self-defense by private parties, especially commercial companies, as distinct from a nation-state's right to self-defense. The distinction between private defense and national defense is relevant, since victims of cyberattacks have been primarily industry targets and not so much government targets, at least with respect to measurable harm. And we focus on foreign-based cyberattacks since, unlike domestic-based attacks that are usually considered to be mere crimes and therefore a matter for domestic law enforcement, foreign-based attacks tend to raise special alarms and panic about more sinister motives. More than a mere criminal act, a foreign cyberattack is often perceived as an aggression so serious that it may plausibly count as an act of war, or casus belli, and so we are quick to invoke national security. But insofar as the state is currently not protecting industry from such cyberattacks-in part because it is difficult to arrive at a sound cyberpolicy-we should consider interim solutions outside the military framework.

The United States military is making substantial investments to develop technologies that would enhance the ability of warfighters to complete their missions safely and effectively. Driven by neuroscience, biotechnology, nanotechnology, robotics, and other emerging technologies, this research includes combating sleep deprivation, improving cognitive performance, increasing strength, reducing muscle fatigue, and other enhancements to the human body and mind. As with other emerging military technologies, such as robotics and cyber-capabilities, human enhancement technologies challenge existing laws and policy, as well as underlying ethical values. But while the implications of human enhancement generally have been widely discussed, little analysis currently exists for the military context — specifically operational, ethical, and legal implications of enhancing warfighters, such as: How safe should these human enhancements and new medical treatments be prior to their deployment (considering recent controversies such as mandatory anthrax vaccinations)? Must enhancements be reversible or temporary (considering that most warfighters will return to society as civilians)? Could enhancements count as “biological weapons” under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (considering that the term is not clearly defined)? This report begins an investigation into these and other issues in order to identify problems that policymakers and society may need to confront. We start with an analysis of international and domestic law, military policy, bioethics, and risk assessments. Then we offer a new framework for evaluating human enhancement technologies in a military context. As an initial model, we also discuss further considerations — related to character and honor, as well as broader social impacts — that can be integrated later into this evaluative framework.

Sharkey,N12008o Cassandra or false prophOt df doOm:AI robots and wa■ ■EEEル′′:lige′′′ 勁StemS,July/August,pp,14■ 17 Sharkcy N.2008り Grounds for discrimination:autonomous 10bOt wcapons Rυ y Dψ′′ “ みな′′770S,1lo),86「89 Shalkcy.N.(2008cl Thc CthiCal frOnticrs ofrobOtics ScJ′ ′′οθ:322,18001801 Sparro■ R12007).Kiler robOts.ヵ′′′′′′α′or′′ノたグ動 lJ●Sη城 24(1),62■7 Tlyloち R"Paul,HA,KazttdZidCS,R,a,α l(199o Ahimage― dircctcd robotic system fOrprc= cisc orthopaedic slrgcry lttE)● 7tSα `′′ ο′′sο′′RObO′′εs α′′グИ “ め “ ク′′ο′′,10(3),261275‐ TayloL R=Mcnciassi,A,Ficlltinger,G,and Dario,P(2008)MediCal rObotics and collaputc■

Robots today serve in many roles, from entertainer to educator to executioner. As robotics technology advances, ethical concerns become more pressing: Should robots be programmed to follow a code of ethics, if this is even possible? Are there risks in forming emotional bonds with robots? How might society--and ethics--change with robotics? This volume is the first book to bring together prominent scholars and experts from both science and the humanities to explore these and other questions in this emerging field. Starting with an overview of the issues and relevant ethical theories, the topics flow naturally from the possibility of programming robot ethics to the ethical use of military robots in war to legal and policy questions, including liability and privacy concerns. The contributors then turn to human-robot emotional relationships, examining the ethical implications of robots as sexual partners, caregivers, and servants. Finally, they explore the possibility that robots, whether biological-computational hybrids or pure machines, should be given rights or moral consideration. Ethics is often slow to catch up with technological developments. This authoritative and accessible volume fills a gap in both scholarly literature and policy discussion, offering an impressive collection of expert analyses of the most crucial topics in this increasingly important field.

Considering the basic ethical questions that must be resolved in the new realm of cyberwarfare.