Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror (Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications) 3030725707, 9783030725709

Citation preview

Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications

Yair Sharan Ted J. Gordon Elizabeth Florescu

Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror

Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications Series Editor Anthony J. Masys, Associate Professor, Director of Global Disaster Management, Humanitarian Assistance and Homeland Security, University of South Florida, Tampa, USA Advisory Editors Gisela Bichler, California State University, San Bernardino, CA, USA Thirimachos Bourlai, Lane Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, Multispectral Imagery Lab (MILab), West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA Chris Johnson, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK Panagiotis Karampelas, Hellenic Air Force Academy, Attica, Greece Christian Leuprecht, Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, ON, Canada Edward C. Morse, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA David Skillicorn, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada Yoshiki Yamagata, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

Indexed by SCOPUS The series Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications comprises interdisciplinary research covering the theory, foundations and domain-specific topics pertaining to security. Publications within the series are peer-reviewed monographs and edited works in the areas of: – biological and chemical threat recognition and detection (e.g., biosensors, aerosols, forensics) – crisis and disaster management – terrorism – cyber security and secure information systems (e.g., encryption, optical and photonic systems) – traditional and non-traditional security – energy, food and resource security – economic security and securitization (including associated infrastructures) – transnational crime – human security and health security – social, political and psychological aspects of security – recognition and identification (e.g., optical imaging, biometrics, authentication and verification) – smart surveillance systems – applications of theoretical frameworks and methodologies (e.g., grounded theory, complexity, network sciences, modelling and simulation) Together, the high-quality contributions to this series provide a cross-disciplinary overview of forefront research endeavours aiming to make the world a safer place. The editors encourage prospective authors to correspond with them in advance of submitting a manuscript. Submission of manuscripts should be made to the Editor-in-Chief or one of the Editors.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/5540

Yair Sharan · Ted J. Gordon · Elizabeth Florescu

Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror

Yair Sharan Director FIRS2T Israel Maccabim-Reut, Modiin, Israel

Ted J. Gordon The Millennium Project Washington, DC, USA

Elizabeth Florescu The Millennium Project Calgary, AB, Canada

ISSN 1613-5113 ISSN 2363-9466 (electronic) Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications ISBN 978-3-030-72570-9 ISBN 978-3-030-72571-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72571-6 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

The objective of this book is to help reduce the probability and severity of terrorism by anticipating new opportunities, errors, and tripping points that may occur in the terrorists’ efforts to extend their influence or in the efforts to thwart their planning and attacks. The book describes a dozen or so of tripping points. A “tripping point” is a branch on the road to the future where decisions, even apparently small decisions, can lead to massive unanticipated consequences, where decisions that seem attractive can prove disastrous, where conventional wisdom may fail, and surprises lurk. In the war on terror, missteps at tripping points by those who would do us harm can frustrate their intentions, and missteps by agencies that should protect us can prove counterproductive. Either way, the future will be different than we or they would have wished or expected. The arguments are built on an extensive research of past terrorism events and informed speculations about potential future terror events, and counter-terrorism strategies, scenarios, broader research on emerging technologies and relevant policies, a new special study on trajectories for evolving definitions of terrorism, as well as our and others prior studies in the field. The story of the tripping points is presented as “flash” scenarios that describe some surprises that might come about. While most futurist scenarios trace a cause/effect path that extrapolates trends from the present to some future state, the flash scenarios (also called “vignettes”) illustrate developments that might break historical trends. All the stories in the “Scenarios” section of each chapter are fiction; their intention is to set the scene for the issues discussed in the respective chapter. A major portion of the book is devoted to the first tripping point: lack of a unifying—internationally accepted—definition of terrorism and the assessment of how that definition might evolve over the next few decades. In order to address it, a Real-Time Delphi study has been conducted to collect judgments from an expert panel about how some plausible future developments might be classified now or by 2040: terrorism, crime, neither, or fit into an entirely new category of social experience. The complete results of that study are included in the Appendix.

v

vi

Preface

The book was written partially during the COVID-19 pandemic which is itself a tripping point. It is thus not a surprise that the pandemic has inspired many of the book’s chapters. We conclude that many of the disturbing developments discussed in the book are only beginning and they will become powerful enough to change the societies in which they are imbedded. Maccabim-Reut, Modiin, Israel Washington, USA Calgary, Canada

Yair Sharan Ted J. Gordon Elizabeth Florescu

Contents

1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 3

2

Instead of Executive Summary. Tripping Points; An Overview . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 8

3

Defining Terrorism; Future Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 18

4

Pandemics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Flash Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Scenario 4.1 Creating Pandemics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Scenario 4.2 the Blood Drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Tripping Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19 19 19 20 21 23 23

5

CRISPR and the New Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Flash Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Scenario 5.1 Genetic Poison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Scenario 5.2 Overcoming Antibiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Tripping Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 25 25 26 27 32 33

6

Identification: Forensics and DNA Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Flash Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 Scenario 6.1 Cousin Genghis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2 Scenario 6.2 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Tripping Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37 37 37 38 40 45 46

vii

viii

Contents

7

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Flash Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.1 Scenario 7.1 Request for Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2 Scenario 7.2 Algorithms and the Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Tripping Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49 49 49 50 51 58 59

8

Challenges in Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Flash Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.1 Scenario 8.1 Dust in Orbit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.2 Scenario 8.2 Death Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.3 Scenario 8.3 Who Has the Right Time? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Tripping Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61 61 61 63 64 64 68 68

9

The Little Things Sometimes Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 Flash Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.1 Scenario 9.1 The Frog Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.2 Scenario 9.2 Had Hitler Died… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.3 Scenario 9.3 The Infinitesimal Shrinking Camera . . . . . . 9.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.1 Small Thefts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.2 Butterflies and Chaos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.3 Memes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Tripping Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69 69 69 69 70 71 71 73 74 75 76

10 The Fuzzy Line; Are We at War? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Flash Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1.1 Scenario 10.1 A Canary Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1.2 Scenario 10.2 Pipe Dreams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1.3 Scenario 10.3 The Protection Racket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.1 Hacking as Terror . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.2 War as Terror . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.3 Mob Terror . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.4 Surreptitious Terror . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Tripping Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79 79 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 87 89 90

11 Technology Early Warnings; A Plethora of Threats and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Flash Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1.1 Scenario 11.1 A Magnet for Terrorists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1.2 Scenario 11.2 You Are There . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93 93 93 94

Contents

ix

11.1.3 Scenario 11.3 I Forget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2.1 Radioactive Wastes Storage Site Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . 11.2.2 Nuclear Weapons in the Hands of Terrorists . . . . . . . . . . 11.2.3 Metadata Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2.4 Toxicology: New Poisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2.5 The Malleable Mind: Creating and Erasing Human Memories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2.6 Entanglement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2.7 Camouflage and Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 Tripping Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95 96 97 98 100 101 103 105 106 107 108

12 Deep Fakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1 Flash Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1.1 Scenario 12.1 Marionettes Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1.2 Scenario 12.2 Face Off Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3 Tripping Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

111 111 111 112 113 119 119

13 Unintended Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 Flash Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1.1 Scenario 13.1 The Scientist’s Oath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1.2 Scenario 13.2 Firearm Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 Tripping points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

121 121 121 121 122 129 129

14 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

About the Authors

Yair Sharan currently the Director of the FIRS2T Group, Israel, is a Col(ret) in the IDF, is active in the security foresight and technology fields, was a senior researcher at BESA, Bar-Ilan University, and was the director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Technological Analysis and Forecasting (ICTAF) at Tel Aviv University. Recent co-authored or co-edited publications include: Identification of Potential Terrorists and Adversary Planning Emerging Technologies and New Counter-Terror Strategies (IOS Press for NATO, 2017), Lone Wolf Terror Prospects (2015), Lone Actors-An Emerging Security Threat (IOS Press for NATO, 2015), and Terrorism and the Internet (IOS Press, 2010). LinkedIn: Yair Sharan Ted J. Gordon is a futurist, management consultant, and policy analyst. He is co-founder of The Millennium Project, founder of the consulting company The Futures Group, co-founder of The Institute for the Future, was consultant for RAND Corporation, Chief Engineer of the McDonnell Douglas Saturn S-IV space vehicle, and in charge of the launch of early ballistic missiles and space vehicles. Recent co-authored or co-edited publications include: State of the Future (published regularly since 1997 by The Millennium Project), Identification of Potential Terrorists and Adversary Planning Emerging Technologies and New Counter-Terror Strategies (IOS Press for NATO, 2017), and Lone Wolf Terror Prospects (2015). LinkedIn: Ted Gordon

xi

xii

About the Authors

Elizabeth Florescu is Director of Research at The Millennium Project. She works with the Project since 1997 and meantime was also policy analyst at the European Commission (2016–2019). Her areas of research include geopolitics, macroeconomics, and issues related to S&T, environment, security, and international regulations. Recent co-authored or co-edited publications include the State of the Future (published regularly since 1997 by The Millennium Project), Identification of Potential Terrorists and Adversary Planning Emerging Technologies and New Counter-Terror Strategies (IOS Press for NATO, 2017), and Lone Wolf Terror Prospects (2015). LinkedIn: Elizabeth Florescu

Abbreviations

AARP ACLU AGI AI BWC CCW CDC CISA CRISPR DHS DIY DNA DOE EEG EFP EU FBI FDA FHA fMRI GDPR GPS HDAC HIV ICBM ICE IED IFF IoT IP ISS

American Association of Retired Persons American Civil Liberties Union Artificial general intelligence Artificial intelligence Biological Weapons Convention UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (in the USA) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (part of the USA Department of Homeland Security) Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats Department of Homeland Security Do it yourself Deoxyribonucleic acid US Department of Energy Electroencephalogram Explosively Formed Penetrator European Union Federal Bureau of Investigation (USA) USA Federal Drug Administration Foundation for the Health of Animals (fiction; in scenario 5.2) Functional magnetic resonance imaging (functional MRI) European Union General Data Protection Regulation Global positioning system Histone deacetylase (inhibitors) Human Immunodeficiency Virus Intercontinental ballistic missile U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Improvised explosive device Identification, friend or foe Internet of Things Intellectual property International Space Station xiii

xiv

LAWS LoT MAOA MASTR MHz MIT MRI NORAD NSA OPCW PET PTSD PCR RFP RTD PVI SODA point SPJ TA TMS UAV UHF UN UNODA UV VR WIPP

Abbreviations

Lethal autonomous weapons systems Localization of Things Monoamine oxidase Master Security Technology Research Company (fiction, in scenario 7.1) Megahertz (1000000 Hertz) Massachusetts Institute of Technology Magnetic resonance imaging North American Aerospace Defense Command The National Security Agency (in the USA) Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Positron emission tomography Post-traumatic stress disorder Polymerase chain reaction Request for proposal Real-Time Delphi Propensity to violence index Space Orbital Debris Accommodation point (in scenario 8.1. Dust in Orbit) Small pieces of junk (in scenario 8.1 Dust in Orbit) Technical alert Transcranial magnetic stimulation Unmanned aerial vehicle Ultra high frequency (radio frequencies in the range 300 MHz–3 GHz) United Nations UN Office for Disarmament Affairs Ultra-violet Virtual reality Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 7.1

Fig. 9.1 Fig. 11.1

Fig. 12.1

Fig. A1.1 Fig. A4.1 Fig. A4.2 Fig. A4.3

IoT hacking more likely to be considered a terrorism act in the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Private bio-research more likely to be considered a terrorism act in the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Fake news” should be a new category of infraction . . . . . . . . . “Social media chaos” considered crime or a new category of infraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Peaceful protests” are neither crimes nor terrorism . . . . . . . . . “Peaceful protests” might be less tolerated in the future . . . . . . Images from DNA. Source Aldhaus [1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The official seal of the Project Maven. Source Disruption in UAS. The Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team (Project Maven); Presentation by Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan, OUSDI Director for Defense Intelligence (Warfighter Support). March 20, 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of an Initial difference of one part in a million. Source Gordon and Greenspan [8] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brain reconstructed images obtained after processing the co-occurring EEG signal. Source Natural image reconstruction from brain waves: a novel visual BCI system with native feedback. https://www.biorxiv.org/ content/10.1101/787101v2.full. Credit Anatoly Bobe, Neuro-Q Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hyper-realistic mask. Source Universities of York and Kyoto https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/ news/2019/research/hyper-realistic-masks-more-bel ievable-human-faces/. Credit Paul Shields, University of York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IOT Hacking; more certain tomorrow than today . . . . . . . . . . . Bio-lab terrorism today and by 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bio-lab classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arson considered terrorism today and by 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 14 14 15 15 16 43

54 74

105

116 138 147 147 153 xv

xvi

Fig. A4.4 Fig. A4.5 Fig. A4.6 Fig. A4.7 Fig. A4.8 Fig. A4.9 Fig. A4.10 Fig. A4.11 Fig. A4.12 Fig. A4.13 Fig. A4.14 Fig. A4.15 Fig. A4.16 Fig. A4.17 Fig. A4.18 Fig. A4.19 Fig. A4.20 Fig. A4.21 Fig. A4.22 Fig. A4.23 Fig. A4.24 Fig. A4.25 Fig. A4.26 Fig. A4.27 Fig. A4.28 Fig. A4.29 Fig. A4.30 Fig. A4.31 Fig. A4.32

List of Figures

Arson classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hacking as terrorism today and by 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hacking classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IoT Hacking as terrorism today and by 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IoT Hacking classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Election chaos as terrorism today and by 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Election chaos classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GMO insects as terrorism today and by 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GMO insects classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social media chaos as terrorism today and by 2040 . . . . . . . . . Social media chaos classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Genocide as terrorism today and by 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Genocide classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fake news as terrorism today and by 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fake news classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shooting as terrorism today and by 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shooting classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Skinheads as terrorists today and by 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Skinheads classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peaceful protests not perceived as terrorism today or by 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peaceful protests neither terrorism nor crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perception about intimidation or instigation to chaos today and by 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instigation not to be classified as terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of torture in counter-terror strategies today and by 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classification of torture in counter-terror strategies . . . . . . . . . . Use of censorship as counter-terrorism strategy today and by 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classification of use of censorship as counter-terrorism strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loss of privacy as part of counter-terrorism strategies today and by 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abuse of data collection and use as part of counter-terrorism strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

153 157 157 161 161 164 164 167 167 170 170 173 173 175 175 178 178 180 181 183 184 186 186 189 189 191 192 194 194

List of Tables

Table 3.1

Table 3.2

Increasing vigilance over terrorism in the future. Percentage of participants rating a given act as “Certainly” considered terrorism in their country; ranked by difference in perception between today and by 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Increasing counter-terrorism measures in the future. Percentage of participants who rated a given measure “Certainly” acceptable in their country; ranked by difference in perception between today and by 2040 . . . . . . .

13

17

xvii

Chapter 1

Introduction

The forces leading to terrorism are continuously changing and are becoming more diverse. Among these forces are social media, the free and fast flow of both true and false information online, increasing and diversifying social inequalities, and disgruntled young people who feel no allegiance to any country. While most forms of terrorism induce fear, some may occur so subtly that fear is not perceived until too late (a frog in a pot of water being brought to a boil may not sense the danger). New technologies and data fit into the terrorism landscape and can be used in new weapons and counter-weapons, available to almost anyone interested, increasing the potential and power of terrorist organizations. Easier access to new tools enables terrorists to develop massively destructive weapons, such as using CRISPR and synthetic biology to create new infectious diseases, or digital viruses in cyberspace to cause disruption of vital services. Drones and autonomous vehicles can be terror weapons; 3D printing opens the possibility to new weapons production methods and weapons that pass screening points without triggering alarms. Some of these weapons will be very dangerous, potentially destructive, and very difficult to predetect, making anticipation and thwarting of terrorism acts more challenging and urgent. But let us remember that simple machines also remain part of the unholy mix of weapons terrorists can choose to use; e.g., a truck driving through a crowd killed 86 people in Nice on Bastille Day in 2016; a fertilizer bomb killed 168 people in Oklahoma in 1995; the list is long and goes on. However, the same technologies that give terrorists more power may also increase the potential of anti-terror detection: DNA databases enable the new field of forensic genealogy—a police tool that uses genetic histories and family trees to help identify contemporary suspects. Artificial intelligence (AI) may be useful in identifying terrorists before they have a chance to act by searching for indictors of plots in progress. The Internet of Things (IoT) can provide clues about who is buying things that add up to danger. Autonomous systems—systems that can decide and act on their own—might be useful when time is short—for example, blocking a person who is attempting to enter a sensitive location. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Y. Sharan et al., Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror, Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72571-6_1

1

2

1 Introduction

Commercial goods will be used more frequently in warfare than before. Commercial products are cheaper than equivalent military products—especially if they are mass-produced. Their use makes sense if they counter very valuable weaponry of an opposing force (e.g., drones against fighter jets), if they are used for simpler tasks (e.g., bombing an enemy without air-defense) or if they are fill-ins for weapons that cannot be otherwise afforded (e.g., naval ships built to commercial rather than military standards). In the cyber domain, commercial software and hardware (e.g., anti-virus programs and improved firewalls) will become both weapons and targets. New technologies can indeed be a two-edged sword and it will be very hard to anticipate all of the possible dual-use goods and technologies before they get into the hands of terrorists or adversaries. If AI for example, becomes a public good as seems likely, it will be difficult to prevent its use in war or terrorism. We are writing this book during the height of the global pandemic of 2020 in which the COVID-19 disease has swept the world. It was a surprise. While the origins of the pandemic are still obscure, we take its obvious impacts to represent what might result from a terrorist attack using a genetically modified virus as the weapon. We are looking for such future surprises in this book. The array of possibilities is staggering. Robot soldiers from giants to ant-sized; other new man-made or natural diseases; surreptitious attacks so well hidden that only one side knows an attack is underway; data seemingly well protected but somehow in disarray; fakes indistinguishable from reality, where most insects are natural but others are constructed of 3D printed parts; worlds where machines make decisions, where some people reach for survival while others reach for immortality. This book deals with new applications of existing technologies (such as CRISPR, the tool for modifying genes, and forensic genealogy) and entirely new technologies (such as deep fake counterfeiting) that may be used by terrorists or those seeking to shut them down. We have chosen to discuss technologies that seem to have a reasonable chance to be on the scene in the next 20 years or so. But to consider only technologies would be too partial; we also consider the chances for improvement in the quality of decision-making and the need for and shape of new legislation and regulation systems surrounding these issues. There are an infinite number of scenarios that could provide backdrops for this book. We could ask how terrorism and counter-terrorism would evolve in one world or another. Historical scenarios run the gamut from the dystopias of Orwell, Burgess, and Huxley to the utopias of Heinlein, Skinner, and Wells. In 2019, Torres-Soriano and Toboso-Buezo published a paper with five terrorism dystopias [5] that provide settings for terrorism, including ideas such as the emergence of a biological elite class, transhumanism, resource scarcity, antisocial AI algorithms, and failed cities. Add to these disturbing views of possible futures, counterfactual novels such as Philip Roth’s “The Plot Against America” [4], and essays by Boström [1] and Hawkings in Osborne [3] about the threat of artificial general intelligence, and it becomes clear that there are uncountable settings both for terrorism as well as for its detection and punishment. In this book, scenario vignettes are used to enrich the discussions. Futurists generally consider a scenario to be a story with plausible cause and effect links that connect

1 Introduction

3

a future condition with the present, while illustrating key decisions, events, and consequences throughout the narrative. The term “scenario” comes from the dramatic arts. A scenario in the theater refers to an outline of the plot and in movies it is a summary or set of directions for the sequence of actions [2]. Scenarios are probably the most frequently employed technique in future studies and are used to provide backdrops for planning and to test the resiliency of planned policies. Resilience testing generally follows the approach “If the world really evolved as depicted in these scenarios, would our policies still work? If not, how could they be changed to be more successful?” Futurist scenarios generally strive for plausibility and use cause-and-effect chains to explain how the world might move from today to tomorrow. Scenarios of this sort are often used in studies of the future and in assessing the strength of policies that are designed to shape the future. They are quite useful and have a high rank in the panoply of methods for studying potential futures. However, in this book the scenarios deviate from this tradition; they are “flash scenarios” or scenario vignettes that focus on surprise, on discontinuities rather than extrapolation, with the intention of providing a more vivid and tangible sense of what might happen. We think that striving for plausibility can limit imagination about what might be, since, as we have all seen, the most important elements of the future may seem quite implausible today. Surprises abound in history; perhaps they always have and will. Examples include the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York on 9/11; the surprise attack by General Washington on the British forces at Trenton in 1776 after a night crossing of the Delaware river; the 1928 discovery of penicillin—the world’s first antibiotic— by Alexander Fleming; the discovery of X-ray in 1895 by Wilhelm Röntgen; and the recent COVID-19 pandemic. Like these examples, the scenarios presented in this book are snapshots of the future, flash glimpses of conditions, circumstances, and situations that might be faced in the fight against terrorism. All of our substantive chapters begin with two or three flash scenarios. The developments described in these flash scenarios may flow from work in progress today or that maybe discontinuous and unexpected—tripping points on the terror/anti-terror road. The flash scenarios are all written as though they are happening now or have happened recently; nevertheless, they are only speculations, products of imagination. To emphasize this point we have printed all flash scenarios in italics. Please don’t believe anything that is in the flash scenarios sections; if it’s in italics, it’s all fantasy.

References 1. Boström N (2014) Superintelligence: paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK 2. Glenn J (2009) The futures group international “Scenarios”. In: Futures research methodology V3. Washington DC, The Millennium Project 3. Osborne H (2019) Stephen Hawking AI warning: artificial intelligence could destroy civilization. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/stephen-hawking-artificial-intelligence-warningdestroy-civilization-703630. Accessed 16 Sep 2019 4. Roth P (2004) The plot against America

4

1 Introduction

5. Torres-Soriano MR, Mario T-B (2019) Five terrorist dystopias. Int J Intell Secur Publ Aff 21(1):49–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/23800992.2019.1598094, https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/332493249_Five_Terrorist_Dystopias. Accessed 11 June 2019

Chapter 2

Instead of Executive Summary. Tripping Points; An Overview

One of the main impediments for developing coherent, trans-border policies and strategies for detecting and avoiding terrorist activities is simply that there is no shared definition of what actions or contemplated actions would make a person or a group be considered terrorists. A person can be a criminal without being a terrorist and a terrorist may not always be perceived as a criminal in certain countries or societies, as the continuing controversy over the distinction between “terrorists” and “freedom-fighters” suggests. Can hacking into political elections be considered terrorism? What about re-tweeting hate mail? Is civil disobedience for anti-policy marches just another side of terrorism? Is arson or school shooting terrorism in the absence of political motivation? The methods used by terrorists and those combating terrorism will change with the advent of new technologies and unexpected events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The scope and spectrum of terrorism will be expanding, challenging and testing existing definitions and laws. The definition of terrorism is also changing as new means of expressing dissatisfaction with present circumstances are introduced by those who are dissatisfied. These issues illustrate the first tripping point addressed in this book: lack of a globally-accepted definition of terrorism. To come to grip with this tripping point, we conducted a Real-Time Delphi1 (RTD) study to identify elements to be considered in a reasonably shared definition at present and—recognizing the potential for change—in 2040. The study design and results are presented in Chap. 3 and in detail in the Appendix. The online questionnaire used in the study was unusual in that the questions were based on future vignettes (mini-scenarios) which the panelists were asked to assess and comment about. The mini-scenarios described acts that might be considered either crimes or terrorism or something new in their respective countries today and 1 The

Real-Time Delphi is a futures research methodology for gathering expert opinion on specific topics online. The responses are updated as entered (in real-time) and are visible to all the participants. For more information: http://www.millennium-project.org/publications-2/futures-researchmethodology-version-3-0/. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Y. Sharan et al., Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror, Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72571-6_2

5

6

2 Instead of Executive Summary …

in 2040. One important finding of the RTD is that events that are not judged to be terrorism today might move to the other side of the fence by 2040. The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 illustrates the second tripping point: the inability to distinguish between man-made and natural occurrences. Was the virus that resulted in the COVID-19 pandemic a bit of genetic code that escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan China or a bit of naturally occurring code that jumped from animals to humans? Regardless of its origin, did it teach ‘would be terrorists’ what a global pandemic could look like? And did it teach the defense teams how to prepare and look for the next pandemic? These are issues addressed in Chap. 4. This leads to the third tripping point: the unknowns associated with advancing biogenetics. Gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR for example, offer the offense team (individual proto-terrorists as well as well-organized groups such as al-Qaeda) the opportunity to design new bio-weapons and the defense team (police and terroristhunters) new kinds of evidence that terrorists are brewing new malevolent plots. Chapter 5 explores the genetic genie and the tricks up his or her sleeve. Data takes center stage in the fourth tripping point (Chap. 6); this includes the uses of data in pursuit of terrorists and in more mundane activities such as marketing, credit rating, payment systems, and communications—overt or encrypted. On the dark side, this tripping point includes data theft, destruction, and extortion, insertion of spurious or falsified data to obfuscate a crime or create mayhem. At the time of this writing, over a half of the people in the world uses the Internet and the number has been growing annually at just under 8 percent. The IoT will certainly add to that expansion rate. Google processes about 3.5 billion searches per second and the speed is increasing! [4]. This is a global asset that, if used properly, can uncover nascent terror operations, extend life expectancy, accelerate learning, and link people who share common goals and biases. It is through Internet that we have in our pockets essentially the entire world’s knowledge and can ask our phones and automated assistants trivia such as ‘who won at Jeopardy last Friday?’ Machine autonomy including the ability to access weapons and decide on crucial issues that could affect all of humanity is the techno-ethical tripping point number five (Chap. 7). Autonomous weapons are alluring but dangerous. Had machines issued commands during the Cold War, there are at least three instances when their algorithms could have started WW III: when a Soviet officer stopped short of firing his ballistic missile on the basis of a radar blip that indicated (falsely) a USA attack was underway; when a courageous submarine officer disagreed with his colleagues and did not launch his nuclear torpedo during the Cuban Missile Crisis; and when we came back from the cusp of threat of misinterpretation by the East of the West’s war games in Europe. If an algorithm had been in charge and issued its preprogrammed orders we might be in a different world. Tripping point six (Chap. 8) moves the scene into space. What kinds of terror might take place there? The United States established a Space Force as a separate and distinct branch of military service. There is little doubt that this leads to space being seen as a new battleground. The new force explained its presence as “Space is a warfighting domain—secured and protected by the Space Force—in the same way

2 Instead of Executive Summary …

7

the land, sea, and air are protected by the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force” [2]. Can there be any doubt that terror will follow? Little things accumulate to form the seventh tripping point; it is huge. Unexpected fog allowed George Washington to retreat undetected from Brooklyn and go on to win the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783). Speech notes and an eye glass case in Theodore Roosevelt’s vest pocket deflected an assassin’s bullet (in 1912) and he narrowly escaped death but his assailant was not so lucky. History turns on such small things. In 2010, Faisal Shahzad, a lone wolf terrorist built a bomb from gasoline, propane, and fertilizer and placed the components in an SUV, parked it in Times Square, and set the triggering device. It was discovered by two street vendors who alerted the police. The bomb squad, using remote robots, disarmed it. Shahzad was captured at the Kennedy Airport ready to depart on a flight to Dubai. The indictment listed a number of charges; the first in the list was “Attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.” He was sentenced to life in prison [3]. (A similar set of circumstances led to a vastly different outcome in Nashville in December 2020 when a home-made bomb exploded in an SUV.) Small events like the sharp warning by street vendors can ultimately be important; some possibilities are described in Chap. 9. One property of future conflicts might be that only one side, the attacker, knows for sure that a war is going on. The other side might simply feel that something is not quit right, that freedom is eroding, that the good old days are further away than ever. For example, imagine that we live in a time when precise weather control is possible. The day is dark and thunder rumbles in the distance. We wonder if that is a natural storm brewing or if we are under attack again. The pandemic of 2020 is a fresh example of this kind of uncertainty. This is a time of paranoia. This is the eighth tripping point we discuss (in Chap. 10): the uncertainty in assessing man-made versus natural and the consequences of getting it wrong. The ninth tripping point, discussed in Chap. 11, deals with extraordinary future technologies ranging from the mysteries of quantum entanglement to memory erasure of prior experiences; from poisons to camouflage cloaking; a very rich field, indeed. Quantum entanglement describes a process by which a particle, separated from another in which it is entangled, responds to measurements in the first, instantaneously and across large distances. It is a kind of information teleportation that Einstein is said to have called “spooky” [1]. Memory erasure involves changing minds thorough external manipulation; erasing, for example, debilitating traumatic memories (and implies the opposite, of course, implanting false memories). Misuse or misunderstanding of their power by terrorist or forces opposing terrorism could have great consequences for society. These are only a few examples; if we were writing this two decades ahead, we probably would focus on other technologies that cause wonder and new ways to look at our world. Deep fakes—the growing inability to tell true facts from false—are the tenth tripping point, covered in Chap. 12. All media can be counterfeited: voice, facial images, fingerprints, heartbeat, gait, historical “fact” and records, and even DNA identity may be suspect. Because of these capabilities, terrorists can develop fictious

8

2 Instead of Executive Summary …

persona, cover their tracks in new ways, manipulate public opinion, and distort otherwise orderly processes like elections. Those who want to deny terrorists the ability to hide will also be able to use new techniques to disguise their hunt; for example, by creating false sympathetic colleagues and new kinds of “honey pot” traps that attract those who would do us harm. As it appears today, these techniques can be much more harmful to order than being helpful to preserving order. Finally, the eleventh tripping point is failing to anticipate some of the consequences that will inevitably accompany the strategies of our adversaries, or our own best intentions. Many such consequences are unexpected, but under the right circumstances, many can be anticipated. Remember the old cautionary adage: “No good deed goes unpunished.” This is discussed in Chap. 13. These are only the tip of the iceberg. Many more tripping points are further presented in the book and all can lead to more effective policies and strategies in coping with the evolving terrorism threat.

References 1. Bell JS (1987) Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics. Cambridge University Press, CERN 2. Emerson N (2020) US space force to train space professionals in space warfighting disciplines. https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/2198012/us-space-force-to-train-spaceprofessionals-in-space-warfighting-disciplines. Accessed 30 May 2020 3. Feyerick D (2010) Times square bomb plotter sentenced to life in prison. CNN. http://www.cnn. com/2010/CRIME/10/05/new.york.terror.plot/. Accessed 30 May 2020 4. Marr B (2017) How much data is there in the world? Forbes. https://www.bernardmarr.com/def ault.asp?contentID=1846. Accessed 26 May 2020

Chapter 3

Defining Terrorism; Future Perspectives

The definition of terrorism and the methods used for combating it vary globally, impeding the development of coherent, trans-border policies and strategies for addressing the phenomenon [7]. With the advent of new technologies, the scope and spectrum of both—terrorism and the means for addressing it—are expanding, challenging existing regulations. To help improve understanding the area and its potential future developments, a Real-Time Delphi (RTD) [2] study was conducted with relevant experts. The experts were asked to review a dozen or so scenario vignettes, and to assess the likelihood that the situation depicted in the scenario would be considered terrorism today or by the year 2040. The outcomes helped identify some elements for a definition and impediments to agreement, as well as potential trajectories in the future perceptions of terrorism. What if the COVID-19 pandemic were caused by a (t)error event (a supposition supported by some theorists [4]) given the supposed program of the Wuhan Institute of Virology [9])? While this would have violated the Biological Weapons Convention1 (BWC), the lack of a definition of terrorism and enforcement mechanism for the BWC would make it impossible to conduct an effective investigation, let alone prosecution,2 unless, of course, the offending party confessed. This is only one potential example of how lack of international agreement could lead to the spread of weapons of mass destruction, increasing the risk of their use with terrorism intent.

1 The Biological Weapons Convention. Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Produc-

tion and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/bio/. Accessed April 15, 2020. 2 Addressing a noncompliance case to the UN Security Council would be a dead-end, given the veto power of the potentially most suspected actors. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Y. Sharan et al., Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror, Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72571-6_3

9

10

3 Defining Terrorism; Future Perspectives

Despite sustained efforts by international organisations and nation-state governments, there are no globally-accepted criteria or elements that would make a perpetrator (individual, group, or nation-state) be considered terrorist. Even the negotiations for the Comprehensive Terrorism Convention are stalled,3 given lack of consensus of a definition. There are a few studies that point out the need for definitions [5] and several attemted definitions [1] of terrorism—ranging from scholarly designed [8] to national definitions [3] and the international but non-binding UN Security Council Resolution 1566.4 On the other hand, there are also opinions that given the heterogeneous contexts in which the term is used, there is no need—and it might be even irrelevant [6]—to reach consensus on a definition in order to effectively address the terrorism phenomenon. There is a running debate about the double-edge sword technologies that can be helpful or harmful, and rightfully so. The RTD questionnaire tried to address both— the potentially increasing dangers, but also the increasing possibilities offered by emerging technologies for pre-detection of potential future perpetrators. The first 12 vignettes asked about which acts should be called terrorism, while a second part (vignettes 13–16) referred to acts that could be justified as part of counter-terrorism policy. The vignettes included developments that may flow from work in progress today or that may be discontinuous and unexpected. Their role was only to set the scene and help the participants better imagine those potential cases, to provide a more vivid and tangible sense of what might be. The participants were asked to evaluate if the acts described in the vignettes might be considered terrorism in their respective countries now or by 2040, choosing from five options ranging from “Certainly” to “Certainly not”. They were also asked whether those acts would be considered a “Crime”, “Terror”, “Both”, “Neither”, or represent a “New class of behaviour”, and were invited to provide the reasons behind their answers. The detailed report is presented in the Appendix. The vignettes asking about potential terrorism trajectories were: 1.

3 UN.

Bio-lab. A person with an undergraduate degree in Biology has a small lab in his house. He was reported as being engaged in suspicious activity by some neighbours. On questioning, FBI technicians found that he was using CRISPR to develop a bacterium lethal to humans and apparently resistant to antibiotics. His work had no government oversight or funding. As far as can be determined he has broken no laws; he says he is trying to improve understanding of the disease but he has written a few anti-government pieces on social media. Is his course of research a terrorism act?

Fight against International Terrorism Impeded by Stalemate on Comprehensive Convention, Sixth Committee Hears as Seventy-Third Session Begins. https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/gal 3566.doc.htm. Accessed April 15, 2020. 4 UN Security Council Resolution 1566, S/RES/1566, October 2004, https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/ files/n0454282.pdf. Accessed April 15, 2020.

3 Defining Terrorism; Future Perspectives

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

11

Arson. Fires have occurred in half dozen cities. There are similarities among these fires that suggest a single person or group is behind them. Possible motives include hate crimes or intimidation since all have occurred in places of worship of a single sect. Can arson be classed as terrorism? Hacking. A super-hacker or group of hackers or nation controlling them has broken into the international funds transfer system and has made a mess. It is generally known that funds were previously siphoned off, but this attack was different. Instead of taking funds, the hackers have apparently inserted a great deal of false information into the system. Accounts don’t balance, claims of errors soar and banking is in turmoil. Funds transfer has gone back to pencil and paper records. This situation has lasted more than 6 months. There has been a run on several banks. Can this super hack be classed as terrorism? IOT hacking. There has been a rash of failures of medical devices, worldwide. Some heart pacers no longer pace accurately, oximeters show unexpectedly low oxygen content, 3D organ printers no longer follow their programmed instructions. The only common thing about these failures is that they all have some links to the Internet of Things. No one has claimed responsibility for these failures, although there have been some attempts at extortion that the security forces claim are not genuine. Is destroying command and control links used in the Internet of Things classed as terrorism? Election chaos. In reviewing the 2016 US election, all USA security agencies found that Russia had made a deliberate attempt to sway USA voters toward their selection of a President, influencing an election through deliberate subversion of the voting process or other means. From all indications, other nations are using such techniques in other places and other elections to affect the outcome. The techniques for influencing an election through deliberate subversion of the voting process will likely improve over time. As the means of disinformation and manipulation evolve, will they be considered terrorism? GMO insect. A government laboratory has created a breed of genetically modified insects (e.g. super locusts) intended to affect agricultural production of an enemy nation. If plans of the aggressor nation work out, the bug will cause wide-scale crop failures and only the aggressor will have an effective insecticide targeted at the bug. The bug has been tested on a small scale but wide distribution through natural means is on the schedule. Is it terrorism when a surreptitious weapon such as this super bug is released into the wild? Social media chaos. Operators of social media sites have proven unable to control the content of certain advertisements or posts. Lately, inflammatory material has appeared targeting particular groups and questioning their national

12

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

3 Defining Terrorism; Future Perspectives

loyalty and long-range objectives. In response, some “patriots” have organised and a few direct confrontations have occurred. Some people have advocated imposing tighter controls on social media content, to assure domestic tranquillity. Is inciting to riot via social media a form of terrorism? Genocide. Despite its illegality, genocide and ethnic cleansing by rogue governments have sometimes been the apparent objective of military attacks. Often classed as civil wars, to outside observers the conflicts often appear to be directed at eliminating particular groups forcing them to move out of the country or eliminating them by other means. Is genocide or ethnic cleansing by governments a form of terrorism? Fake news. Fake news is inimical to freedom of the press. With improved photographic falsification and synthetic voice impersonation, it becomes harder to distinguish truth from fiction and therefore which news stories are real or fake. With chances for validation becoming less likely, how will we know what really has happened and place policy on a sound footing? Is creation or distribution of false news a form of terrorism? Shooters. School shootings, workplace shootings, random shootings; we see these events so often we have become used to them. A person shooting many people with an AK 47 at a concert or a school has almost lost its shock value. Despite overwhelming popular support, even simple gun control measures have not been implemented. Are mass shooters considered to be terrorists? Skinheads. In Skokie, Charlottesville, and elsewhere, the desire to preserve free speech has allowed far right and left forces to converge, sometimes violently. Many people took exception to President Trumps’ equating of farright and far-left (e.g. “good people on both sides”) implying that white supremacists, skinheads, KKK, and neo Nazi’s were “good people” and not in fact terrorists. Are extremists such as Neo Nazis and white supremacists considered terrorists? Peaceful protests. Gandhi in India, Martin Luther King in the USA, and dozens of anti-policy protest marches and “sit-ins” attempted to show how peaceful civil disobedience could win out over violent protests. Violence, they argued, tends to escalate and expand, but peaceful civil disobedience appears to calm. Would civil disobedience be considered an act of terrorism?

Not surprisingly, the study revealed a great deal of uncertainty about what acts might or might not be considered terrorism today, as well as by 2040. However, generally, responses showed a tendency towards tougher regulations in the future, with similar acts being more likely to be perceived as terrorism by 2040 than they are today. Table 3.1 presents the percentage of responses rating the respective acts as being “Certainly” considered terrorism, in decreasing order of the difference between today and by 2040.

3 Defining Terrorism; Future Perspectives

13

Table 3.1 Increasing vigilance over terrorism in the future. Percentage of participants rating a given act as “Certainly” considered terrorism in their country; ranked by difference in perception between today and by 2040 Rank Question/Act

Today By 2040 Diff.

1

12. Peaceful protests: Would peaceful civil disobedience considered terrorism? Note: the answers shown are for “Certainly not”

73.21

45.28

27.93

2

4. IOT hacking: Is destroying command and control links in the Internet of Things terrorism?

12.90

27.78

14.87

3

6. GMO insect: Is it terrorism when a weapon such as a super-bug is released into the wild?

35.48

48.28

12.79

4

1. Bio-lab: Is a private lab of bio-research considered a terrorism act?

10.94

21.54

10.60

5

7. Social media chaos: Is inciting to riot via social media a form of terrorism?

6.67

17.24

10.57

6

10. Shooters: Are mass shooters considered to be terrorists?

27.87

37.50

9.63

7

3. Hacking: Can a super hack be classed as terrorism?

24.62

32.81

8.20

8

5. Election chaos: Can disinformation and manipulation be considered terrorism?

6.67

14.29

7.62

9

9. Fake news: Is creation or distribution of false news a form of terrorism?

1.72

8.93

7.20

10

2. Arson: Can arson be classed as terrorism?

34.85

40.98

6.14

11

11. Skinheads: Are extremists such as Neo Nazis and white supremacists considered terrorists?

22.81

28.30

5.49

12

8. Genocide: Is genocide or ethnic cleansing by governments a form of terrorism? Note: answers for “Certainly” and “Likely”

59.32

64.00

4.68

The graphs in Figs. 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate the perceived shift towards more vigilance over the next 20 years compared to today, with the group’s opinion moving toward certainty that the act would be considered terrorism by 2040. The opinions were also very diverse about whether the acts presented in the vignettes would be considered a “Crime”, “Terror”, “Both”, “Neither”, or represent a “New class of behaviour”. This corroborates the fuzzy and legally-challenging distinctions that persist. Nevertheless, some of the comments could help clarify positions to be explored in future discussions about the legality of certain acts. Generally, the participants agreed that in their countries the acts in the different vignettes would be considered a crime, or both terror and a crime. Two of the acts— “GMO insects” and “Shooters”—were perceived by the majority (50% or more) of the respondents as being both terror and crime. More than 90% of the respondents agreed that a terror act in their country is also considered a crime and that actually there isn’t any terror act that would not be considered a crime. The acts described in two of the mini-scenarios—“Fake news,” and “Social media chaos”—were considered by a third or more of the group as fitting into a new category—neither crime, nor terrorism—as illustrated in Figs. 3.3 and 3.4.

14

3 Defining Terrorism; Future Perspectives

Fig. 3.1 IoT hacking more likely to be considered a terrorism act in the future

Fig. 3.2 Private bio-research more likely to be considered a terrorism act in the future

Fake news

Fig. 3.3 “Fake news” should be a new category of infraction

Some 45% of the panellists thought that “Creation of chaos via social media” would be considered a crime in their country, while 33% thought that a new category might be needed to define this type of act, as revealed in Fig. 3.4.

3 Defining Terrorism; Future Perspectives

15

Social media chaos

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Neither

Crime

Terror

Both

New

Fig. 3.4 “Social media chaos” considered crime or a new category of infraction

Peaceful protests

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Neither

Crime

Terror

Both

New

Fig. 3.5 “Peaceful protests” are neither crimes nor terrorism

The highest level of agreement in the study was about “Peaceful protests”, which were considered neither a crime nor terrorism by 80% of the respondents, as illustrated in Fig. 3.5. However, as illustrated in Fig. 3.6, the share of participants who consider that “Peaceful protests” would not be considered an act of terrorism in their country decreases from 70% for today to only 45% by 2040. That shift, if realized, suggests potential increasing intolerance towards peaceful protests in the future.

16

3 Defining Terrorism; Future Perspectives

Peaceful protests 80 60 40 20 0 Certainly

Likely

Maybe Today

Unlikely

Certainly not

By 2040

Fig. 3.6 “Peaceful protests” might be less tolerated in the future

The counter-terrorism-related questions were: 13.

14.

15.

16.

Tougher laws against intimidation or instigation. Enforcing the death penalty for persons found guilty of certain terrorism actions. When terrorism results in a death, existing laws can be used to establish appropriate level of punishment. But when terrorism is used to intimidate or cause chaos, are current laws adequate? Would intimidation or instigation to chaos qualify as acts of terrorism and hence justify tougher laws as part of the counter-terrorism strategy? Torture. Suppose a suspected terrorist were apprehended who confessed to participating in planning a massive attack on the USA and its allies. Would use of very aggressive interrogation techniques be acceptable to identify additional suspects and targets? Censorship. Publication of manifestos, essays, and do it yourself instructions inspire and help potential terrorists. Would such publications and reports of mass shootings be banned from open press and in social media as part of a counter-terrorism strategy? No privacy. New generations of Internet (e.g. 5G) may increase capabilities for state-sponsored surveillance and data collection about individuals. Would abuse in data collection and its use qualify as terrorism and hence, new regulations enacted to control ownership, access, and algorithms, as part of counter-terrorism efforts?

The group’s opinion reveals a move towards higher acceptance for more stringent measures in the future than today, as shown in Table 3.2. The panellists were also invited to provide the reasons behind their quantitative answers. Some 450 narrative responses were received. They are all included in the full report of the study in the Appendix.

3 Defining Terrorism; Future Perspectives

17

Table 3.2 Increasing counter-terrorism measures in the future. Percentage of participants who rated a given measure “Certainly” acceptable in their country; ranked by difference in perception between today and by 2040 Rank Question/counter-terrorism measure

Today By 2040 Diff.

1

15. Censorship: Would publications and reports of mass shootings be banned from media?

23.21

35.19

11.97

2

16. No Privacy: Would abuse in data collection qualify as terrorism?

7.14

18.52

11.38

3

13. Instigation: Would intimidation or instigation to chaos qualify as terrorism and therefore qualify for tougher laws?

11.32

18.00

6.68

4

14. Torture: Would torture be acceptable to identify suspects and targets?

14.29

18.87

4.58

A final open-ended question asked: Given your views on the evolving definitions of terrorism, who (persons or groups) might become classed as a terrorist or terrorist organisation? (e.g. corporations, international agencies, on-line chat rooms, etc.) Following is a selection of the answers; the full text of responses is included in the Appendix. • Any actor—sponsors, media outlets, even fundamentalist governments attached to some ideology—with harmful intentions of spreading terror and death in society. • Human-cloud meaningless terrorism—thousands of people performing small actions that together would have a big effect to disrupt elements of society. • States that sponsor activities which undermine the living standard of people from other countries. • What some may call fifth-generation warfare: rogue governments—driven by extremist religious, ethnic or political ideologies—employing a range of means from legislative and economic to kinetic, against parts of their own population, resulting in structural violence—such as deliberate out-group harm and deprivation apart from outright physical violence. This would be state oppression or state terrorism. • Any ENTITY at any level (from individual to state/government) IF the intent of their actions is to harm or to cause fear of harm. Planning and facilitating such actions are not terrorism themselves, but would be considered complicit actions. • The definition of terrorists may evolve through the diversification of means— from the “lonely wolves” to organizations or states. The role of states increases not only for defining terrorism acts, but also to educate the people and to take the most appropriate preventive measures. It is a high responsibility for every citizen. The definition should also include all the paths that can conduct to terrorism. • Laws are not enough to stop this plague.

18

3 Defining Terrorism; Future Perspectives

Considering the insights emerging from this study, an encompassing definition of terrorism could be suggested: Terrorism is an act of aggression with the objective to create chaos in society, induce fear among people or cause instability and uncertainty in nations and social institutions. It can occur in the physical space as well as in cyber space. Terrorism is motivated by ideology, religion, or politics and can be carried out by individuals or groups, as well as terrorist nations who would commit it directly or act through specialized groups.

This definition aligns well with many of the existing definitions of terrorism. However, the novelty of this study consists in identifying emerging elements and potential trajectories in the perception of terrorism.

References 1. Easson JJ, Schmid AP (2011) The Routledge handbook of terrorism research. Routledge, London, New York 2. Glenn J, Gordon T (2009) The real-time Delphi method. In: Futures research methodology— V3.0. Washington DC, The Millennium Project 3. Heidevan der L, Bergema R (2019) Terrorism threat assessment 2018–2019. The Hague, International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT). https://icct.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ ICCT_Terrorism_Threat_Assessment.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020 4. Huang Y (2020) U.S.-Chinese distrust is inviting dangerous coronavirus conspiracy theories. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-03-05/us-chinesedistrust-inviting-dangerous-coronavirus-conspiracy. Accessed 15 Mar 2020 5. Prabha K, Defining terrorism, Strategic Analysis, 24:1, 125135, DOI: 10.1080/09700160008455199. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ 09700160008455199. Accessed 7 Apr 2021 6. Ramsay G (2015) Why terrorism can, but should not be defined. Crit Stud Terror 8(2):211–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2014.988452 7. Richards A (2015) Conceptualizing terrorism. Oxford Scholarship https://www.oxfordsch olarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198746966.001.0001/acprof-9780198746966. Accessed 15 Apr 2020 8. Schmid AP (2012) The revised academic consensus definition of terrorism. Perspect Terror 6(2). http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/schmid-terrorism-defini tion/html. Accessed 15 Apr 2020 9. Shoham D (2015) China’s biological warfare programme: an integrative study with special reference to biological weapons capabilities. J Def Stud 9(2):131–156. https://idsa.in/jds/9_2_ 2015_ChinasBiologicalWarfareProgramme. Accessed 15 Apr 2020

Chapter 4

Pandemics

4.1 Flash Scenarios 4.1.1 Scenario 4.1 Creating Pandemics What if, my brothers, we were to attempt to invent the next pandemic? What would be its characteristics? Think smallpox or a disease with similar characteristics: it would be highly lethal. It would have delayed symptoms so that infected people could travel freely and spread the virus. And it would have a high infection rate so that healthy people would get infected easily when they physically were close to virus-caring people, through contact or inhalation of aerosol efflux. People with compromised immune systems would be more susceptible and die at a higher rate than others when infected.1 We might choose to do this with a designed microbe—either a new virus or a bacterium. What if I told you that we were hard at work now on such a microbe? Viruses have appeal because each virus must have its own vaccine and vaccines take a minimum of one year to develop. In the absence of a vaccine, the only approach is to close down the economy by enforcing social distancing. Capitalism would be garbage for a few decades at least. Anarchy fostered by our own disinformation could assure that. Infectious bacteria that have developed resistance to antibiotics are the second route to this end. These organisms have immunity to conventional antibiotics such as penicillin and amoxicillin. When a person gets infected with a superbug, conventional treatments no longer function as they once did. Staph, MRSA, tuberculosis, gonorrhea, Eastern equine encephalitis, and pneumonia are all becoming more dangerous

1 These

characteristics were mentioned by Bill Gates in an interview with Klein [5].

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Y. Sharan et al., Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror, Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72571-6_4

19

20

4 Pandemics

and difficult to treat. The drug companies are attempting to develop new antibiotics but the process is slow and frustrating. The West does not yet understand how deep and lasting the economic impacts of either of these approaches can be. These weapons not only bring disease; they also bring poverty and chaos. When chaos is at its peak, we will provide solid leadership toward the world we have long sought.

4.1.2 Scenario 4.2 the Blood Drive2 Dr. Aladin has just been nominated to be the head of the ISIS terror cell in Bagdad. He knows he has to prove himself as innovative and bring success to his organization; his future in ISIS depends on it. The coronavirus crisis has opened an attractive opportunity for him. He knows that there are many sick people in Bagdad that are infected by the virus. The crowded hospitals in the city and the lack of suitable alternate facilities forced many people to stay home hoping for the best. Many of them are in really bad situations. They and their families need help, need money. He consults his cell members, makes some contacts with collaborators in bio-labs and plans a program. He remembers how the Japanese Aum-Shinrikyo organization harvested Anthrax spores and attempted to weaponize the spores almost three decades ago. He decides to follow their example but now to harvest stocks of the coronavirus from peoples’ blood. The West is trying to harvest anti-bodies in a search for an antidote; he will harvest the infesting viruses. His people will meet ill people—followers—in their homes. They will offer them help and ask them to donate blood for the big cause. The blood, rich with the virus, will be transferred to our labs. In the labs the blood serum will be separated and will then be accumulated in a reservoir which will be kept under secure and refrigerated conditions. Dr. Aladin will develop the capability to spread the virus in Iraq and then worldwide starting a new wave of a different pandemic. This could be a strong weapon in the hand of the organization. They would be able to threaten the world. They would be able to demonstrate their capability wherever they wish: the center of a big city for example. He begins to plan a demonstration, a small infection. The virus will be identified and the threat will prove credible. Many possibilities will open. He can restart the Covid-19 epidemic at will. Victory will be near. It is God’s will.

2 This

scenario was developed together with Biology Scientist Mrs. Rachel Sharan.

4.2 Discussion

21

4.2 Discussion Human to human transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus which leads to the COVID19 disease apparently began its global march in November 2019 in Wuhan, China. No one was expecting it. It grew and spread exponentially, passing from person to person and changing the world forever. By autumn 2020, almost 45 million people around the world had been infected by and over 1 million people had died [17]. Epidemiologists were projecting twice that number would die before death rates dropped to pre-pandemic levels. In the United States, which had the largest number of fatalities, some 30 million people had contracted the disease and over 560 thousand people had died by early April 2021 [17]. The most effective tool in slowing this new plague was social distancing, closing places where people congregate. The economies in countries feeling the pain of the pandemic were essentially shut down as a result of stay at home orders. Places where people used to gather were closed: no (or only significantly restricted) sports, celebrations, movies, churches, or restaurants. Economies froze. The World Bank estimates indicated that COVID-19 might push 71–100 million people into extreme poverty (measured at the international poverty line of $1.90 per day) [6]. In Africa, the jobs or livelihood of a third of the entire labor force of 440 thousand people became vulnerable due to the coronavirus outbreak [7]. The UN warned that a poorer and less protected world is more vulnerable to terrorism and organized crime [12]. Governments around the world moved to shore up their economies by investing trillions in income-boosting programs. The number of people using air travel fell by 96% by April 2020 [16]. Some foods were hard to find because of sidelined workers, contaminated manufacturing plants, or supply problems. Rationing of some products in some places was established for the first time since WW II. People, mobs sometimes, urged their state governments to lift restrictions, despite the risks of an increase in infections [2]. Liquidity was very tight and inflation worries were growing. There were predications that half of all small businesses would vaporize [9] and their owners would be unemployed. Discouragement and loss of a sense of dignity came with loss of a business and with unemployment. Despite massive economic recovery programs of $7 trillion in the USA alone, recovery was anemic [14]. Many people can’t pay rent or meet mortgage payments even with state help. How long will this depression last? No one knows of course but the guesses run from three to five years. In many countries, people are tracked, largely through governmentally advocated cell phone apps and cell phone surveillance in an effort to keep infected people away from those who are vulnerable. But this “protective panopticon”, as it’s been called, is concomitantly viewed as anathema to personal privacy and liberty. Most places have implemented customer density limits; waiters and food handlers are required to have periodic certified health checks. Schools, transit systems, and airlines have implemented extensive equipment sterilization protocols, and fever and rapid

22

4 Pandemics

antibody checks are in wide use. Face masks for all employees, passengers, and customers are required. Many retirement homes have remained closed to visitors, and law enforcement is on guard for schemes directed against the elderly and their families offering bogus “chat lines” and “day passes” for visitation and/or “elder-travel”. Borders were closed, migrants rejected, and the IMF and World Bank did not have enough funds to make a difference. Food shortages existed in many countries and conditions of migrant camps were abominable. To make the whole situation even more critical, as pointed out by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, “the weaknesses and lack of preparedness exposed by this pandemic provide a window onto how a bio-terrorism attack might unfold – and may increase its risks. Non-state groups could gain access to virulent strains that could pose similar devastation to societies around the globe” [15]. Amidst this chaos, China and the USA have failed to cooperate, each accusing the other of failing to take sufficient action, and of falsifying data [4]. It should be clear to anyone who cares to look: unless the pandemic is secured globally, health security cannot be guaranteed anywhere. There are rumors that immunity passports will be issued and required for people to travel between regions and countries, or to enter certain venues. Some restaurants, bars, theaters and other places where people gather have guards checking passports, and this may have spawned grey and black markets for fake passports. Nevertheless, some argue that the pandemic has had a few positive aspects. With businesses closed, travel has dropped to a minimum despite very low gasoline prices. Airline travel is swooning and some airports have row after row of parked, idle airliners clogging their runways. Some factories have closed. The result: skies have cleared, NO2 levels in the atmosphere have dropped, and smog has largely gone. While SARS-CoV-2 is clogging lungs with pneumonia, the air is purer than ever in many places in recent times [8]. Incredible how this virus could bring down the world! An important question persists: Was the first infection of COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 the work of terrorists, the result of an experiment gone massively wrong, a state-sponsored military bio-weapon that escaped from a lab, or a random act of nature? Good question; after all, there is a known Chinese bio-lab near Wuhan China where it all started [10]. There was a flood of information with suppositions and finger-pointing. It got to the point that the majority of people didn’t know anymore what to believe about the virus and the strategies adopted to address the pandemic, losing confidence in the sources of information and authorities. Although most scientists would probably say that the virus jumped from its place in the animal world to human-to-human infection in a wet market in Wuhan, China’s failure to share data and attempts to control information surrounding the pandemic’s outbreak, suggest that the government may have something to hide. Certainly, the Trump administration has been pointing its finger at China. Why do most scientists make the argument that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has a natural origin and is not man-made? Kristian Andersen, a professor of immunology at the Scripps Research Institute, declared that according to available genome sequence data for known coronavirus strains, one can firmly determine that SARS-CoV-2 originated through natural processes [1]. The largely accepted view of the origin

4.2 Discussion

23

of SARS-V-2 is that it jumped from bats to humans with pangolins as intermediate hosts [18]. But surprises abound and there may be revisions to this belief that would lead us to say, “Boy, did we get that wrong?!” Independently of its origin, the COVID-19 crises increased the threats of terrorism; with terrorist groups exploiting it for their own purposes, for propaganda and recruitment, for spreading disinformation and confusion, growing divisions, and discrediting their enemies [13].

4.3 Tripping Points The major tripping point discussed in this chapter has been the difficulty or rather the inability to distinguish between man-made pandemic and natural occurrences. The corona crisis showed us that we should prepare for and—to the extent possible— prevent disease epidemics, whether man-made or natural and that we might not be able to tell the difference between them. Preparation for this possibility should be a corner stone in a counter-terror policy. Other tripping points on this theme include: • Terrorists might try to induce economic and financial chaos using real or fake disease vectors. • Terrorists might acquire capabilities to start a future pandemic by creating and spreading unknown viruses. Of particular concern would be the creation of racetargeted viruses and implanting genetic information that would tend to implicate 3rd countries as the author of the pandemic. • Social media campaigns could be initiated to discredit authority. • When new diseases are encountered, their origin will be questioned: natural or man-made? • Pandemics could bring new opportunities for raising funds by terrorists through the sale of counterfeit vaccines and treatment drugs. • When countries are focused on controlling the spread of disease and threat of economic collapse, detection of terrorism might not be the highest priority. Some of these tripping points could be addressed by updating the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) [11] and resuming the negotiations for designing enforcement mechanisms for it.

References 1. Andersen K et al (2020) COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic has a natural origin. Science Daily. Scripps Research Institute. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175 442.htm. Accessed 10 May 2020 2. Durden T (2020) Social unrest unfolds as frustrated americans demand reopening of economy. Nation and State. https://nationandstate.com/2020/04/18/under-siege-social-unrest-unfoldsas-frustrated-americans-demand-reopening-of-economy/. Accessed 19 May 2020

24

4 Pandemics

3. European Union (2018) General data protection regulation (GDPR), regulation (EU) 2016/679. https://gdpr-info.eu/. Accessed 24 Oct 2020 4. Huang Y (2020) U.S.-Chinese distrust is inviting dangerous coronavirus conspiracy theories. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-03-05/us-chinesedistrust-inviting-dangerous-coronavirus-conspiracy. Accessed 15 Mar 2020 5. Klein E (2020) Bill gates’ vision for life beyond coronavirus. Vox. https://www.vox.com/cor onavirus-covid19/2020/4/27/21236270/bill-gates-coronavirus-covid-19-plan-vaccines-conspi racies-podcast. Accessed 27 Apr 2020 6. Mahler DG et al (2020) Updated estimates of the impact of COVID-19 on global poverty. World Bank. https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/updated-estimates-impact-covid19-global-poverty. Accessed 7 July 2020 7. McKinsey & Company (2020) Finding Africa’s path: shaping bold solutions to save lives and livelihoods in the COVID-19 crisis. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/middleeast-and-africa/finding-africas-path-shaping-bold-solutions-to-save-lives-and-livelihoods-inthe-covid-19-crisis. Accessed 6 July 2020 8. McMahon J (2020) Study: coronavirus lockdown likely saved 77,000 lives in China just by reducing pollution. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2020/03/16/cor onavirus-lockdown-may-have-saved-77000-lives-in-china-just-from-pollution-reduction/. Accessed 11 May 2020 9. Reed E (2020) Small businesses could vanish during coronavirus pandemic. The Street. https:// www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/pandemic-recession-impact-small-businesses. Accessed 19 May 2020 10. Shoham D (2015) China’s biological warfare programme: an integrative study with special reference to biological Weapons capabilities. J Defen Stud 9(2):131–156. https://idsa.in/jds/ 9_2_2015_ChinasBiologicalWarfareProgramme. Accessed 7 July 2020 11. UNODA, The biological Weapons convention. Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their destruction. https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/bio/. Accessed 15 Apr 2020 12. UNODC (2020) Ghada Waly, director-general/executive director. counter-terrorism week: webinar I post COVID-19 world: contours, pivot points and benefits of multilateral collaboration. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/speeches/2020/ctweek-webinar1-060720. html. Accessed 7 July 2020 13. UN Security Council CTED (2020) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on terrorism, counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism. https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/ uploads/2020/06/CTED-Paper%E2%80%93-The-impact-of-the-COVID-19-pandemic-oncounter-terrorism-and-countering-violent-extremism.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2020 14. US Department of Labor (2020) News release. https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2020 15. UN (2020) Secretary-general’s remarks to the Security Council on the COVID-19 Pandemic. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2020-04-09/secretary-generals-rem arks-the-security-council-the-covid-19-pandemic-delivered. Accessed 25 Oct 2020 16. Wallace G (2020) Airlines and TSA report 96% drop in air travel. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/ 2020/04/09/politics/airline-passengers-decline/index.html. Accessed 19 May 2020 17. Worldmeters (2020) Coronavirus cases. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/. Accessed 27 Oct 2020 18. Zheng J (2020) SARS-CoV-2: an emerging coronavirus that causes a global threat. Int J Biol Sci. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/issues/354851/. Accessed 10 May 2020

Chapter 5

CRISPR and the New Biology

5.1 Flash Scenarios 5.1.1 Scenario 5.1 Genetic Poison “We don’t need to kidnap the leaders of our enemies; we just need to get a tiny genetic sample. We already have the technology we need to expand miniscule samples to the extent necessary for genetic engagement. The initial amplification process is well known; it is Polymerase Chain Reaction or PCR. It’s like molecular photocopying and allows trace amounts of the target’s DNA to be copied and made into abundant samples. Police all over the world use it today in genetic identification. Let’s say the target’s name is Mary Felicity.” “It probably would be simple enough to get a sample of Mary Felicity’s DNA; they don’t guard their trash and garbage. We could bribe a janitor or a restaurant worker for a waste cup or cosmetic remnant. Suppose we got a sample and amplified it; what then?” “In my plan, some of our genetic scientists would analyze the amplified material and write dossiers on what they find. They could look for diseases that might show up in her future and we could fine-tune our policies with those expectations in mind. And if our scientists succeed in linking genetic information to behavioral characteristics— there are half a dozen such studies underway in our country with that research goal—we would have opened Pandora’s box. We will discover more about her mental weaknesses and hidden fears than she knows herself. For what it’s worth we could also find out about her genetic background, where her ancestors came from, and what biases and predispositions her genetic inheritance provided. We could read her like a book.”

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Y. Sharan et al., Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror, Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72571-6_5

25

26

5 CRISPR and the New Biology

“Now you’re going too far.” “On the contrary, genes tell a story of what a person has inherited. Many racial characteristics are genetically determined. Certainly skin color and phenotype, for example, have genetic origin. The fact that some diseases are racially concentrated is indisputable. For example sickle cell anemia is a disease largely concentrated in people that have genetic roots in Africa; Tay-Sachs disease is prevalent in Jews that have ancestry in Central and Eastern Europe.” “But I have saved the best for the last. What I am about to share with you now is highly secret, so you are not authorized to discuss it anywhere. We have begun a project that will enable us to construct a targeted poison, one that seeks out its victim or victims in a crowd of people, in a universe of people. CRISPR, as you know, can be used to seek out a particular DNA sequence unique to a disease and then cleave at that point to insert its disease-correcting bio-code. Our weapon seeks out a particular DNA sequence unique to a person and once found cleaves and inserts its poison. Our enemies think we are building broad brush epidemics in our hidden bio-labs; this is the opposite in intent. We want this bio-weapon to find a single person and deposit its lethal payload in his or her body. And if we wish, we can target a person’s descendants, or indeed a whole race that can be identified genetically. The genetic detectives trying to stop us are looking in the wrong direction. We may be a decade or two away from achieving this weapon but time is on our side.”

5.1.2 Scenario 5.2 Overcoming Antibiotics Dr. Ishmael Walid, the director of a regional biological lab in India’s Simdega district couldn’t refuse the generous offer he received from the “Foundation for the Health of Animals (FHA)”. A contribution of 10 million dollars was offered to Dr. Walid to develop his lab’s capability in the field of gene editing to expand medical research in animal diseases, focusing on Anthrax. This disease had been endemic in the entire region among horses, cows, and other agricultural animals, and several cases had spread to humans. The present antibiotics used for medical treatment of affected animals and for preventive treatments were insufficient to quell fears of a looming epidemic. Something had to be done. The proposal from FHA came at the right time. Dr. Walid did not pay attention to the origin of the Foundation based in Iran. He himself belonged to an Iranian family who had immigrated years ago and was happy to maintain this well-funded connection with his country of origin. His research plan was to screen all available possible antibiotics to search for new and effective ones to treat Anthrax in the region. Bringing samples of Anthrax to his lab was easy. The research however took a surprising twist. Certain samples of Anthrax were found to be resistant more than others to the treatment. These strains were, in effect, “Super-Anthrax” able to avoid the attacks of conventional antibiotics.

5.1 Flash Scenarios

27

These results did not escape the attention of would-be terrorists in the FHA. The next step would be equipping the lab with advanced DNA sequencing equipment to identify the specific fragments responsible for antibiotic resistance. Applying a technology like CRISPR would ease their way to their real objective: an antibiotic form of Anthrax capable of wiping out animal herds in a specific geographic region. Walid, anxious to pursue a well-intended research plan had been duped into producing a dramatic new terror weapon.

5.2 Discussion Bio-terror is the use, or threat of use of agents that cause disease outbreaks in humans, animals, or the plant food supply. Use of biological weapons has a long history. More than 2000 years ago Hittites were supposed to have driven rams infected with tularemia into the territory of their enemies [2]. In the fourteenth century the Mongols were trying to oust the Genoese from the walled city of Kaffa and they used trebuchets to catapult bodies of soldiers who died of the plague over the walls to infect the enemy they were trying to dislodge. The disease took hold inside the city but it probably would have even without the black plague body-missiles since the disease was carried by rats that probably had many burrows and tunnels under the walls. (Ibid.) The Lithuanian army used the same strategy in the fifteenth century against the Bohemian town of Carolstein. Indigenous tribes in the Americas used poisoned arrows. Bioterror also showed up in the USA Civil War when a physician sympathetic to the Confederate cause, Dr. Luke Blackburn attempted to infect Union soldiers and sympathizers using soiled bedding and clothes of Yellow Fever patients (Yellow Jack as it was known then). He arranged to sell the clothes and bedding in cities supporting the Union; he even sought to have a valise delivered to Lincoln in a bizarre attempt to murder the President through Yellow Fever. None of this makes sense in light of our present understanding of how the disease is spread through mosquitoes, but it was an attempt at mass murder using biology. Blackburn was tried in Canada on charges of violating the Canadian neutrality act but was acquitted. In 1878 he was elected governor of Kentucky [21]. Should even failed attempts such as these be considered a crime? In WWII, despite the Geneva Convention of 1925 banning the use of biological weapons, the WWII warring powers sought to develop biological weapons. Japan did its work at the infamous Site 731 in Manchuria and used these weapons in combat across Asia. Doctors and researchers conducted medical experiments on prisoners at Site 731, sometimes without anesthesia for “practice” on live patients and to produce bio-weapon bombs using lethal agents including plague, anthrax, dysentery, cholera, and typhoid. These agents were used in engagements against the Chinese and Russians and had they been able, would have been used against American troops and civilians. In a plan called “Cherry Blossoms at Night”, they

28

5 CRISPR and the New Biology

intended to drop fleas carrying plague on the West Coast of the United States to cause epidemic and terror. Japan might have used helium balloons or Kamikaze planes launched from submarines to deliver the payloads. In one sad consequence of the Japanese bio-weapons work, the Americans apparently agreed to grant amnesty to the leaders and staff of Site 731 in return for the information the Japanese had gathered there [14, 19]. The drumbeats continue. In what has been called the biggest bio-terror attack in the USA, members of the Rajneeshee group attempted to influence a local election in Oregon by introducing salmonella into a local taco restaurant salsa salad bar to poison voters and keep them away from the polls. This happened in The Dalles, Oregon, in 1984 and over 700 people were sickened [33, 35]. A week after the 9/11 terrorists hijacked three airliners and crashed into the New York Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Shanksville, PA, a bio-terror attack began in the USA. Active and deadly anthrax powder was sent to two dozen people including news media persons and politicians. There were 5 deaths and 17 other people were sickened by the spores. No one was ever convicted of the crime but the top suspect was Bruce Ivins, a bio-scientist at the Fort Dietrich laboratories in Frederick, Maryland. Using DNA to identify the origin of the spores, the FBI zeroedin on Ivins’s lab; Ivins committed suicide in July 2008, before any arrest was made. The assertion that Ivins was the source was contested in a report prepared by the National Academy of Science at the request of the FBI [23]. When the coronavirus pandemic blasted into the world in late 2019, some conspiracy theorists speculated that the virus that causes the pneumonia-like disease COVID-19 was a no more or less than a snippet of genetic material that had escaped from a Chinese bio-weapons lab in Wuhan China, or a terrorist weapon introduced by insane sects to kill millions. The following exchange took place at a news conference on April 15, 2020: Q[uestion] President [TRUMP], multiple sources are telling Fox News today that the United States government now has high confidence that, while the coronavirus is a naturally occurring virus, it emanated from a virology lab in Wuhan. That, because of lax safety protocols, an intern was infected, who later infected her boyfriend, and then went to the wet market in Wuhan where it began to spread. Does that correspond with what you have heard from officials? PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I don’t want to say that, John. But I will tell you, more and more, we’re hearing the story. And we’ll see. When you say “multiple sources”— now there’s a case where you can use the word “sources” — but we are doing a very thorough examination of this horrible situation that happened [32].

Scientists who have examined the genetic make-up of the infecting virus say that it is of natural origin rather than man-made [15]. Nevertheless, terrorist groups like al-Qaeda are trying to exploit the situation; they say the pandemic is divine retribution and that Islam is a hygiene-oriented religion. An al-Qaeda senior leadership release comments that “this pandemic is a punishment from the Lord of the Worlds for the injustice and oppression committed against Muslims specifically and mankind generally by governments you elect. Today if someone sneezes in China, those in New York suffer from its consequences” [1].

5.2 Discussion

29

The CRISPR editing tools of synthetic biology will play an important role in the weapons labs of countries developing new bio-weapons. Bio-weapons experts Joseph DeFranco and James Giordano say: “China has demonstrated that by working at the frontiers of current sciences (i.e. in some cases, by asserting differing cultural values and ethical norms that guide and govern biomedical research and its uses) they can create, engineer, and foster biological advancements that are as yet unattainable by—and therefore ahead of—other countries….” “The new methods and tools of synthetic biology can enable the R&D of agents that are not currently listed by the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. This makes this R&D—and the agents produced—difficult to surveille, regulate and govern. In light of this, we have called for the update, revision, or new approaches to biochemical weapons’ conventions/treaties and regulatory/governance processes that better reflect and respond to the rapidly changing capabilities fostered by novel techniques and technologies” [8]. We believe that historians of the future, looking back at our time may consider CRISPR technology to be one of the most important inventions of our time and certainly pivotal to the evolution of bio-terrorism. This technology provides the ability to modify genetic material directly and bypass the long delays that evolutionary changes require. This tool, CRISPR, allows scientists, biologists, and perhaps less specialized people (e.g. hobbyists and terrorists) in the future to manipulate the genetic destiny of living organisms and viruses which, while non-living themselves, can enter living cells and highjack their functioning. CRISPR offers the chance to “operate” directly on a cell’s DNA and this opens the possibility of eliminating genetic diseases, not just in a single person but in all people and forever, particularly diseases that occur as a result of single anomalies in the DNA code, diseases like cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, hemophilia, thalassemia, sickle cell disease, TaySachs disease, and some forms of cancer. It also raises the question of human design: if we wanted to change our future progeny for the better what would we choose for them? Freedom from disease? Higher IQ’s? Taller stature? Blue eyes? This gene modifying technology and those that will surely follow raise questions for which we yet have no answers. One thing we know for sure, though, is that in the hands of terrorists this capability can create nightmare possibilities. The technology of gene modification involves removing or replacing defective segments of DNA molecules in the nucleus of cells, targeting those segments that have become misarranged or damaged through accident or inheritance. The first human experiment with this approach was performed in 1990. A four-year-old girl with severe immune system deficiency, Ashanti DeSilva, received the first genetic therapy treatment: an infusion of her white blood cells that had been modified outside of her body (ex vivo) to include copies of gene sequences that she was missing. The modified cells were then transfused back into her bloodstream. Her condition improved dramatically though she takes gene therapy treatment every few months to maintain the appropriate levels of the otherwise missing enzymes. As of 2018, she was in good health and at work as rare disease editor for a medical blog [4, 5]. It sounds simple: cut out the bad segment of DNA and insert segments with the correct sequence; but inserting requires a delivery mechanism, a vector, that finds

30

5 CRISPR and the New Biology

the right cells among the 35 trillion cells in a human body in which to insert their payload, replacing defective segments with healthy ones. An early vector of choice was an adenovirus and it was used in a scientifically reviewed human trail approved by the National Institutes of Health in an effort to cure a rare metabolic disorder of children. One patient in the trial was 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger; he sadly died of causes related to the test [30]. The death had a chilling effect on the course of gene therapy over the next two decades. But there has been more promising activity lately; for example, in application to hemophilia [24, 34], to cystic fibrosis [18], to Duchenne muscular dystrophy [11], to thalassaemia—a blood disorder in which insufficient hemoglobin is produced [7], and to severe combined immune deficiency—or SCID, the “bubble boy” disease in which the babies (like Ashanti DeSilva) have essentially no functioning immune system [9]. The FDA is said to expect 1,000 new applications per year for gene therapy trials [3]. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb is quoted as saying “We’re entering a new frontier in medical innovation with the ability to reprogram a patient’s own cells to attack a deadly cancer” [17]. The newer CRISPR variation known as “prime editor” promises to “make virtually any alteration—additions, deletions, swapping any single letter for any other— without severing the DNA double helix” [25]. If its early promise proves out, “prime editing” CRISPR will cure many diseases, facilitate a new type of anticipatory medicine, and provide a new tool to anyone who has the appropriate skill and knowledge to use it. It can become a new tool for terror as well. The drug Kymriah is the first gene therapy approved for use in the USA by the Federal Food and Drug Administration; it treats a form of childhood leukemia; the therapy however is reportedly priced at $475,000 per patient [5, 20]. Whether or not Kymriah is the first gene therapy drug (several are on the market in Europe) depends on narrow differences in definitions, but there is no doubt it is the first in the USA to achieve FDA approval. The conditions under which it can be used include special training of the physician. The use of CRISPR shows great promise in curing human diseases, particularly those caused by a single genetic anomaly. In 2019, two pharmaceutical companies, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Vertex used a technique known as CTX 001 to treat two patients with diseases caused by mutations of a single gene; the diseases were sickle cell anemia and the beta thalassemia. The CRISPR therapy began when a single genetic change was introduced into the patients’ stem cells. Nine months both patients appeared to be near normal. This is remarkable because one of the patients had required 16 blood transfusions every year; after treatment, none were needed [13]. Gene edited babies are a long way off, but experimentation has started in several countries. For example, in experiments being performed on unwanted embryos at the Francis Crick Institute in London, the complexity and unpredictability of gene modification via CRISPR has been clearly underscored. These tests were designed to reach a better understanding of “the role played by a particular gene in human development.” They also demonstrated that CRISPR is still a crude tool because “When they analyzed the edited embryos and compared them to ones that hadn’t been edited, they found something troubling: Around half of the edited embryos

5.2 Discussion

31

contained major unintended edits… (s)uch genetic damage described in the paper could lead to birth defects or medical problems like cancer later in life” [26]. On November 28, 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong that he “had used CRISPR-Cas9 to disable copies of theCCR5 gene in human embryos, in a bid to prevent the embryos’ father from transmitting his HIV infection” [6, 12]. He performed this genetic surgery on twins, disabling both copies of the CCR5 gene in one twin and only one copy of the gene in the other twin so that it could serve as an experiment control for the first child. Here was a case of genetic manipulation of non-somatic cells, capable of passing the changes made to the genome on to progeny, ad infinitum. No informed consent. No peer review. No consideration of the ethics involved. No reference to the rights of the child. No wonder there was an outcry from genetic scientists and ethicists. He Jiankui was tried and sentenced to three years in prison [16]. Synthetic biology kits are available online from outlets like Amazon and Target but they are simple and designed to teach biology fundamentals to primary and secondary school students. No problem here. But much more complex lab kits and equipment are available online. At the simple end are kits of chemicals and biological materials for under $200 to “Genetically Engineer Any Brewing or Baking Yeast to Fluoresce.” A more advanced kit is described as follows: Want to really know what this whole CRISPR thing is about? Why it could revolutionize genetic engineering? This kit includes everything you need to make precision genome edits in bacteria at home including Cas9, tracrRNA, crRNA and Template DNA template for an example experiment. Includes example experiment to make a genome mutation(K43T) to the rpsL gene changing the 43rd amino acid, a Lysine(K) to a Threonine(T) thereby allowing the bacteria to survive on Strep media which would normally prevent its growth. Kit contains enough materials for around 5 experiments or more” [31].

Another site that encourages bio-hacking says: “The DIY bio community is helping to open the world of synthetic biology to everyone. Everyone. And if you’re a little shocked and concerned by that concept, you’re not alone. The optimist will look at this glass of genetic soup and see it as half full of promises for cheaper fuel, better access to our own DNA, greater understanding of our world, and hope for improving our health. The pessimist points out that the same techniques that can make biofuel bacteria, test your DNA for diseases, and find new species can produce deadly pathogens, encourage genetic self-mutilation, and release invasive microscopic species. Should we be happy or terrified?” [28].

Good question: should we be happy or terrified? The genes that are hacked have often been genes contributed by the bio-hacker himself or herself, bio-hacking a gene and then injecting the modified gene into themselves in an effort to prevent or cure a disease or improve intelligence, strength, or even extend life span. The self-experimentation has on occasion been in front of live audiences in hopes of demonstrating cures for diseases like herpes or HIV [22]. The USA Federal Drug

32

5 CRISPR and the New Biology

Administration does not approve these experiments or even look kindly on them. They have said: FDA is aware that gene therapy products intended for self-administration and “do it yourself” kits to produce gene therapies for self-administration are being made available to the public. The sale of these products is against the law. FDA is concerned about the safety risks involved. Consumers are cautioned to make sure that any gene therapy they are considering has either been approved by FDA or is being studied under appropriate regulatory oversight [10].

California has passed a law that makes it illegal to sell bio genetic engineering kits without a warning that bio-engineered products should not be used for selfadministration [27]. The gene modifying technology CRISPR-Cas9 and “prime editing” [25] can simplify the process of producing genes that can be used by terrorists to create biological toxins and even entire genomes of pathogens or to make existing organisms more potent or capable of being delivered in new or unexpected modes. A well-executed bio-attack might begin with the simultaneous release of lethal or debilitating biological agents in multiple, geographically dispersed areas like airports or train stations. Delivery of the novel organisms to those locations might be through infected kamikaze terrorist volunteers or recruits. Before signs of the disease they carried become obvious, they could travel freely; this would cause a great number of individuals to be infected and could spread much faster than a naturally-occurring epidemic. More than that: diagnoses of many artificially derived diseases are not yet fully-established, thus adding other dimensions to the bio-threat uncertainty and concern. The combination of amateur bio-hacking and easy to use bio-technologies make the bio-security threat seem more and more possible and imminent. Beyond today’s CRISPR technology that can handle stretches of DNA that are a few hundred thousand long or less, are techniques for splicing and moving whole segments of chromosomes that can have more than a million bases. One such project aims to alter genomes so that they can code not just for proteins’ normal 20 amino acids, but also for large numbers of non-natural amino acids throughout the genome. That could lead to synthetic life forms capable of producing molecules far beyond the reach of natural organisms [29].

5.3 Tripping Points Analyzing the developments in the bio field yields some distressing tripping points. Of major point concern is the potential ability of a non-state actor to apply an unknown agent, thereby bypassing protection systems. New bio-threats will emerge, which should be taken into account by any counter-terrorism strategy worldwide. The evolving biotechnologies raise various concerning tripping points: • The evolution of synthetic biology and gene editing increase the chances for new bio-terror weapons. The easy availability of these technologies to terrorists makes this threat very real.

5.3 Tripping Points

33

• CRISPR technology might be used to create man-made viral mutations, invalidating available vaccines. • CRISPR technology could facilitate the development of new weapons, as well as of weapons-detection systems. • New bio-weapons may be directed against single individuals or groups of people with similar genetic characteristics. • Kamikaze terrorists could carry incubating viruses throughout the world. • Bio-attacks may be planned on unexpected targets; e.g., agriculture or pets. • Social media could spread false information about real or fake bio-engineered organisms. • Research funded for legitimate purposes could be misdirected to terror applications. There are increasing efforts to develop regulations for the control of biotechnologies by malicious forces, including terrorists. However, the rapid advancement of the science, and lag in the policymakers’ understanding of the potential implications make designing policies or strategies very difficult and always playing catch-up instead of being pro-active and preventive.

References 1. Al-Qaeda (2020) The way forward; a word of advice on the caronavirus pandemic. https://twi tter.com/thomasjoscelyn/status/1245311851325423616/photo/1. Accessed 18 May 2020 2. Barras V, Greub G (2014) History of biological warfare and terrorism. Clin Microbiol Infect. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12706. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/248 94605/. Accessed 20 Dec 2020 3. Bender E (2018) Regulating The jean-therapy revolution. Nature. https://www.nature.com/art icles/d41586-018-07641-1?WT.feed_name=subjects_genetics. Accessed 12 Dec 2020 4. Biogenetics (2008) Bio genetics, first human gene therapy. https://bio-genetix.blogspot.com/ 2008/12/first-human-gene-therapy.html. Accessed 20 Sep 2019 5. Biotech (2018) Ashanti DeSilva-very first gene therapy patient. YouTube Video. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=IgES04-cSr8. Accessed 28 Nov 2019 6. Botting E, Hunt (2018) A Chinese scientist says he edited babies jeans. what are the rights of the genetically modified child? The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ monkey-cage/wp/2018/12/06/a-chinese-scientist-says-hes-edited-babies-genes-what-are-therights-of-the-genetically-modified-child/. Accessed 13 Dec 2020 7. Costa M (2018) Promising results from beta-thalassaemia gene therapy trial. Bionews. https:// www.bionews.org.uk/page_135491. Accessed 12 Dec 2020 8. Giordano J, DeFranco J (2019) The tools and threats of synthetic bioweapon development. Natl Defen. https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/8/2/viewpoint-the-toolsand-threats-of-synthetic-bioweapon-development. Accessed 1 June 2020 9. Ely K (2018) Saint jude develops gene therapy for severe combined immune deficiency. Rare Disease Report. https://www.raredr.com/news/gene-therapy-severe-combined-immuno deficiency. Accessed 12 Dec 2018 10. FDA (2017) Information about self administration of gene therapy. https://www.fda.gov/vac cines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/information-about-self-administrationgene-therapy. Accessed 25 Sep 2019

34

5 CRISPR and the New Biology

11. Figueiredo M (2018) Microdystrophin gene therapy shows promising interim results in phase 1/2 trial. Muscular dystrophy news today. https://musculardystrophynews.com/2018/06/22/mic rodystrophin-gene-therapy-shows-promise-early-trial-results/. Accessed 12 Dec 2020 12. Gordon T, Todorova M (2019) Seeds of the future. Palgrave 13. Hardy R (2019) Encouraging early results from first human CRISPR gene therapy trials. New Atlas. https://newatlas.com/medical/encouraging-early-results-first-human-crispr-genetherapy-trials/. Accessed 20 Nov 2020 14. Harris S (2002) Factories of death: Japanese secret biological warfare, 1932–1945, and the American cover-up. Routledge, New York. ISBN 10: 1568656556 ISBN 13: 9781568656557 15. Holland K (2020) Scientists have strong evidence conavirus originated naturally. ABC news. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/scientists-strong-evidence-coronavirus-originated-naturally/ story?id=70207409. Accessed 18 May 2020 16. Hollingworth J, Isaac Y (2019) Chinese scientist who edited genes of twin babies is jailed for three years. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/30/china/gene-scientist-china-intl-hnk/ index.html. Accessed 7 Jan 2021 17. Horgam J (2017) Has the Era of gene therapy finally arrived? Scientific American. https://blogs. scientificamerican.com/cross-check/has-the-era-of-gene-therapy-finally-arrived/. Accessed 19 Feb 2017 18. Inacio P (2015) Gene therapy shows promising results as a new treatment for cystic fibrosis. Lung Disease News. https://lungdiseasenews.com/2015/07/07/gene-therapy-showspromising-results-new-treatment-cystic-fibrosis/. Accessed 12 Dec 2020 19. Kristof N (1995) Unmasking Harbor—A special report; Japan confronting gruesome war atrocity. https://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/17/world/unmasking-horror-a-special-reportjapan-confronting-gruesome-war-atrocity.html. Accessed 23 Sep 2020 20. Labiotech (2018) The first CAR-T therapy is not living up to commercial expectations. https:// labiotech.eu/medical/kymriah-car-t-therapy-novartis-sales/. Accessed 19 Feb 2018 21. Lively MW (2014) Yellow fever plot of 1865 targeted Lincoln, U.S. cities. Civil War Profiles. https://www.civilwarprofiles.com/yellow-fever-plot-of-1864-targeted-lincoln-u-s-cit ies/. Accessed 22 Sep 2019 22. Lussenhop J (2017) Why I injected myself with an untested gene therapy. BBC News. https:// www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41990981. Accessed 25 Sep 2019 23. NAS (2011) Review of the scientific approaches used during the FBI’s investigation of the 2001 Bacillus Anthracis mailings. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/ 10.17226/13098. https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-the-scientificapproaches-used-during-the-fbis-investigation-of-the-2001-bacillus-anthracis-mailings. ISBN 978-0-309-18719-0. PMID 24983068. Accessed 26 Oct 2020 24. Nienhuis AW et al (2017) Gene therapy for Hemophilia. US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Washington DC. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/284 11016. Accessed 12 Dec 2018 25. Molteni M (2019) A new CRISPR technique could fix almost all genetic diseases. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/a-new-crispr-technique-could-fix-many-more-geneticdiseases/. Accessed 27 Oct 2019 26. Mullin E (2020) Scientists edited human embryos in the lab, and it was a disaster. One Zero. https://onezero.medium.com/scientists-edited-human-embryos-in-the-lab-and-it-was-adisaster-9473918d769d. Accessed 16 June 2020 27. Robertson S (2019) California clamps down on amateur use of gene editing technologies. Medical Life Science News. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20190820/Californiaclamps-down-on-amateur-use-of-gene-editing-technologies.aspx. Accessed 26 Dec 2020 28. Saenz A (2009) Do it yourself biohacking. Singularity Hub. https://singularityhub.com/2009/ 04/28/do-it-yourself-biohacking/ 29. Service R (2019) Forget single genes: CRISPR now cuts and splices whole chromosomes. Science. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/forget-single-genes-crispr-nowcuts-and-splices-whole-chromosomes. Accessed 1 June 2020

References

35

30. Stolberg SG (1999) The biotech death of jesse gelsinger. New York Times Magazine. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/28/magazine/the-biotech-death-of-jesse-gelsinger.html. Accessed 20 Sep 2019 31. The Odin (2019) DIY bacterial gene engineering CRISPR Kit. http://www.the-odin.com/diycrispr-kit/. Accessed 24 Sep 2020 32. The White House (2020) PRESS BRIEFINGS: remarks by president trump, vice president pence, and members of the coronavirus task force in press briefing; Issued on. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vicepresident-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-26/. Accessed 10 Dec 2020 33. Thuras D (2014) The secret’s in the sauce: bioterror at the salsa bar. Slate. http://www.slate. com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2014/01/09/the_largest_bioterror_attack_in_us_history_began_at_t aco_time_in_the_dalles.html. Accessed 22 Sep 2019 34. Watson M (2018) Gene therapy shows promising results for hemophilia. WFH Network, Hemophilia World. https://news.wfh.org/gene-therapy-shows-promising-results-hemophilia/. Accessed 12 Dec 2020 35. Weaver JH (1985) The town that was poisoned. Congressional Record. https://commons.wik imedia.org/wiki/File:1985_Feb_28_Congressman_Weaver_THE_TOWN_THAT_WAS_POI SONED.pdf. Accessed 2 Sep 2020

Chapter 6

Identification: Forensics and DNA Databases

6.1 Flash Scenarios 6.1.1 Scenario 6.1 Cousin Genghis Me: opening a letter from the genetic database firm, I sent a saliva sample to a month ago. I had almost forgotten about it. “Well, what do you know? This feedback from Stargene Ancestry says Genghis Kahn was a distant cousin of mine, who lived 700 years ago on the steppes of Asiatic Russia. Wow. Maybe that’s why I like Mongolian Barbeque so much.” Little Brother: “So what? Big deal.” Me: “It means I have some leadership blood in me. The genetic code that cranked out his blood is close to the genetic sequence I carry. And by the way, probably you do too.” Little Brother: “No way!” Me: “Yes, way.” Sound of text message arriving on my phone. I pick up the phone. Me: “Yes?” Phone voice: “This is Tim Holmes. I am an automated advisor calling from the Federal Department of Homeland Security. We have learned that you have just been linked genetically to a violent ancestor. Is that right?”

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Y. Sharan et al., Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror, Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72571-6_6

37

38

6 Identification: Forensics and DNA Databases

Me: “Well…” Tim: “We have no other data showing that you are a potential danger to society, but I am obligated to tell you that the law requires that we add your name to a dangerous ancestor watch list.” Me, incredulous: “Cut the nonsense, Tim. You and your agency know that I haven’t done anything foolish or even suspicious in all my life.” Tim: “Well, the law is the law. We are officially watching you and must notify you of that fact.” After hanging up, I immediately called a friend who works at the police and asked what the implications for me are. After a good laugh, he just said: “Between you and me, you shouldn’t worry too much; there are millions of people on the watch list.” Me: “Thanks, but it still makes me uncomfortable…”

6.1.2 Scenario 6.2 Elementary Watson, my dear fellow, stir up the fire in the fireplace, would you please? It’s a bit chilly here. When Dr. G—visited us last night in Baker Street he came on a most important and confidential mission from the Prime Minister himself. It seems there has been a mole in the Foreign Ministry who has been divulging secrets, mostly trivial, but some of considerable importance, for more than a decade. She (yes the mole was a duplicitous female) slipped into a position of trust by simply creating a false identity, based on any array of clever credentials from a false birth certificate to a university dissertation. First level checks on these by MI5 confirmed her identity (for example, hospital records show there was a baby born when and where her records indicated, and a person with her name really attended the university and produced the dissertation—it just wasn’t this woman). Those documents were really professionally created by a superior artificial intelligence, and her organization went to the trouble of falsifying the first level of corroboration. It was only by chance that she was discovered. The adversary behind this fraud has extremely advanced AI at its disposal. The Prime Minister wants us to invent a system that will prevent such an embarrassing thing from happening again. This hypothetical system would positively recognize such persons in the future. Ideally, the vetting process would be automatic and infallible. They want a system that assures they know who a person really is, that their

6.1 Flash Scenarios

39

credentials reflect reality. If we found a fake we could then arrest them or feed them false information, as we chose. Credentials like driver’s licenses and passports are trivial playthings; they can be purchased on any street corner in London for a few pounds. The assignment that Dr. G—offered us last night is not simply to invent a system to detect counterfeit drivers’ licenses by sampling the materials on which they are printed; he came on quite a different mission. We have been asked by the highest authority in the land to do something a bit more ingenious and adventuresome: to invent an unbreakable system to authenticate persons who may at some future time sit at the top of our country’s military and political command structure. How do we know for sure that a general is not an imposter, that he or she is not—as the saying goes—a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a Manchurian Candidate,1 or the pawn of another country? Or to get down to cases, how do we know, really know, that the Prime Minister himself is indeed the person the Queen appointed? What a monumental challenge! Biometrics, I tell you Watson, biometrics is the key. We need to identify something that is part of us, distinguishing us from all others, not something that we own or can buy, like the key for a lock or a passport. It is also not something we have to remember like a password or a safe combination. The system we are seeking cannot be based on anything that can be easily manufactured, replicated or even, I dare say, even replicated with great difficulty on a 3D printer. Complex encryption keys do not meet the need either because there is always the potential that they can be discovered by clever algorithms or through tedious computer iterations. Whatever we suggest must be singularly intrinsic to the individual: identify him or her without question, one person among ten billion people. Fingerprints can be falsified with impressions in latex gloves; voices can be mimicked; photos and videos can be falsified perfectly these days. Even irises can be copied to the satisfaction of sentinel machines. Chemists can duplicate the cloud of odors and microorganisms that we bring along with us. What are we left with when we delete the obvious? It is only the brain that is unique; the billions, maybe trillions of neurons that intersect in that two-pound organ. It sums up everything we are or have been: our current abilities—mental and physical—our attitudes and biases, the sum of the inheritances which we are dealt, our memories and hopes, our loves and sorrows. I tell you Watson, we need a brain mapping system that takes periodic snapshots of the brains of those who would aspire to power and confirm their identity through matching their current brain maps to their prior maps of their brain, and explaining the differences in terms of changes in beliefs or experiences. I must get back to Dr. G—immediately and tell him he must place additional emphasis on brain research. The future of the world depends on it. And he must be warned that technologies that can implant or erase memories will be very dangerous. 1 Refers

to a chilling 1959 novel by Richard Condon and later two films, in which a brainwashed and malleable candidate for public office is programmed to respond to psychological suggestions of an enemy country.

40

6 Identification: Forensics and DNA Databases

6.2 Discussion Murder, mayhem, burglary, rape, sadism; the gruesome attacks of Golden State Killer terrorized California in the 1970s and 80s. He was a serial murderer, rapist, and burglar and called by various names in the press: East Area Rapist, Original Nightstalker, Visalia Ransacker. In 2001, police had DNA evidence that led them to think that the East Area Rapist and the Original Nightstalker were a single person and possibly responsible for all of the crimes. Years passed and the case turned cold. But a suspect was caught in 2018 using forensic genealogy, genetics, and a new kind of meticulous police work [2]. The police techniques used in that case may be helpful in preventing or solving terror crimes in the future. Crimes attributed to the Golden State Killer were violent, heinous, and depraved. He is suspected of having murdered more than 12 people, raped more than 50 women, and committed more than 120 burglaries. His crimes were often sadistic. In 1986, Keith Harrington and Patrice, his bride of a few months were murdered in the Dana Point California house of Keith’s father. The killer tied them up, raped the woman and killed them both bludgeoning them with a lawn sprinkler. He ate from their refrigerator on the way out [18]. In another case, he tied up a man and woman and placed them in separate rooms. He loaded dishes on top of the face down man, so that if he moved, the dishes would drop and he would hear, while he was raping the woman in another room. He threatened to kill everyone in the house if the dishes rattle. A female victim of another incident recalled that the criminal broke into her home, tied up her children and raped and terrorized her for hours. He threatened to cut off body parts of the members of her family. She really feared for her life and that of her children. She had the impression of having the evil in her house that night [4]. Paul Holes, an investigator for the Contra Costa County district attorney’s office in California was a forensic scientist who led the investigation from the mid-nineties. Holes was due to retire in 2018. But he was determined to solve the case before he left. Genetic analysis was his modern weapon; the case unfolded in unexpected ways [10]. The National DNA Index System (NDIS) is a database of genetic information collected originally to form a sex offender registry, but is now a collection of DNA information from criminals of all sorts compiled from information furnished by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Federal Government, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory, and Puerto Rico. There are almost 1 million forensic DNA profiles in NDIS [8]. Police tried to match DNA from the Golden State Killer murders and rapes to DNA profiles in the NDIS database but no matches could be found. Nor were there fingerprints available. In other words, they were dealing with a person who had not previously been caught up as a suspect by the USA justice system and had not served in the military or in key government positions. There are other databases of genetic information, open or closed, professional or amateur, costly or free, that have come on the scene in the last few years for analysis of genetically linked diseases and genealogy, such as 23 and Me, Ancestry DNA,

6.2 Discussion

41

My Heritage DNA, and GedMatch and many of these have large numbers of entries [14]. In general, these databases require the user to upload samples for DNA analyses or possibly results obtained by other labs; these data are then catalogued and made available to people who search for relatives, or trace their heritage or search to find unknown or missing siblings or genetic parents when there is some doubt. When NDIS proved not to be of help, Holes and his team turned to these new resources and used genetic material from the California crime scenes that been preserved in freezers since the 80s. Using a free public ancestry database, GedMatch, they found—not the killer himself, but his relatives in generations long passed. Using this information, the police constructed 25 family trees that traced thousands of relatives from the past to today. A report of this detective work noted that a branch of one of the family trees led to a 72-year-old retired cop who was now living in the Sacramento suburb of Citrus Heights. He was a disgraced police officer who happened to buy guns at the time of two of the criminal’s activities [10]. The test of Holes’ novel sleuthing would come in mid-April, when officers scooped up an item discarded by the man that contained his DNA and tested the genetic material against the killer’s. The shot in the dark produced a match—an improbable ending fit for detective fiction. Joseph James De Angelo was arrested in Citrus Heights on April 24, 2018 [10]. He pleaded guilty to more than 50 rapes and 13 murders and was sentenced to “eleven consecutive life without parole sentences, plus an additional life sentence and another eight years” [15]. What does this mean for prevention or detection of terror? It introduces publicly available genealogy databases as a tool in the hunt. We need to be clear about this: we are not suggesting that genealogy can help us find tomorrow’s terrorists by finding great-great-great-grandparents who were inclined in that direction (although that possibility has been considered in several scientific studies—see our discussion in Chap. 13 of how violent and criminal behavior seems to accompany the combination of abnormalities in the gene for producing the enzyme MAOA in conjunction with childhood maltreatment). Rather, we think that the hunt for the Golden State Killer illustrated a different way to use genetic tools to narrow the search for those who would do us harm. In the California case, police had DNA from the crime scene. Of course, at first they tried to match the samples to DNA profiles in the existing forensic databases, now estimated to be well over 1,000,000 people. When they could not find a match, they were stymied. What were they to do: take sample of everyone in the vicinity of the murders and rapes? That would certainly have been regarded as illegal intrusion. Instead (and this is the novelty) they went to a public ancestry database, and found relatives of the criminal. Armed with rough information about age, race, and geo-location, they narrowed the search for the owner of the DNA found at the crime scene even though that DNA was not yet in a forensic database. This work is said to have involved five investigators working four months and in the end they identified thousands of relatives (Ibid. [10]). Will the technique have broad application? That’s a question that computational geneticists have been trying to answer, and apparently the answer is “yes.” If you’re white, live in the United States, and a distant relative has uploaded their DNA to a public ancestry database, there’s a good chance an Internet sleuth can

42

6 Identification: Forensics and DNA Databases

identify you from a DNA sample you left somewhere. That’s the conclusion of a new study [11], which finds that by combining an anonymous DNA sample with some basic information such as someone’s rough age, researchers could narrow that person’s identity to fewer than 20 people by starting with a DNA database of 1.3 million individuals. Such a search could potentially allow the identification of about 60% of white Americans from a DNA sample—even if they have never provided their own DNA to an ancestry database. Dr. Yaniv Erlich is Chief Science Officer of the ancestry DNA testing company, My Heritage. He says that if you live in the USA and are of European ancestry, there’s a 60% chance you have a third cousin or closer relative in this database. The odds drop to 40% for someone of sub-Saharan African ancestry [11]. Noah Rosenberg of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, showed in 2018 that a person’s profile from a consumer DNA database can be matched up with that from law enforcement forensic DNA databases, although they use different sets of DNA markers. This combination increases the possibility of identifying a criminal through relatives or various genes (e.g. eye color or a disease), “even though the forensic databases aren’t supposed to contain that kind of information” [12]. Let’s suppose we have a DNA sample from a cigarette discarded by a person who bought a chemical used in home-made bomb. If that person had a criminal record, had served in the military, or had been employed in a job that required a DNA sample, then identifying the person from the cigarette butt DNA might be only a matter of minutes. But if the DNA has not been recorded in any database, consumer genealogy sites will give police or counter terrorism operatives another chance. For the future we might see databases of voice prints, gait peculiarities, tabulations of gut bacteria, and of course, facial characteristics to use in conjunction with DNA databases to help narrow the search and provide positive identification from fragmentary evidence. The expansion of genealogy and other sites that tabulate personal characteristics greatly increases the possibility of positively identifying someone from fragmentary data. Imagine that a partial at-the-scene clue such as a palm print leads to 10,000 possible suspects from an international fingerprint file, and that there is also a smeared facial image from a security camera that also leads to a different set of 10,000 possible suspects. Statistically, the overlap between the two raises the odds of a positive identification by several orders of magnitude. Add a third independent variable such as a voice record from a smart speaker like Echo Dot or a Google Assistant and the suspect is cornered: the identification task is much more manageable and the 10,000 possibilities drop to a few possibilities that appear coincidentally in all searches. We are on a path that leads to simple merging of ID databases: find 10,000 possibilities using one search mode and press the button to find corroborating, overlapping entries in independent databases. To go a bit further down that road, imagine a laser-like pistol shaped device that can be directed at a person. Push the “enter” button and the embedded computer accesses the many databases available, computes the probability of an irrefutable identification, and prints out the person’s identity, address, security history, and maybe driver’s

6.2 Discussion

43

license number. This technology of positive ID is coming sooner or later to an officer near you. A DNA molecule contains all of the information about you: your race, the color of your eyes and hair, gender, genetic diseases you are likely to experience in the future, intellectual capacity, shape of your nose and ears, tendency to baldness, the ancestral roadmap that led to you in the present; in short, it is your blueprint. There are 35 trillion cells on the average in a single human that repeat this information. Are you surprised to learn that it is possible to construct a good 3D approximation of a police mugshot using DNA from a few of those trillion cells? Scientists and imaging specialists at Erasmus University in The Netherlands, Pennsylvania State University in the USA, and Catholic University in Belgium built and tested a computer system for reconstruction of facial images that were defined only by DNA information. One such reconstruction is shown in Fig. 6.1. The model whose DNA was used is shown in the lower row and the computer reconstruction from DNA is shown in the upper row [1]. A number of other technologies are now available (or soon will be) to aid in forensic identification: • Software that combines images of mothers and fathers to show, before birth, how a child of theirs might look like. • Automated age-progression software begins with a contemporary image and then changes facial features to show how the person might look like as they age or vice versa. There are dozens of age progression apps already available and they are getting better and better [19]. FaceApp for example, one of the most popular Fig. 6.1 Images from DNA. Source Aldhaus [1]

44

6 Identification: Forensics and DNA Databases

age progression apps is free and had more than 100 million downloads on Play Store by the end of 2020. Physical characteristics, particularly ear shape, mark an individual. The ear lobe shape, for example, is dictated by several genes, so it is essentially a display of a portion of a person’s genetic blueprint. Do the lobes dangle or attach at the base? Ear shape may prove to be as unique as a fingerprint [17]. A person’s iris patterns are apparently complex enough to be uniquely distinguishing. In addition, iris recognition is non-intrusive, and fast. It has been used to identify inmates to assure that released prisoners are indeed who they are supposed to be. Harder to counterfeit than fingerprints, less ethically disturbing than prisoner number tattoos [3]. A new fingerprint technique can help identify not only “who” but also “when”. Using mass spectrometry and knowledge about the degradation characteristic of residual triacylglycerols allows forensic experts to estimate the time elapsed from the leaving of the fingerprint to the present [5]. And add heartbeat to the list of distinguishing characteristics. Fingerprints and passwords are one-time security keys, but heartbeats can provide a continuous signal. For example, heartbeat monitoring can detect not only who has asked for entry into a secure area, but who is now in that area. And, one researcher says, ““You can leave your fingerprint everywhere. If you put your hand on a glass, your fingerprint will be there.” Similarly, high-resolution photographs can contain enough information for facial or even iris recognition programs to work. Our heartbeats, by contrast, do not leave our biometric data sitting out in the open” [16]. Other individual marks include microbe and scent clouds that accompany every individual and at some level are probably unique to that individual, consisting of outgasses, evaporating sweat, dust, particles from clothing, and particles from our skin, scalp, and hair [6]. There is even a machine that is learning how to smell; it can predict how a molecule will smell based on the molecule’s structure. Google’s team is using machine learning to develop this capability. So, in the future, in addition to fingerprints, voice prints, and facial recognition, there may well be smell ID [9]. Trace quantities of airborne chemicals may be detected and identified, to the level of parts per billion in almost real time. This has been possible in the past using Gas Chromatography—Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) techniques but this method requires hours or days to obtain results; a new technique is using a laser, shining on a metallic nanomaterial that has trapped the suspected gas particles. This new technology will permit forensic technologists to determine “air contamination following a natural disaster, chemical spill or illegal dumping of toxic waste, so that emergency responders can take appropriate action” [13]. Easy access to databases that contain behavioral attributes of individuals like arrest records, athletic prowess, and scores on intelligence tests, and simultaneously to databases that list genetic information those individuals and other identifying characteristics such as iris patterns, and even smell, will likely be used to create regression equations that may show the relationship between physical characteristics

6.2 Discussion

45

(including genetic information) and behavior. We should be wary of this new kind of stereotyping that may assert without sufficient proof; for example, that violent behavior runs in families or that all people with red hair are irascible. That slope is very slippery.

6.3 Tripping Points Practically, the focus of this chapter is the use and manipulation of data. Data represents a tool to identify potential mal-intent, but it is also a gold mine for terrorists, enabling them to achieve their objectives. They can steal, manipulate, destroy, or insert data; they can do almost anything they want with data to serve their interests. In a world increasingly based on data, this risk is worrying and of growing concern. The threat is augmented by the accelerating developments in IT and breakthroughs in emerging technologies in fields such as biology and cognitive science, and the synergies among them. While these improve the data value, they also open new possibilities for terrorists. Several applications were presented and discussed here; they might result in both, more tripping points, as well as new ways to fight terrorism. These include: • Data manipulation by terrorists to obfuscate a crime or create mayhem may include theft, destruction, modification of existing, or insertion of falsified data. • Fake genealogy is also likely to become a terrorist tool. • Future technology will make it possible to positively identify terrorist suspects through combining genealogy databases with other big data sources for identification, which include personal identifiers such as gait, voice, face, scent, ear shape, heartbeat, and iris patterns. • Technology for discovering the time at which a fingerprint was made and the construction of mugshots from DNA information are useful additions to the mix of counter-terror tools. • Software will be available to counter-terror investigators to show how appearance of particular individuals might change with age. Recognizing the threats and opportunities implicit in this list will help strengthen counter-terrorism policies and activities. However, some of these possibilities infringe the right to privacy, a right that democracies hold dear. A new social contract might be needed to assure population’s agreement and cooperation for collecting and using personal data in comprehensive databases with millions of peoples’ profiles. Although citizens volunteer much of the data available about themselves, they should be consulted about the uses of that data. Regulations must recognize the need for data collection and the rights of citizens to their privacy. For example, the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [7] that aims to harmonize data privacy laws across EU’s member states requires prior consent of citizens for the collection and use of their private data. However, most sites that do require the prior consent only give the options to accept or

46

6 Identification: Forensics and DNA Databases

refuse the data collection and in case of refusal, the site can’t be accessed. Therefore, private data is collected “with citizens’ consent”, but there is no control over its security or potentially malicious use.

References 1. Aldhaus P (2014) Genetic Mug shot re-creates faces from nothing but DNA. New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129613-600-genetic-mugshot-recreatesfaces-from-nothing-but-dna/. Accessed 26 Sep 2019 2. Berman M, Selk A, Jouvenal J (2018) We found the needle in haystack: golden state killer suspect arrested after sudden DNA match. The Washington Post. https://www.washingto npost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/04/25/golden-state-killer-suspect-arrested-in-one-ofthe-worst-unsolved-crime-sprees-in-u-s-history/. Accessed 20 Apr 2020 3. BI2 Technologies, Biometric identification. https://bi2technologies.com. Accessed 27 Dec 2020 4. Bowker M (2018) Unsolved mystery. Sacramento Magazine. https://www.sacmag.com/2018/ 09/28/unsolved-mystery/. Accessed 26 Dec 2020 5. Coxworth B (2020) Fingerprint dating tech could thwart lying criminals. New Atlas. https:// newatlas.com/science/fingerprint-dating/. Accessed 24 May 2020 6. Crew B (2015) Humans can be identified by the unique ‘Microbial Cloud’ that surrounds them. Sci Alert. https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-can-be-identified-by-the-unique-mic robial-cloud-that-surrounds-them. Accessed 27 Dec 2020 7. European Union (2018). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Regulation (EU) 2016/679, applicable as of May 25th. https://gdpr-info.eu/. Accessed October 24, 2020. 8. FBI, CODIS-NDIS statistics. https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/biometric-analysis/ codis/ndis-statistics. Accessed 26 Dec 2020 9. Harrison S (2019) Now machines are learning how to smell. Wired. https://www.wired.com/ story/now-machines-learning-smell/. Accessed 25 May 2020 10. Jouvenal J (2018) To find alleged golden state Killer, investigators first found his great-greatgreat-grandparents. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-saf ety/to-find-alleged-golden-state-killer-investigators-first-found-his-great-great-great-grandp arents/2018/04/30/3c865fe7-dfcc-4a0e-b6b2-0bec548d501f_story.html. Accessed 20 Apr 2020 11. Kaiser J (2019) We will find you: DNA; search used to nab golden state Killer can home in on about 60% of white Americans. Science. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/we-willfind-you-dna-search-used-nab-golden-state-killer-can-home-about-60-white. Accessed 2 May 2019 12. Kim J, Edge M, Algee-Hewitt B, Li JZ, Rosenberg N (2018) Statistical detection of relatives typed with this joint forensic and biomedical loci. Cell. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/ S0092-8674(18)31180-2. Accessed 2 May 2020 13. Nanyang Technological University (2019) New technology can identify Airborne chemicalsdown to parts-per-billion. ScienTech Daily. https://scitechdaily.com/new-technology-can-ins tantly-identify-airborne-chemicals/. Accessed 25 May 2020 14. Russell J (2017) Updated look at GedMatch. Leg Geneal. https://www.legalgenealogist.com/ 2017/03/26/updated-look-at-gedmatch/. Accessed 20 Apr 2019 15. Sanchez R, Madeline H, Cheri M (2020) Golden state Killer sentenced to life in prison. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/21/us/golden-state-killer-sentencing/index.html. Accessed 2 Nov 2020 16. Scharping N (2020) Your heartbeat can give away your identity, like a fingerprint. OneZero. https://onezero.medium.com/your-heartbeat-can-give-away-your-identity-like-a-fin gerprint-43760bc0004e. Accessed 10 June 2020

References

47

17. Shaffer JR et al (2017) Multiethnic GWAS reveals polygenic architecture of earlobe attachment. AJHG. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.10.001. Accessed 27 Dec 2020 18. Skelton G (2019) Skelton: golden state Killer will test Newsom’s death penalty stance. Los Angeles Times. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/28/skelton-golden-state-killerwill-test-newsoms-anti-death-penalty-stance/. Accessed 1 May 2020 19. Zuniga H, ND 10 best age progression apps for android and iOS. Regendus. https://www.reg endus.com/best-age-progression-apps/. Accessed 30 Jan 2021

Chapter 7

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Weapons

7.1 Flash Scenarios 7.1.1 Scenario 7.1 Request for Proposal Master Security Technology Research Company (commonly called by its stock symbol MASTR) is a start-up company with headquarters in the Cayman Islands, rumored to be a large-scale money laundering operation of a global crime syndicate. They recently issued a request for proposal (RFP) that has aroused the interest of many robotics companies, chip manufacturers, university laboratories, and drone enthusiasts around the world, not to mention terrorists and counter-terrorism organizations. The RFP was: MASTR intends to issue several contracts that total as much as 10 billion USD in order to obtain an experimental micro-drone apparatus that meets the following specifications: • Each micro-drone in the system must have a minimum range of ten miles, a top speed of no less than 50 miles per hour, and be able to move on its own power to a given pre-programmed location, perform a programmed function and return autonomously to its starting point. • Each micro done must be capable of flying as part of a swarm of 1,000 such micro drones. • The programmed function requires a 6-axis manipulation of the payload. • Each micro drone must be capable of carrying a payload of at least 3 lb. • Using facial or other characteristics it should be capable of selecting one person from a crowd of 10,000 people and delivering a payload to that person.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Y. Sharan et al., Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror, Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72571-6_7

49

50

7 Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Weapons

• The delivery error rate must be demonstrated to be less than 1 in 10,000, given a recent photographic image of the target person with resolution of 10 megapixels. Since the photo may have been taken 10 years earlier, artificial aging of the image may be required. Please submit your expressions of interest and outline your proposals to the email address on the MASTR home page. The RFP ran on the MASTR home page and in social media. There were over 450 responses and expressions of interest. Most of the comments suggested that MASTR was a fraud, that the specifications were impossible to meet, or that MASTR was trying to “pick the brain” of legitimate manufacturers. But through all the noise, 25 potentially qualified organizations attended the bidders’ conference. Shortly afterwards the project went underground and no more was heard about it until several years later when a sudden, tragic, and unexpected event occurred. Newspapers reported: DRONES ATTACK CONGRESS. Drone Swarm Picks Targets for Assassination Washington, DC: Yesterday, just after noon, hundreds, maybe thousands of micro drones less than 2 inches in diameter were launched from an unknown source above Washington DC. The drones flew in formation toward the capital and hovered there apparently seeking out specific targets… It is suspected that the drone swarm and the control and targeting system came from Project MASTR. DoD is releasing no further information.

We had been warned. Ten years ago, in a very realistic but fake TED talk, the dangers of autonomous weapons were highlighted in a video designed to influence public opinion against autonomous weapons [25]. In the hearings that followed, the USAF Chief of Staff was asked: “Where the hell were the microwave swarm-defense trailers?”

7.1.2 Scenario 7.2 Algorithms and the Pandemic The stay-at-home restrictions (due to the Corona-19 pandemic) had been largely lifted in our city after several months of required isolation, and next month I was turning 90, feeling healthy and glad to be free. We would have a nice quiet celebration at our favorite local restaurant, nothing fancy; just my wife and I. Maybe a salad after all those meals built from Peapod home deliveries, frozen dinners, and occasional take-outs. When we made our reservation we were told that there had been a few changes: the restaurant had been rearranged to increase separation between tables (good idea) and that patrons were being screened at the entrance to identify anyone who had some symptoms of a coronavirus infection (also a good idea). There was a line at the entrance, moving quickly as the greeter waved a digital thermometer at the next in line (great plan). When our turn came, we were asked to

7.1 Flash Scenarios

51

step out of line. “Fever?” I asked. “No” was the answer. “It’s your age. We are only seating guests who are under the age of 60.” I was incredulous and said as much. The greeter answered: “Don’t you know that the disease is essentially confined to the elderly?” He pulled out a chart to show me. “See these Chinese data? They say it all: we serve about 250 people every day. At the rates shown in China we would be unlikely to have any infected people if everyone were younger than 50; but if everyone were older than 60, we would be likely to have 5 infected people, so we have restricted our clientele to the younger set. Sorry about that, but it’s now our policy.” I was flustered. “Don’t you know that age bias is illegal?” I was making that up. We left in a huff. AARP and ACLU joined forces and brought suit in Federal Court to have cities and states rescind their age-based restrictions; it’s destined for the Supreme Court. We and others that have joined the suit think we are not likely to win, because the cold algorithms have identified how best to achieve economic recovery: restrict access of people who are most likely to infect or be infected. It’s a case of cold algorithms over warmer human feelings.

7.2 Discussion Artificial Intelligence is both a promise and a curse to terrorism and its pre-detection. A promise because it may help pick up otherwise undetectable clues and “connect the dots” among seemingly independent occurrences that point to a planned attack. And it is a curse because AI can be used as a means to automate attack decisions made by the weapons themselves. Further, in some future dystopia artificially intelligent machines could, according to the definition of terrorism presented in Chap. 3 (with very small changes), be viewed as terrorists. Super intelligent general-purpose machines, using algorithms we no longer control or perhaps even understand, could control world affairs and view human society as inconsequential or irrelevant. Will such machines be considered terrorists? The physicist Steven Hawking said that successful development of effective AI could be the biggest achievement of mankind. However, he also warned that it could be the worst. We cannot know, he said, if AI will be helpful to humanity, or if AI will ignore or even distroy humanity [17]. In the film “Do You Trust This Computer?” Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and Space X, goes even further and argues that a takeover by super intelligent machines spells doom for humankind. He is quoted as saying AI could become “an immortal dictator from whom we could never escape” [14]. Might we hear the machines say, as did the monster in Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, “You are my creator, but I am your master; Obey!”? [24]. Before the time of machine ascendency, autonomous weapons are likely to come on the scene. These weapons will have clear-cut rules of engagement that specify the requirements for an independent robot to pull a lethal trigger, for a missile system that is launched from the other side of the world to destroy its target, or for an IED to

52

7 Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Weapons

detect whether a boot on the ground ten feet away is worn by a friend or a legitimate target. Artificial intelligence is becoming smart enough to replace humans in lethal decision loops, near or far, large or small. With machine decisions, human frailties are avoided and enemies cannot use psychology or game their defensive moves. The rules of engagement can be embedded in algorithms that reflect policy. They are spelled out in impersonal no-nonsense “do this and you die” computer code. Algorithms are instructions, recipes for decision making, usually embedded in computer code and based on models built from extensive data. Even the Bible gave us algorithms for living: the Ten Commandments. The problem is that internet algorithms (or digital algorithms in general) are designed with no ethical, democratic, or accountability principles in mind. Sometimes the results are not what we expect and can be embarrassing or dangerous, like the time when Google had to apologize when its facial recognition program labeled two black people as gorillas [19], or when an algorithm at Facebook allowed ads to be targeted to “Jew-haters” [2]. The failure of the UK Oqual (Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation) algorithm for university admission decisions [13] is just a new example of how the use of AI could impact the whole course of peoples’ lives. The algorithm favored students from private schools, while disadvantaging students from less privileged communities. The built-in biases show that algorithms inherit the values and flaws of the systems in which they are created. They can expand discrimination and furthermore, they are exposed to interference from potentially malicious intent. Even with such chances for error, algorithmic “shoot to kill” decision-making is alluring. Algorithms remove the human element from the process and require that the conditions under which the trigger will be pulled are completely defined. Using algorithms removes personal responsibility for consequences of the action and even responsibility for collateral side effects. But assigning lethal responsibility to machines is very dangerous; and yet, as artificial intelligence improves, it becomes seemingly inevitable in our futures. Simple systems come first. Let us imagine a land mine destroyer. The target is another machine; the program is simple: find it, blow it up if no one is around for ¼ mile. But the rules of engagement for killer drones are much more complex when human targets are involved. Following are some cases in which humans took a risk and departed from programmed responses that might have been followed by an autonomous system and in so doing, the humans saved the world from a nuclear war. Reports of an incident in 1983, in the Soviet Union, indicate how close the world came to annihilating itself. At the height of the Cold War in a bunker south of Moscow an early warning system signaled that the Soviet Union was under nuclear attack by the United States. A Molnya satellite transmitted a warning that an American Minuteman ICBM, probably carrying multiple nuclear warheads had been launched from the USA. Then the warning was reinforced with information that four more missiles were in flight and targeting Russian cities. Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov, commander of the post, 44 years old, had the responsibility to push the counter-attack button under these circumstances; it was blinking, but Petrov held his fire and defied protocol. Later he said, “When people start a war, they don’t start it

7.2 Discussion

53

with only five missiles,” he said. “You can do little damage with just five missiles.” And he added: “Second, the computer is, by definition, brainless. There are lots of things it can mistake for a missile launch.” He was not called a hero in the Soviet Union; quite the opposite, he never made full colonel. But he was a hero to the West and received the Dresden Peace Prize in 2013. He died in 2017 [3]. On October 22, 1962, President John F. Kennedy imposed a naval blockade of Cuba in what has become known as the Cuban missile crisis. The blockade, usually considered an act of war, was imposed because the USA had discovered that medium range nuclear weapons capable of striking major cities in the United States, including Washington and New York, were being deployed in Cuba [12]. The Soviet submarine B-52 was submerged in the waters outside of Cuba and believed it was under attack by USA forces that were dropping depth charges. Under these circumstances, officers aboard the submarine had the option to launch a 10-kiloton nuclear torpedo against enemy ships. The protocol however called for three of the officers to vote to launch unanimously; only two agreed; Vasili Alexandrvich Arkhipov was the hold out. Had the torpedo hit its mark, World War III might have started1 ; instead, Arkhipov averted war and much later, in 2017 was awarded the “Future of Life Award” [7]. It was like the movie “War Games” in which a teenage computer hacker intrudes into a military war simulation and manages to create a situation that might start a real war. In 1983, a NATO war exercise known as Able Archer 83, almost led to a real war. It was a war game with real world consequences that were almost tragic. The Soviets apparently misinterpreted NATO practice war moves. The extent of the threat became more fully apparent only when classified papers relating to Able Archer 83 became public in 2013. Apparently, the Soviets misinterpreted NATO moves that were part of Able Archer 83 as a cover for a real intent to strike; these moves included “…a 170-flight, radio-silent air lift of 19,000 US soldiers to Europe, … the shifting of commands from ‘Permanent War Headquarters’ to the ‘Alternate War Headquarters’; the practice of ‘new nuclear weapons release procedures’ including consultations with cells in Washington and London; and the ‘sensitive, political issue’ of numerous ‘slips of the tongue’ in which B-52 sorties were referred to as nuclear ‘strikes’” [31]. Other indicators on the list that led to the belief that war was imminent included the USA moving to a state of general alert and that “some US aircraft practiced … nuclear warhead handling procedures, including taxiing out of hangars carrying realistic-looking dummy warheads.” The Soviets alerted their troops and moved to higher states of readiness and the NATO military officers might have been expected to respond to the increasing readiness of the Soviets. The declassified report of the incident says Lieutenant General Leonard Perroots, Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, US Air Forces Europe, made the decision not to escalate, but describes the decision as “fortuitous, if ill-informed” and states that these officers acted correctly out of instinct, not informed guidance. The final posting of the declassified Archer 83 episode included this thought: the “war scare was an expression of a genuine belief on the part of Soviet leaders that US was 1 That

potential is described in astonishing detail in the “what if” essay by Robert O’Connell, “The Cuban Missile Crisis; Second Holocaust” which appeared in [6].

54

7 Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Weapons

planning a nuclear first strike, causing [Soviet] military to prepare for this eventuality, for example by readying forces for a [Soviet] preemptive strike” (Ibid, Part 3) [31]. Maven is a Yiddish word meaning expert, a sage and scholar, an egghead with a practical bent, and conveying at least a hint of wisdom with a hint of a smile; in other words, it’s good to be called a maven. But the word was also shorthand for a US Department of Defense project designed to introduce artificial intelligence to battlefield decision-making, ultimately using machine learning and algorithmic systems to make life and death calls on lethal attacks. The more formal name of the project was “Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Function Team (AWCFT)”; it was designed to use machine learning to help identify likely terrorist targets from drone-captured images and sensor data, and while the official storyline placed humans in the loop most people saw the possibility of closing the loop and allowing the Maven-equipped drones to launch their explosive weapons if the algorithms showed high levels of confidence about the nature of the potential targets. The project has adopted an unusual logo, shown in Fig. 7.1, as its official seal. What an incredible lapse of judgment to show images of smiling and happy robots designed to find and probably to kill the enemy and nearby collateral, unlucky people! It is probably a significant error in judgment likely to produce more opposition than support and in incredibly bad taste to say the least. The motto in the logo “officium nostrum estadiuvare” translates to “Our job is to help.” But help whom and under what circumstances? [23]. Perhaps it was inevitable that one of the first uses anticipated for artificial intelligence was closing the loop in weapons. The IFF systems of World War II were designed to identify friends or foes, the modern electronic version of the medieval Fig. 7.1 The official seal of the Project Maven. Source Disruption in UAS. The Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team (Project Maven); Presentation by Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan, OUSDI Director for Defense Intelligence (Warfighter Support). March 20, 2018

7.2 Discussion

55

“who goes there” challenge. In those early electronic warfare systems (1940), a radar signal from an airplane, ship or submarine triggered a receiver in the challenged craft and the coded return identified it as a friend or foe. A human then interpreted the blips on an oscilloscope or other visual display and took appropriate action. With IFF systems becoming much more sophisticated and with the advent of artificial intelligence that is increasingly viewed as being reliable, it is no wonder that autonomous systems that do not depend on human decision-making are being considered. This takes the onus away from humans and allocates decisions to algorithms that produce unambiguous “yes” or “no” answers. The systems can’t waffle and their human operators cannot be assigned the blame if anything goes wrong. The authoritative Bureau of Investigative Journalism [4] keeps score on the number of drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen; they estimate that between 2014 and 2018 almost 6,000 strikes were launched killing between 8,000 and 12,000 people of whom 1,000–2,000 were civilians. As of today, the loop has not been closed: the current USA military anti-terror drone system is a mix of intelligence on the ground obtained through traditional means of espionage, drones capable of launching Hellfire missiles with precise accuracy against designated targets, pilots of the remote-control drones located in Florida, command and control personnel to review the “capture or kill command,” troops on the ground if the decision is capture rather than kill. Nothing is autonomous, out of caution to avoid killing the wrong person, injuring civilians, or a hundred other errors and mistakes [30]. Two troubling directions for the evolution of such weapons are miniaturization, and swarming. Hobby drones are already tiny, they can take off from a forefinger, and are capable of carrying payloads—cameras and automated guidance systems and other devices. The US Army has awarded a 2.6 million-dollar contract to FLIR Corporation, a manufacturer of thermal imaging cameras located in Wilsonville, Oregon to provide an advanced version of their Black Hornet drone. France and Australia have used versions of the drone for almost a decade. The company describes the drone as including two UAV sensors, a controller, and display. They describe the system on their web site as “equip(ing) the non-specialist dismounted soldier with immediate covert situational awareness” [10]. The soldiers using the quadcopter drone launch it to scan the area; it returns to them when the reconnaissance is complete. Industry sources, reporting on the contract said: “The Black Hornet Personal Reconnaissance System is the world’s smallest combat-proven nano-drone, according to the company. The US Army has ordered the next-generation Black Hornet 3, which weighs 32 g and packs navigation capabilities for use in areas outside of GPS coverage. The drone, which has advanced image processing from earlier versions can fly a distance of two kilometers at more than 21 km an hour and carries a thermal micro camera” [1]. Now to the other troubling vector of change: swarming. In 2017, a Youtube video called Slaughterbots [25] was released by the Future of Life Institute, an organization that warns about the possibility of autonomous weapons.2 The film was 2 See

flash scenario 7.1.

56

7 Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Weapons

extremely realistic, simulating a TED talk, and showed a Hercules aircraft dropping what appeared to be thousands of small drones programmed to remain a short distance away from each other, behave as a swarm, and using facial recognition or other means of identification, to hunt and attack specific people or groups. In the video, the drones carried a small explosive shaped charge and when they found their targets, exploded to kill them. It was a masterful production, extremely realistic. It went viral with over 2 million views [22]. Readers who want to watch the film (recommended) should go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA; it is a frightening film in which weapons have been given the authority to make the decision to kill. Perhaps in response to such concerns, the US Air Force has developed an antiswarm weapon called Thor (not to be confused with the Thor Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) [20] developed by the Air Force in the late 1950s). The new Thor is an electronic counter-measure directed energy defensive weapon, a relatively portable microwave system designed to neutralize short-range swarms of autonomous drones [18]. Similar systems are being developed for use at longer ranges. Even though the systems are relatively portable, the question is: where will they be when they are needed? How much time do we have before autonomous weapons are an everyday reality? Not much. USA Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, speaking at a public conference on uses of artificial intelligence in 2019 said: “The National Defense Strategy (of the USA) prioritizes China first and Russia second as we transition into this era of great power competition. Beijing has made it abundantly clear that it intends to be the world leader in AI by 2030.” “President Xi has said that China must, quote, “ensure that our country marches in the front ranks when it comes to theoretical research and this important area of AI and occupies the high ground in critical and core AI technologies.” “For instance, improvements in AI enable more capable and cost-effective autonomous vehicles. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army is moving aggressively to deploy them across many warfighting domains. While the U.S. faces a mighty task in transitioning the world’s most advanced military to new AI-enabled systems, China believes it can leapfrog our current technology and go straight to the next generation.” “In addition to developing conventional systems, for example, Beijing is investing in low cost, long-range, autonomous and unmanned submarines, which it believes can be a cost-effective counter to American naval power. As we speak, the Chinese government is already exporting some of the most advanced military aerial drones to the Middle East, as it prepares to export its next generation stealth UAVs when those come online. In addition, Chinese weapons manufacturers are selling drones advertised as capable of full autonomy, including the ability to conduct lethal targeted strikes” [9]. Reality overtakes speculation about autonomous swarms. A report issued following Secretary Esper’s speech makes it clear that the USA and several other countries are far along in the process of fielding such weapons and they appear to be so powerful that one aspect of the debate surrounding them is whether or not they

7.2 Discussion

57

should be classed as weapons of mass destruction. As is the case that definitions of terrorism are scattered, so are definitions of WMD. This lack of agreed-to definition means that it is not clear whether the drone swarms fall under existing international treaties and agreements.3 Development and testing proceed, nevertheless. One swarm weapon is called Armed, Fully-Autonomous Drone Swarm, or AFADS; this is the type of weapon described as a “slaughterbot” in the video referenced earlier in this chapter. In a small-business solicitation, the Department of Defense sought contractors who would develop, “… missile launched payload consisting of multiple quad-copters. The missile will release the quad-copter payload during flight, after which the quad-copters must decelerate to a velocity suitable for deployment (unfolding), identify potential targets, maneuver to and land on the target, and detonate onboard Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP) munition(s). Potential targets include tank and large caliber gun barrels, fuel storage barrels, vehicle roofs, and ammunition storage sites. The ultimate goal is to produce a missile deployable, long range UAS swarm that can deliver small EFPs to a variety of targets” [29]. Zak Kallenborn, a senior consultant at the US Air Force Center for Strategic Deterrence Studies, in a report that considered if swarms qualified as WMDs, had this to say: “Attack drones carry weapons payloads. Sensing drones carry sensors to identify and track potential targets or threats. Communications drones ensure stable communication links within the swarm and with the command system. Dummy drones may absorb incoming adversary fire, generate false signatures, or simply make the swarm appear larger.” The composition of a heterogeneous swarm could be modified to meet the needs of a particular mission or operational environment. The capability to swap in new drones has been demonstrated on a small scale. In the future, providing a drone swarm to an operational commander could be akin to supplying a box of Legos. “Here are your component parts. Assemble them into what you need…” “Drone swarms could be effective in assassination attempts due to the ability to overwhelm defenses. However, the lack of stealth means they are likely to only appeal to actors unconcerned with (or desire) their role being known. In some circumstances, drone swarms could function as anti-access, area-denial (A2/AD) weapons” [16]. If terrorists can master the technologies involved (target recognition and interdrone communications) it appears that drone swarms could be useful to terrorists, particularly in missions designed to attack special protected targets and even wipe out political or military leaders of a nation, as anticipated in the video Slaughterbots. To sum up, one can see that AI-enabled autonomous weapons are potentially a future technology that might be available to terrorists and increase their capability to pose a significant threat to strategic targets, some of them unreachable before. However, they can also help—as they are already—fight terrorism by facilitating reconnaissance, communication, and targeted attacks with reduced collateral damage. As both AI and autonomous weapons are evolving, so are the related opportunities and threats.

3 For

a discussion of the various definition of WMD see [5].

58

7 Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Weapons

7.3 Tripping Points Artificial Intelligence and machine autonomy represent the main tripping points in this chapter. Although promising, these technologies have their dark side, including opening new opportunities to terrorists. Putting aside for the moment the larger questions of whether AI will ultimately “take charge” of civilization, some tripping points are lurking in the uses of algorithms and their applications on the one hand, and the emergence of some new counter-terror steps on the other hand. These include: • Algorithms that decide on human matters are emotionless and probably contain hidden biases. • These technologies (AI and automated decision-making) may be cooperative or antagonistic toward the human society. • AI can help identify terrorists and prevent their activities, but controlling terrorists’ access to AI has to be addressed. • AI-enabled technologies highly impact the development of new systems of values. They could lead to a more democratic and/or safer society, but also to a dictatorial, controlled world order with a handful of companies and/or governments having monopoly over the algorithms, databases, and their uses. This could seriously increase the spread and power of terrorism. • The forces leading toward autonomous weapons, tiny drones and drone swarms are strong and the decision to deploy or use such weapons will be a significant tripping point. • Autonomous weapons can help deter or prevent terrorism, but can also serve terrorists in accomplishing their objectives. Autonomous weapons might be used as political assassins, seeking terrorists and their leaders, or, if used by terrorists, for killing legitimate politicians or other persons deemed to be enemies. As the developments of AI and autonomous weapons are accelerating, so are intensifying the debates over the ethical aspects associated with them. Most countries and several international organizations, corporations, think tanks and academia are conducting studies and dialogues on the ethical use of AI. New Zealand became the first country to set standards for government use of algorithms [26], the European Commission put forward a European approach to Artificial Intelligence and Robotics [8], while the UN started dialogues for setting guiding principle for AI development [15, 27]. The USA National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) is an independent federal commission that assesses the implications of AI and related technologies developments worldwide, to support USA policy making and national security [21]. While autonomous weapons development continues at ever increasing speed [11], efforts to ban them altogether are also increasing worldwide. Organizations like the Ban Lethal Autonomous Weapons (autonomousweapons.org) and the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (icrac.net) lead worldwide efforts for slowing

7.3 Tripping Points

59

down the development and deployment of such weapons unless their ethical and safe use is secured—which would be extremely difficult. The UN covers the emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). In 2016 an open-ended Group of Governmental Experts was established and since then, several meetings have been held. In principle, LAWS fall under the same international laws, particularly the International Humanitarian Law as other weapons [28]. They apply to State as well as non-State actors. However, while guidelines and protocols can help reduce proliferation, enforcement and prosecution remain a tripping point. Who would be accountable if an autonomous weapon commits a war crime? Will it be the programmer, the army, the manufacturer, the entity that launched it? Whether it’s about terrorist or counter-terrorism organizations, these questions remain valid and have yet to be addressed.

References 1. Al-Heeti (2018) Here’s the Tiny Drone the US army just purchased for soldiers. C/NET. https://www.cnet.com/news/heres-the-tiny-drone-the-us-army-just-purchased-for-sol diers/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018 2. Angwin J (2017) Facebook enabled advertisers to reach ‘Jew haters’. Pro-Publica. https://www. propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-advertisers-to-reach-jew-haters. Accessed 5 Nov 2020 3. Bennetts M (2017) Soviet officer who averted cold war nuclear disaster dies at age 77. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/18/soviet-officer-who-averted-coldwar-nuclear-disaster-dies-aged-77. Accessed 30 Dec 2018 4. BIJ (Bureau of Investigative Journalism) (2017) Drone warfare. https://www.thebureauinvest igates.com/stories/2017-01-01/drone-wars-the-full-data. Accessed 29 Dec 2018 5. Carus WS (2012) Defining weapons of mass destruction. National Defense University, Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a577317. pdf. Accessed 5 June 2020 6. Cowley R (ed) (2003) What Ifs? of American history. Berkley Books, New York 7. Davis N (2017) Soviet submarine officer who averted nuclear war honored with prize; Vasili Arkhipov, who prevented escalation of the cold war by refusing to launch a nuclear torpedo against US forces is to be awarded new “Future of Life” prize. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/27/vasili-arkhipov-soviet-sub marine-captain-who-averted-nuclear-war-awarded-future-of-life-prize. Accessed 30 Dec 2018 8. European Commission (2020) Artificial intelligence. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-mar ket/en/artificial-intelligence. Accessed 3 Aug 2020 9. Esper MT (2019) Remarks by secretary Esper at national security commission on artificial intelligence public conference. US Department of Defense. https://www.defense.gov/New sroom/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/2011960/remarks-by-secretary-esper-at-national-sec urity-commission-on-artificial-intell/. Accessed 14 Nov 2019 10. FLIR Corporate Web Site. https://www.flir.com/. Accessed 10 Jan 2019 11. GAO (US government accountability office) Unmanned aerial systems. https://www.gao.gov/ key_issues/unmanned_aerial_systems/issue_summary. Accessed 29 Dec 2018 12. Glass A (2009) Kennedy imposes naval blockade of Cuba. Politico. https://www.politico.com/ story/2009/10/kennedy-imposes-naval-blockade-of-cuba-oct-22-1962-028584. Accessed 31 Dec 2018

60

7 Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Weapons

13. Hao K (2020) The UK exam debacle reminds us that algorithms can’t fix broken systems. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/20/1007502/uk-examalgorithm-cant-fix-broken-system. Accessed 22 Aug 2020 14. Holley P (2018) Elon Musk’s Nightmariash warning. The Washington Post. https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2018/04/06/elon-musks-nightmarish-warning-aicould-become-an-immortal-dictator-from-which-we-would-never-escape/. Accessed 8 June 2020 15. ITU (2018) United Nations Activities on Artificial Intelligence (AI). https://www.itu.int/dms_ pub/itu-s/opb/gen/S-GEN-UNACT-2018-1-PDF-E.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2020 16. Kallenborn Z (2020) Are drones weapons of mass destruction? U.S. Air Force Center for Strategic Deterrence Studies Air University Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. https://www. airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CSDS/monographs/MONO60%20Drone%20Swarms%20as% 20WMD.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2020 17. Kharpal A (2017) Steve hawking says AI could be the worst event in the history of our civilization. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/06/stephen-hawking-ai-could-be-worst-event-incivilization.html. Accessed 7 June 2020 18. Liptak A (2019) The US air force has a new weapon called THOR that can take out swarms of drones. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18701267/us-air-force-thor-new-wea pon-drone-swarms. Accessed 22 June 2020 19. Moscaritolo A (2015) Google apologizes for racist photo tagging results. PC Magazine. https:// www.pcmag.com/news/google-apologizes-for-racist-photo-tagging-results. Accessed 5 Nov 2020 20. NMAF, National Museum of the Air Force (2019). https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/ Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196751/douglas-sm-75pgm-17a-thor/. Accessed 22 June 2019 21. NSCAI. https://www.nscai.gov/reports. Accessed 2 Aug 2020 22. Scharre P (2017) Why you shouldn’t fear slaughterbots. In: IEEE spectrum technology engineering and science news. https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/military-robots/whyyou-shouldnt-fear-slaughterbots. Accessed 11 Jan 2019 23. Shanahan J (2018) Disruption in UAS the algorithmic warfare cross-functional team (Project Maven). Presentation by Lt. Gen. Shanahan, OUSDI Director for Defense Intelligence (Warfighter Support) 24. Shelley M (2018) Frankenstein: the 1818 text. Penguin Classics 25. “Slaughterbots”, YouTube (2017). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA. https://thenextweb.com/artificial-intelligence/2017/11/14/this-fictional-video-about-ai-pow ered-weapons-makes-the-terminator-look-like-a-disney-film/. Accessed 29 May 2019 26. The Guardian (2020) New Zealand claims world first in setting standards for government use of algorithms. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/28/new-zealand-claims-world-firstin-setting-standards-for-government-use-of-algorithms. Accessed 31 July 2020 27. UN, Towards an ethics of artificial intelligence https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/tow ards-ethics-artificial-intelligence. Accessed 4 Aug 2020 28. UNODA (2019) Convention on certain conventional weapons—group of governmental experts on lethal autonomous weapons systems. https://meetings.unoda.org/meeting/ccw-gge-2019/ Accessed 15 Dec 2020 29. US Department of Defense (2017) Cluster UAS smart munition for missile deployment. Small Business Innovation Research project. https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/1207935. Accessed 6 June 2020 30. Velkovich B (2017) What it’s like to control a predator drone. Wired. https://www.wired.com/ story/control-predator-drone-brett-velicovich/. Accessed 2 Dec 2020 31. War Scare (2015) The 1983 war scare declassified and for real; all source intelligence report finds us soviet nuclear relations on hair trigger in 1983. The National Security Archive, George Washington University. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb533-The-Able-Archer-WarScare-Declassified-PFIAB-Report-Released/. Accessed 30 Dec 2018

Chapter 8

Challenges in Space

8.1 Flash Scenarios 8.1.1 Scenario 8.1 Dust in Orbit Scene: The annual International Symposium on Counterterrorism is underway this year in Rome. The poster presentations outside of the main auditorium offer eavesdropping equipment, anti-hacking telecommunications services, and intrusion protection. At a plenary session taking place in the auditorium are 1,500 engineers and scientists hoping to learn what terrorists might be trying next in space and the consequences for their jobs and companies if terrorists were to try to use space as a venue. A distinguished professor of aerospace sciences from Cal Tech is speaking. Speaker: There are now 35,000 pieces of space junk being tracked by NORAD. That big number is growing. In 2019, India decided it would show Pakistan and the world that it was a power to be respected so it demonstrated its satellite kill capability by sending a small satellite into orbit and then launching an anti-satellite missile to destroy the target. Bammm! Ten thousand more objects in orbit. NASA screamed: “Irresponsible!”1 There are digital computer programs in operation at half a dozen labs predicting the collisions of major pieces of junk with facilities in orbit like the International Space Station (ISS) and communications satellites. Since it is also possible that two pieces of space junk will collide with each other and generate smaller pieces of junk and that these will in turn collide and generate still smaller pieces of debris, we are faced with a new kind of entropy: the number of pieces in orbit will grow exponentially while the average size of the debris will diminish. There will be a distribution of particles: 1 Such

an event really took place; see https://www.newsweek.com/nasa-chief-india-endangered-int ernational-space-station-1382712 [6]. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Y. Sharan et al., Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror, Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72571-6_8

61

62

8 Challenges in Space

imagine normal distributions of numbers and mass of junk pieces, peaking at some modal values and tailing off to smaller particles of less mass. The threat from these small pieces of junk (we call them SPJ’s) will diminish at some point, when their mass is so small that they cannot be reasonably expected to inflict damage on the most delicate satellite antennas, instruments, or structures (we call this the Space Orbital Debris Accommodation Point or SODA point for short.) Our mission at the lab is to get to the SODA point as soon as possible. There are a few ways to go after this objective. First, we try to issue warnings of pending collisions so that maneuverable particles or the satellites with which they seem to be about to collide can be maneuvered away from an impact. When maneuvering is not possible which is most of the time for most of the SPJ’s, we issue warnings which at best are of the sort that say “brace for ramming.” And, of course, we have made major contributions to the UN’s Space Junk Vacuuming Program (SJVP) which will be fully operational in 3 years if thing go well. This program has received a lot of media attention so I won’t detail it here, but I’m sure you have the general idea, just as there were programs to collect plastic debris from whirlpools in the mid-Pacific, we intend to collect the tons of debris in orbit and return it to earth or shoot it into the sun; but that’s another story for another time. There will be one major area for initial collection: mid earth orbit—150 to 200 miles from earth. Low earth orbit particles will take care of themselves, decaying from orbit and burning up in the atmosphere for sure, over time. And for the near future we are not too concerned about higher orbits or the Lagrangian points, those points in space where there is perfect balance between the earth’s and moon’s gravitational attraction, where high orbit junk must eventually accumulate. What will we do with the junk pile once we get it here? We intend to return it to its country of origin if we can identify it, for burial, proper disposal, or souvenir manufacture. A few audience snickers and polite laughter followed this minor joke, but halfway around the world, a few dark characters weren’t laughing; they were listening intently. The first one said, “There it is: our course is clear, we must interfere with their efforts to clean up space; deny them space. We will be remembered as are our brothers who surprised them on 9/11 and now rest in eternal paradise and will remain in the minds of infidels everywhere forever. We will be as audacious and unexpected as the 9/11 disrupters were. Let us put our minds to the issues! What disruptive materials can we place in orbit and how can we get them there?” The second one said, “Fragmentation is the key. A big block of something deliberately exploded near sensitive targets in orbit. Billions of little nano pieces and in retrograde orbit, if possible, going against the traffic to double the collision speed. It will raise the impact energy by a factor of four.” The third one said, “I understand your argument for a retrograde explosion but slowing the particles will hasten their departure from orbit. Better to go with the

8.1 Flash Scenarios

63

flow. And as for the material, what about a big block of very dense plastic foam? Light enough to launch but ….” The first one interrupted, “No, too mundane. We need fragments that will out-gas, spawn other fragments, and make the common orbit paths a dim fog across the electromagnetic spectrum. Let us consult with our physics experts at the university before we make a decision. As for the means of achieving orbit, the approach is simple enough: we buy space on a commercial rocket, masquerading as a heavy scientific payload, as our 9/11 brothers bought passenger tickets on the planes they were about to commandeer. Security will be very lax if there is any at all. The payload simply has to look scientific, but it will be a bomb of great capacity designed to place billions of particles in orbit at the right time and place. I also think I know the targets: they are the military reconnaissance satellites of the USA, China, Japan, and Russia. Without these satellites, their military space doctrine will be shredded. We will be famous.” And so it goes. Launch was yesterday. Alarm today. Repercussions tomorrow. In the meantime, space has become a terrorist arena.

8.1.2 Scenario 8.2 Death Threat A few weeks ago, cyber hackers placed a threatening notice on the screens of principal communications networks around the world; it is reproduced here verbatim: ‘We want you to know that there is a massive nuclear H Bomb over your heads capable of great destruction and able to reach any point on earth in less than 30 min. Once launched, it cannot be recalled. We call it Earth Watch. We have designed it to encourage all nations to replace the chaos that rules their affairs with a new civility, based on mutual respect, peace, survival, and rationality. We do not intend to impose our view of what is right but only to call a halt to policies that lead to self -destruction.’ ‘On the 30th day of next month at 1301, an Earth Watch missile will strike a designated target to demonstrate its capabilities. The warhead will be greatly attenuated and the target will be an uninhabited atoll in the Pacific Ocean (latitude XXXXX, longitude YYYYY). We invite all nations to sail their vessels to positions 10 miles off shore, to record the impact and judge its accuracy. It will be dangerous for anyone to encamp on the atoll; they will die when the demonstration missile strikes. You are warned.’ The appointed date is only one week away. You can imagine the global recriminations, warnings, accusations of ineptitude, preparations for recording the missile’s flight to trace its origin, outcries about the militarization of space, political uncertainties raised by the notice, a few pockets of supporters saying “maybe they are right— whoever they are; we need some oversight.” Many more said “who the hell are they to tell us how to live?” (although no such instructions had been offered). Construction contractors were already offering quickie fall-out shelters. Expeditions to the atoll

64

8 Challenges in Space

(at least to off shore anchorages) were being offered: “make your reservations now; the coast line is getting crowded.” Some critics warned that the message came from aliens who would invade earth after we were subdued; others said it was “greenie activists”, and then there were skeptics who said it was a global hoax, perpetrated by hackers for the amusement of all. Have the military or civilian watchers of things in earth orbit (or for that matter in solar orbit) detected a new presence? Those agencies were mostly silent. Navies had been dispatched, reconnaissance flights scheduled, astronomers alerted. Was it real or the day-dreams of a 13-year-old with a PC?

8.1.3 Scenario 8.3 Who Has the Right Time? Scene: Clean room of a satellite payload manufacturer. Two workers in white smocks are talking in low voices. Worker 1: Ten microseconds; that’s the error that this little chip, this insignificantlooking piece of firmware will introduce into the GPS system. No one will find it before the launch because it won’t kick-in until after the launch. The error will come suddenly on September 11, at 0759 EDT. No one will miss the timing coincidence with the twin towers attack. Worker 2: Remarkable. But won’t they just take the satellite down and switch to another satellite? Worker 1: Yes, but when they switch they will get a second surprise: this “special” chip is in 85% of the satellites already orbiting up there, courtesy of the Chinese chip manufacturer. It’s been in the system for three years now. And it’s in the encrypted version used by the military of the USA, China, and Russia, too.

8.2 Discussion Terrorists may well find opportunities in space. When satellites are placed in orbit to do a specific job such as reconnaissance or communications, they gain economic and military significance. What space objectives could terrorists find attractive? In some future scenarios, terrorists, perhaps supported by rouge nations, might hold these resources captive by interfering or threatening to interfere with their operation or security. Or maybe they will try to blind cameras, cause mayhem in communications, interfere with the clocks that are at the heart of GPS, fool the satellites that warn of attack by other nations thus triggering an uncalled-for war, or try to execute 100 other missions that show their technical prowess, to gain followers or to hurt their enemies.

8.2 Discussion

65

But you argue, how can they get there? How can they raise the billions necessary to mount a space mission? With some ingenuity billions will not be required. They can remain on the ground and subvert legitimate missions, they can infiltrate and divert national space programs, or they can place their own payloads in orbit. There are undoubtedly other modes, but these few illustrate the threat. Space is becoming more accessible to ordinary citizens. Private profit-making companies now send payloads and people into orbit. SpaceX now has over 240 satellites in orbit and plans to launch 40,000 more in the next ten years [1]. The USA cleared the way for the growth of private industry in space when in 1984 it passed Commercial Space Launch Act. This far-reaching legislation gave responsibility for encouraging and managing the development of private space businesses to the Department of Transportation. When the USA closed down its space shuttle program in 2011, private companies took on missions to transport humans and cargo to the orbiting International Space Station. Now there are almost a dozen companies building rockets for private missions, including delivery to orbit and passenger space tourism, launch systems that involve automated recovery and reuse. Companies such as Space X, Scaled Composites, Virgin Galactic, and Blue Origin with rockets named Falcon, New Shepard and SpaceShip. Two commercial spaceports, designated for either horizontal vertical launch, now exist or are underway in Oklahoma, Alaska, Virginia, California, New Mexico, Georgia, Colorado, and Texas, and in Europe and the Middle East. In 2001, Dennis Tito took a ride on a Russian Soyuz rocket and spent 8 days in the International Space Station. The ride and the orbital vacation cost Mr. Tito $20 million and started the era of private passenger manned spaceflight. Now, a few decades later passengers are lining up for their chance to see earth from 100 miles up. The commercial route will be bumpy but executives and enthusiasts already speak of commercial mining of asteroids, moon bases, and Mars colonization. Launching small micro-sats is already a business; deflection of asteroids heading for earth could be part of a future business plan; orbital garbage clean-up could become a big private enterprise; and providing lunar rocket boosters for NASA may be in the cards. In a Congressional testimony, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said that the agency would consider using commercially designed and operated rockets to launch its lunar crew capsule, rather than the NASA Space Launch System, the key to travel into deep space. So, where does terrorism fit? Everywhere. Take GPS for example. Many countries own their own systems, but all rely on high precision atomic clocks in orbit and the tolerance for timing error is very small. In 2016, an error of 13 µs occurred when the US Air Force decommissioned a GPS satellite and fed to the remaining satellites an erroneous mis-timed signal. For the next 12 h, systems using GPS failed, alarms rang world-wide, and GPS system administrators were called out of bed to help straighten out the mess. The 13 µs error was not terrorist-induced, but might have been. In Europe, in another incident, the European Space agency said that three of its 36 rubidium atomic frequency standard clocks in its 18 satellite Galileo system had failed and that “these failures all seem to have a consistent signature, leading to

66

8 Challenges in Space

an explanation of probable short-circuits, and possibly an inadequate test procedure performed on the ground” [4]. If hackers could get on the command frequencies and had knowledge of the command codes used by these satellites, they could simply shut them down or otherwise interfere with their missions. Since many of these satellites are vital to infrastructure on earth, interference could mean trouble with electricity distribution and transmission systems, water systems, communications, transportation, and literally thousands of other earth systems that require accurate timing. If the hackers could also gain control of the position of maneuverable satellites they could change their orbits and threaten collisions with other orbital systems. Blackmail schemes might be their objective or simply to create chaos. In any event, it would not be a pleasant situation [1]. There’s a role for terrorists hoping to destroy or at least put into question the validity of all systems dependent on very accurate time signals from GPS satellites. One of our scenarios “Who has the right time?” is based on a cabal in which workers at sites preparing and testing replacement GPS satellites insert programs that throw off the timing of their units in unison at a fixed future time. Only takes a microcircuit or two and a random microsecond or two. And then, from the terrorist’s perspective, glorious time errors—a few microseconds here or there—in orbit and massive chaos on the ground. Without GPS, autonomous cars and trucks lose their position references and crash. Mission controllers lose their in-flight recon drones. Navigation systems fail in small sloops as well as warships and in aircraft from general aviation to wide body passenger jets. Cell towers go down. Electric utility transmission companies will lose the ability to match up the voltage sine waves of different power generation systems. As the use of drones spread, they too become more vulnerable to GPS failures or spoofing. Golfers on greens throughout the world lose track of where their golf balls have landed. But hardest hit of all may be the global financial system that depends on fractions of a microsecond to coordinate and record the sale and purchases of equities and bonds, to balance accounts, and in the authentication of transactions including those made on ATMs. The missing or extra fractions of a microsecond can cause chaos or collapse of those institutions. We need simulations to probe the full consequences of simultaneous failures of GPS primary and backup systems. Six independent GPS systems are in operation: the USA, Russia, China, the European Union, India, and Japan. If one system goes down, can the others serve as back up? Maybe not for months after a system goes down, given the different transmit and receive frequencies of the ultra high frequency (UHF) signals involved. But the attacks on GPS systems do not have to be global to be damaging; they can be local. In April 2016, South Korea accused North Korea of launching an attack on the GPS system used by South Korea (probably the USA system). Reuters reported that South Korea claimed detecting interference signals coming from the direction of Haeju and Mount Kumgang, which could be intended to interfere with GPS signals. Reportedly, some 70 of the 332 fishing vessels that had left the port of Sokcho that day had to return earlier, due to GPS malfunctions [7].

8.2 Discussion

67

Reports of GPS spoofing and jamming cyberattacks have also been seen. Spoofing is the deliberate attempt to confuse the location or timing systems by using a device that sends a false GPS-appearing signal to a local GPS receiver; it can be activated at a preset time or by a signal from a remote operator, and, for example, divert an aircraft or trigger a crash of a garbage truck or military tank. Or in a less sophisticated but perhaps more threatening mode, simply blanket an area with jamming signals that deny reception of GPS signals in the USA to all receivers tuned to the US GPS frequencies of 1575.42, 1227.6, or 1176.45 MHz. Russia is supposed to be the leader in spoofing attacks with over 9,000 reported by March 2019 [2]. Radio amateurs, “hams,” are permitted to operate in the USA in the 23-cm band (1240–1300 MHz) and commercial equipment—transmitters, receivers, antennas, etc., are available in that range from radio supply houses. A decade ago, a full-scale, real-life experiment showed how the US GPS system, at least the civilian unencrypted version, could be spoofed. An MIT report said, “Led by GPS expert Todd Humphreys, the researchers used a handheld device they built for about $2,000. It generates a fake GPS signal that appears identical to those sent out by the real GPS. The two signals reach the targeted system in perfect alignment. The strength of the fake signal slowly ratchets up and overtakes the real one” [8]. In an experiment conducted with a volunteer yacht in the Mediterranean, off the cost of Italy, the spoofing researchers managed to shift the yacht’s course three degrees to the north and even trick the boat’s GPS system that the yacht was under water. GPS spoofers are already available on the Internet for $225 [3]. But wait! If GPS systems go down, are there backups? One proposal is to use location data derived from the billions of things interconnected on the IoT, to locate one’s self, or indeed any other object. The concept is known as the Localization of Things (LoT) and even works in areas that are difficult for conventional GPS because of electrical noise or reflective surfaces [5]. The terrorist threat in space goes beyond incapacitating the GPS systems. When the price of a ballistic trip to space or a round trip to a space station for adventure or tourism drops to $1,000 and space tourism becomes much more common, security agencies will have new lines of travelers to examine because of the threat of hijacking, diversion, or blackmail. Will we be ready? If terrorists masquerade as scientists and enter space stations ostensibly to conduct zero g experiments, a whole new panorama of possibilities opens. Or as the price of placing a satellite in orbit drops, lax security coming from the tedium of familiarity would allow terrorist satellites to become a menace. Two of our scenarios illustrate these possibilities, but there are thousands of other possible future stories. Have these scenarios told us about tripping points? Orbital junk cleanup missions may be very important. Orbital payloads must be subject to careful security inspection. Orbital missions particularly those launched by rouge countries under the thrall of terrorism need to be watched, inspected, and verified to be safe. It would be an error to ignore such possibilities. And workers who contribute to construction and testing of sensitive payloads such as GPS satellites need to be scrutinized as intensely as the passengers and crews of commercial jet aircraft.

68

8 Challenges in Space

8.3 Tripping Points As space opens new opportunities for terrorists, it is crucial to identify the weaknesses and the various tripping points challenging space systems and operations. These are vital for building more secure space structures. Some of the tripping points include: • Advanced security of space missions, given that targeting of space resources by terrorists becomes increasingly possible. • Degrading or destroying GPS could be a terrorism strategy. This could be realized through spoofing, jamming, or other techniques. • Terrorists could be space passengers or could masquerade as scientists (or actually be scientists) on the ISS. • Through various techniques, terrorists might attempt to blackmail, hijack, or otherwise interfere with space missions. Achieving even some of these potential threats can put in danger national space programs and many projects and activities on the ground, which depend on the success and availability of space systems. Even more extreme: these activities could falsely coax the world into space warfare.

References 1. Akoto W (2020) How Hackers could shut down satellites or turn them into Weapons. https:// scitechdaily.com/hackers-could-shut-down-satellites-or-turn-them-into-weapons/. Accessed 11 Dec 2020 2. Cimpanu C (2019) Report Deems Russia a pioneer in GPS attacks. Zero Day. https://www.zdnet. com/article/report-deems-russia-a-pioneer-in-gps-spoofing-attacks/. Accessed 19 Dec 2020 3. Goodin D (2018) A $225 GPS spoofer can send sat-nav-guided vehicles into oncoming traffic. Ars technical. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/07/a-225-gps-spoofer-cansend-autonomous-vehicles-into-oncoming-traffic/. Accessed 19 Dec 2020 4. Johnson TA (2017) Failing clocks in space worry for India’s GPS. The Indianexpress. https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/failing-clocks-in-space-worry-forindias-gps-4721918/. Accessed 19 Dec 2020 5. Matheson R (2019) New system helps smart devices find their position in places GPS fails. SciTechDaily. https://scitechdaily.com/new-system-helps-smart-devices-find-their-position-inplaces-gps-fails/. Accessed 11 Dec 2020 6. Mosher D (2019) India’s anti-satellite missile test may have created 6500 pieces of space Junk Larger than a Pencil Eraser, according to a new simulation come. Business Insider. https://www. businessinsider.com/india-anti-satellite-missile-test-space-debris-cloud-2019-3. Accessed 11 Dec 2020 7. Reuters (2016) South Korea says fishing vessels turn back after north disrupts GPS signals. https://www.reuters.com/article/northkorea-southkorea-gps-idUSL3N1741IT. Accessed 11 Dec 2020 8. Rutkin AH (2013) ‘Spoofers’ use fake GPS signals to knock a yacht off course. MIT Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/517686/spoofers-use-fake-gps-signals-toknock-a-yacht-off-course/. Accessed 11 Dec 2020

Chapter 9

The Little Things Sometimes Count

9.1 Flash Scenarios 9.1.1 Scenario 9.1 The Frog Metaphor It happened a little at a time in increments so small that they were hardly noticed. You know the old fable: put a frog in boiling water and it will jump out, but put the frog in tepid water and then gradually bring it to a boil and the frog will cook. Here’s how our freedom went; we can barely remember the steps. First, a significant number of people were convinced that the media were telling lies and were the enemy of the people. Second, political opponents could and should be locked up. Third, the executive branch was superior to the legislative and judicial branches and therefore could unilaterally shape their policies and opinions. Fourth, that continuance of political careers required loyalty to entrenched leaders. Fifth, the spread of the general opinion that votes of individuals in elections didn’t matter since the process was corrupt, have always been and would remain so forever. And finally, acceptance of the notion that political opposition was tantamount to treason. Where did these ideas come from? They were planted deliberately in social media. What made them viable? People believed them.

9.1.2 Scenario 9.2 Had Hitler Died… How tiny does an event have to be to alter history? How about lasting less than a half a second and moving less than a millimeter? The time was 1927 at a political rally in Munich. Hitler, still a largely unrecognized political figure, was part of a protest crowd that was shouting down a speaker. From all reports, the mob was © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Y. Sharan et al., Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror, Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72571-6_9

69

70

9 The Little Things Sometimes Count

creating chaos, rushing the stage when security police, who were present to protect the speakers, opened fire on the mob. Two people dropped. One was a man next to Hitler, who fell to the ground, mortally wounded. Was it unkind fate that chose that anonymous person to take the bullet? How many fewer people would have died over the next two decades had the bullet been a millimeter to the right?1

9.1.3 Scenario 9.3 The Infinitesimal Shrinking Camera Moore’s Law is often used to demonstrate the acceleration of computer technology, showing that the maximum number of transistors in an integrated circuit has been doubling roughly every year. Remarkably, that trend has been also accompanied by accelerated lowering of costs, increased processor speeds, and diminishing size of the devices powered by integrated circuits. These attributes have resulted in machines of greater and greater capacity, lower and lower costs, and smaller and smaller size. All simultaneously! Nowhere are the consequences of these trends more obvious or impressive than in still and video photography. There is no longer a distinction between the two incidentally—all is video and if you want a still picture to hang on your wall you just pull it from the video stream. But the camera itself is where the genius lies. Cameras are small, tiny, and can become small enough to be almost invisible. By 2020, the Chinese had produced a camera that had a resolution of 500 megapixels; it could pick out a single face in a stadium of 50,000 people [1]. Together with the required electronics for image storage or export, cameras today are typically the size of a grain of salt and they cost about the same, that is to say they are essentially free. In the 20s almost everyone in the Western world who lived in a house that had an outside door had a doorbell camera that communicated with their smart phone. No matter where you were, you could see who was at the door. That is a recollection of a quaint time gone by; now cameras are mixed in paint, imbedded in the threshold concrete, sparkling on Christmas wreaths, floating on streams of water that irrigate lawns, the dew on the flowers, the spices you use on your food, your wrapping paper and delivery boxes. With this plethora of images (how many? In the trillions per hour) one no longer says “show me what’s on camera one, two or three,” but instead, “who is in the neighborhood” or “where are the kids.” And, of course, police searches have taken on a new dimension since the Supreme Court has ruled that images from micro cameras are public property. Yes indeed, these small things have made a big difference.

1 Some historians record seven deliberate assassination attempts on Hitler’s life before he was elected

in 1933. Any of these, if successful, would have changed the course of history [3].

9.2 Discussion

71

9.2 Discussion 9.2.1 Small Thefts Remember the proverb: “for the want of a nail the shoe was lost”; and the loss of the shoe led to the loss of a horse, a rider, a battle in a chain of causality similar to what we see in our lives, everyday. This mini scenario teaches that small things can ultimately make a huge difference. For example, in the late seventeenth century, it was common for counterfeiters to clip small shavings from English silver and gold coins in circulation and to melt the clippings into new but illegitimate coins, stamped from counterfeit dies or cast using counterfeit molds to resemble real coinage, indistinguishable on the basis of metal analysis because the metal was truly gold or silver. The currency was widely mistrusted and the British government had trouble borrowing money from other nations to finance its military adventures. In a little known, but well documented footnote to history, the great physicist, Isaac Newton, was appointed Warden of His Majesty’s Mint in London to help solve the problem of coin shaving and its consequent debasing of currency. He set about not only recasting all coinage, a Herculean task, but also taking down the most egregious counterfeiter of the time, William Chaloner. The chase was ultimately successful and in its telling, resembles a Sherlock Holmes mystery [10]. Today, thieves have written software that does something similar: it rounds down every transaction and deposits these small amounts to their own accounts. Almost no one who loses money through the rounding down notices or is willing to argue about the very small discrepancies in the bills. Stories like this abound and may be based on a kernel of truth but most are undoubtedly apocryphal. The technique of skimming the round off is known as “salami slicing,” as in slicing a salami into ever thinner slices, or eating a thin slice before the loaf is sold as a whole salami. Is salami slicing of financial flows really terrorism? Most people would probably say “no” because the sums are usually small and the objectives distinct from those usually associated with terrorism. But suppose the salami slicing paradigm was applied to classified information; only small thefts, please, one at a time, so no one notices. Big thefts of classified information have become obvious and have had large repercussions; Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers, and Chelsea Manning and Wikileaks are examples that immediately come to mind. But small thefts may be overlooked. Suppose authorities detected that only one page out of a file of 10,000 pages (albeit an important page) had been leaked, or that only 10 names from a database of a few million had been compromised. Salami slice style? Would the leaks have been even reported and become notorious? Data breaches are so frequent that we are becoming inured to them; breaches have occurred in files of companies such as Citrix, Walmart, Toyota, Dunkin’ Donuts [13], Target, Yahoo, and even 300 universities in the USA and 21 other countries [12]. Can our cyber security systems detect small leaks too?

72

9 The Little Things Sometimes Count

A famous story that began with a salami slicing fraud investigation was told by astronomer Clifford Stoll, who found a 75-cent discrepancy in one of his computer accounts at Berkley, and decided to track down its source. In the process, Stroll found the intruder was using his (Stoll’s) computer to gain access to classified computers and download classified material. Stoll documented the cyber-chase in his 1989 book: The Cuckoo’s Egg and in an interview is quoted on C Span as saying: “The guy who was caught was a 26-year-old computer programmer named Markus Hess who would steal information from American military computers and retail it to the Soviet Union for $20,000–$30,000 a year [4].” He was arrested in Germany and convicted for espionage—breaking into military and sensitive comercial coputers for selling information to the Soviet Union [4]. But alas, many (if not most) stories of salami slicing frauds prove to be urban legends. Perhaps, as when Bonnie and Clyde were seen as folk heroes, salami slicers gain a measure of credit from us as clever thieves. Case in point: “A programmer working at a mail-order sales company had its computer round down odd cents in the company’s sales commission accounts and channel the round-downs into a dummy sales-commission account he had established under the name of Zwana. He had invented the name Zwana because he knew that the computer processed the company’s accounts in alphabetical order, and he could easily program the computer to transfer all the round-downs into the last account in the computing sequence. The system worked perfectly for three years, and then it failed—not because of a logical error on the culprit’s part, but because the company, as a public-relations exercise, decided to single out the holders of the first and last sales-commission accounts on its alphabetical list for ceremonial treatment. Thus, Zwana was unmasked, and its creator fired” [11]. There was a notable fraud design popular a few years ago that illustrates how a little information might have made this approach irresistible. The phone rang one quiet afternoon in our house and the caller said, “Hi Grandpa: I am at the police station in (a distant city) and I need your help; they want to lock me up. I was just in a car with some other kids who had some hallucinogens—not mine—and they brought us all in. I don’t want my father to know so could you please help? They have given me the number that you can wire the fine to.” Well, first a feeling of alarm and an overwhelming need to help this person who said he was my grandson, but since my grandchildren call me “Poppy”, not Grandpa, we clearly had a fraud in progress. I said, “Bug off, kid,” but called the police in the city he said he was calling from, just to check. He knew enough about me to make the call, probably through hacking into a database that had my age and gender. But imagine if he had a bit more information and had said “Hi Poppy…” That would really have gotten my attention. Why did he single me out anyway? Easy enough to reason I was likely to have grandchildren based on my age, and a 50/50 chance one was a boy. But if he had more information he could have manufactured a fake kidnapping with a reasonable chance of succeeding. I called the FBI anyway and found out that this kind of fraud was fairly common. While security agencies use AI to identify likely terrorists and their plots, aspiring criminals and nascent terrorists will also be using AI offensively. Some data scientists

9.2 Discussion

73

ran an experiment to see whether an AI program was better at getting Twitter users to click on malicious links than a human. For example, in an experiment, SNAP-R was able to send spear-phishing tweets to over 800 users at a rate of 6.75 per minute and reaching 275 victims, while the Forbes staff writer who participated in the experiment was only able to reach 49 users in the same time. The experiment showed how AI can empower hackers for their malicious acts. Such acts are also difficult to identify and prove [5]. Or suppose the fraud was not a theft of information but an insertion. What should we call that? Not salami slicing but “baloney inflation” perhaps, also one slice at a time. One can imagine false accounts, false identities, false classified papers, false school records, manufactured sales receipts, and athletic records for achievements never realized in the real world, resulting in distrust of systems, parallel credentialing, and massive downtime to reestablish trust in the integrity of systems.

9.2.2 Butterflies and Chaos In 1961, Edward Lorentz, a meteorologist, was building a computer model to produce long-range weather forecasts. After making an initial run, he repeated the run a second time, beginning from the midpoint of the first run to save computer time. He supplied the first run’s midpoint values and repeated the first simulation from that point. The first few simulated days showed nearly identical weather forecasts as the original, but after a number of additional simulated days, the results began to differ and soon became entirely different. He traced the differences to the minor rounding of the input data. This extreme sensitivity to initial conditions has been called the “butterfly effect” suggesting that changes in the atmosphere as small as the gentle flap of a butterfly’s wings could produce massive changes in weather some days later [7]. This proved to be an important event in the wider understanding of chaos theory. In chaos theory, a non-linear deterministic equation that is producing chaotic behavior is exquisitely sensitive to initial conditions and parametric values in the simulation equations. Changing the starting point by 1 part in several million or billion or trillion can lead to vastly different output within a relatively short number of cycles. This is illustrated in Fig. 9.1 [8]. It displays the difference between two forecasts made with the same equations that differ only in their starting points by one part in a million. There is essentially no difference in the forecasts of first 30 days or so and then the two forecasts are no longer similar. If we were forecasting possibility of a large-scale terrorist attack rather than the weather some days in the future, this kind of sensitivity to initial conditions would make our conclusions quite tentative. The science fiction novelist, Ray Bradbury captured this sensitivity to minute changes in his short story about travel back in time. In his story, time travel back to the Cretaceous is available to big game hunters who want to bag a dinosaur. Aware of the “grandfather paradox” (what if when you go back in time you kill your grandfather?) the time travel company has carefully laid out a path from which the hunters must not deviate and designated animals that will soon die of natural causes

74

9 The Little Things Sometimes Count

0.6

Difference

0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8

0

50

Fig. 9.1 Effect of an Initial difference of one part in a million. Source Gordon and Greenspan [8]

as prospective targets. A time traveler from the present buys a trip back in time to hunt T-Rex dinosaurs. The guides will have set up a safe path for visitors from the future. The hunters are warned not to stray from the path. In the story, our hunter inadvertently steps off the safe path and crushes a butterfly. (Interesting coincidence with Lorentz’s “butterfly effect”). The travel guides are upset, of course. When the hunter returns to the present he finds a different, slightly skewed world: a different President, words spelled differently, language has changed [2]. Moral: terrorists need make only small changes in initial conditions of complex systems to achieve very large downstream effects.

9.2.3 Memes We make our way to the future on paths determined by millions of prior tripping points like Bradbury’s or Lorentz’s crushed butterflies. Some seemingly insignificant crushed insects of our past are memes—ideas that are culturally embedded and passed from person to person as truth to live by. Like other tripping points, memes have the potential for creating massive future changes. Following are two examples. First, the idea that the media is the enemy of the people. This is a meme promoted by President Trump that has important consequences for the evolution of terrorism and its power. On June 15, 2019, President Trump referred to a New York Times story [14] about the USA penetrating Russia’s power grid with preemptory cyber controls. He said: “Do you believe that the failing New York Times just did a story stating that the United States is substantially increasing Cyber-attacks on Russia. This is a virtual act of treason by a once great paper so desperate for a story, any story, even

9.2 Discussion

75

if bad for our Country………ALSO, NOT TRUE! Anything goes with our Corrupt News Media today. They will do, or say, whatever it takes, with not even the slightest thought of consequence! These are true cowards and without doubt, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!” [16]. The media and terrorism are intertwined in a complex dance: the media reports terrorism incidents and these reports help sell papers and attract audiences, but these stories also help glorify the terrorists and their acts and thus aid in recruitment and funding of terror. The media might refrain from using the names of terrorists in their reports and not report at all on kidnappings or ransom demands until the situation is resolved. And the President might refrain from inciting the public against an institution that should help guarantee free speech and assure a free society. Another instructive meme, also a falsehood, is the claim that measles, mumps, and rubella immunization and autism are linked. This meme started with an article in the respected medical journal Lancet in 1998 “that sparked an international crisis of confidence in the safety of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine when its lead author suggested a link between the vaccine and autism” [6, 17]. The original article was based on only 12 children and was later deemed fraudulent and withdrawn by Lancet. When it was originally published, sensational media reports raised significant doubts about side effects of the vaccine and social media and word of mouth distributed the misinformation. Vaccination rates fell and as a result: measles reached epidemic proportions in certain places. The US Center for Disease Control reports that in the USA well over 1000 cases of measles have been reported in 2019, from a low of 100 cases in 2016 [9]. The suspected relationship has been proven to be utterly false. A meta-analysis reporting on over 1 million children who received the vaccination, found no relation between vaccination and autism [15]. But memes die hard; in March 2019, Facebook implemented a policy designed to limit vaccine misinformation on its site, but Instagram was still a hotbed of antivax hashtags. Perhaps this meme is partially responsible for distrust in the COVID-19 vaccines. Why in this book about terrorism are we concerned with medical disinformation? Because this particular piece of misinformation, this meme demonstrates how easy it is to implant false information and how difficult it is to change. If terrorists create memes that work in their favor, will we be able to turn them off or even find them?

9.3 Tripping Points We thus conclude that small things, small events can start a sequence of events that may end with a significant negative effect. Terrorists might seek scenarios which yield huge results with small investments and better yet, function below the threshold of detection. One should take such possibilities into account, including: • Terrorists could seek to cause chaos with small, sometimes undetectable triggers.

76

9 The Little Things Sometimes Count

• Terror need not be explosive like 9/11 or a mass killing like the episode in Las Vegas. Imagine a slow process such as gradual “salami slicing” from a sensitive bank account or a large scale but very slow poisoning of a target city or race. • Terrorists might attempt to destroy integrity of databases by inserting false information. • An anti-vaccination meme could be encouraged through social media in an effort to prolong the coronavirus chaos. • Using complex system theories and modeling, terrorists could identify small but important events which, if enacted, could impact the future in the way they wish. • Disinformation could be used by terrorists to achieve their goals, but also by counter-terror forces for constructing terrorist-attracting honey pots. And the few examples presented here are only the tip of the iceberg.

References 1. Borak M (2019) This 500-megapixel camera created by Chinese scientists can pick out a single face in a stadium. Line Today (Abacus). https://today.line.me/hk/v2/article/This+500+ megapixel+camera+created+by+Chinese+scientists+can+pick+out+a+single+face+in+a+sta dium-9Re7Er. Accessed 28 Dec 2020 2. Bradbury R (2005) A Sound of Thunder and Other Stories. William Morrow Paperbacks 3. Budanovic N (2016) The Many attempts on hitler’s life before WWII. War History Online. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/blowing-fuhrer-attempts-hitlers-lifewwii-x.html. Accessed 30 Dec 2020 4. C Span (2018) Cliff catches a spy. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4735970/cliff-catches-spy. Accessed 17 June 2019 5. Dvorsky G (2017) Hackers have already started to weaponize artificial intelligence. Gizmodo. https://gizmodo.com/hackers-have-already-started-to-weaponize-artificialin-1797688425. Accessed 23 Dec 2020 6. Dyer C (2010) Lancet retracts wakefield’s MMR paper. BMJ 340:c696. https://www.bmj.com/ content/340/bmj.c696.full. Accessed 23 Dec 2020 7. Gleick J (1987) Chaos: making-new science. Viking, New York 8. Gordon T, Greenspan D (1988) Chaos and fractals: new tools for technological and social forecasting. Technol Forecast Soc Change 34:1–25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/0040162588900212. Accessed 17 June 2019 9. Howard J, Goldschmidt D (2019) US measles outbreak is the largest since the disease was declared eliminated in 2000. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/health/measles-out break-record-us-bn/index.html. Accessed 23 Dec 2020 10. Levenson T (2009) Newton and the counterfeiter. Mariner Books 11. Mikkelson D (2001) The Salami embezzlement technique. Snopes. https://www.snopes.com/ fact-check/the-salami-technique/. Accessed 17 June 2019 12. Newman LH (2018) The worst security breaches of 2018 so far. Wired. https://www.wired. com/story/2018-worst-hacks-so-far/. Accessed 7 July 2019 13. Rajagopal A (2019) Top five cyber security breaches of 2019 so far. Cyber Security Hub. https:// www.cshub.com/attacks/articles/top-5-cyber-security-breaches-of-2019-so-far. Accessed 7 July 2019 14. Sanger DE, Perlroth N (2019) US escalates online attacks on Russia’s power grid. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/15/us/politics/trump-cyber-russia-grid.html. Accessed 19 June 2019

References

77

15. Taylor LE, Swerdfeger A, Eslick G (2014) Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidencebased meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Vaccine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/24814559. Accessed 8 July 2019 16. Trump D (2019) Twitter. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1140065304019644427. Accessed 19 Dec 2020 17. Wakefield et al (1998) Retracted: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lan cet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext. Accessed 8 July 2019

Chapter 10

The Fuzzy Line; Are We at War?

10.1 Flash Scenarios 10.1.1 Scenario 10.1 A Canary Society It seems a lot has gone wrong in our society: most things are not as good as they used to be. Old folks sigh with nostalgia about the “old days” and young people write off these recollections as a sign of old age and beginnings of dementia. But we have some hard evidence that things, some things at least, are going to hell. We seem to be winning on some societal fronts: population growth has slowed, war fatalities have dropped, and poverty seems to have lost its grip even in the poorest countries; but the feeling of malaise is abundant and everywhere. Philosophers, social psychologists, and statisticians have all searched their disciplines for the “old days” in numbers and analysis: are we really falling into a pit from which we cannot escape? Citing Occam’s razor, some theoreticians argue that the simplest explanation is that we are being manipulated, attacked with invisible physical and social technology. Others say “nonsense, we’re doing it to ourselves. The past is a chimera, an illusion, a daydream, a wish for a simpler time. It never existed.” Out of this debate comes the notion of our current “canary” society in which experimental tests and quantitative data establish what ought to be. For those of you puzzled with the “canary” term, there was a time in the early twentieth century when coal miners carried caged canaries with them into mines; as long as the canaries lived, the atmosphere was breathable; if they died, then methane or carbon monoxide

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Y. Sharan et al., Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror, Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72571-6_10

79

80

10 The Fuzzy Line; Are We at War?

gasses were present and the mine was unsafe. The canaries were sentinels; we now have many such sentinels. The Society of Hospital Volunteers consists of teams of people who simulate the symptoms of various diseases and grade doctors and hospitals for their correct diagnosis. By measuring the rates of correct diagnoses over time with a large enough sample, a continuing and statistically valid assessment of the state of diagnostic skills can be tracked. Are things getting better or worse? Similarly, the Society of Public Voters tests voting systems by members recording their votes before voting officially and then observing whether or not the system has faithfully returned their intended votes. The Society for Accurate News Reporting plants a story and follows its reporting officially and in the blogosphere. As in the past, education attainment tests have been employed to monitor the state of education systems. And other sentinel species are employed—fish, mollusks, etc.—to monitor the state of water and environmental quality. The point is that we now have a quantitative idea of whether things are getting better or worse along many frontiers and this assessment lets us understand, at the earliest time, whether or not systems that are necessary for our society to function are under attack. But we have not yet answered the questions of response. We know, as well as anything can be known, that the Russians interfered with USA elections in 2016. In other times this might have been considered an act of war, or at least a demonstration of terrorist capability; but the overt USA responses have been feeble and as far as is known, the interference continues. Political realities limit the possible responses. We have a committee studying problems of response to covert attacks. The list of possible attack modes is long, but the list of response possibilities is distressingly short. And so it goes.

10.1.2 Scenario 10.2 Pipe Dreams We, the brotherhood, have in our hands the power to change the course of our struggle without bullets, bombs, or further bloodshed. I know that may be hard to grasp after all we have been through, but hear me out. See the powder in this vial? It is a new type of synthetic opioid called “Yellow Oberon” after one of Shakespeare’s fairies, but its street name is “torpedo,” because much of the drug is smuggled into the United States by our quiet submarines. The drug is like fentanyl but 100 times stronger. One grain inhaled gives an irresistible high, 2 grains even just on the skin makes it addictive; 10 grains ingested kill. It is so powerful that ordinary doses of Naloxone or even Nalmefene do not reverse its effects. And it can be brewed in kitchen labs using only over the counter chemicals

10.1 Flash Scenarios

81

that are abundant and difficult, maybe impossible, to trace. No, we’re not going into the illicit drug business, although that might be quite lucrative and a welcome collateral consequence of our plan; we are going into the business of mind capturing. Why is it called torpedo? Not only because it comes by submarine but because it sinks initiative. Once taken, it becomes the center of life itself. Just as the British caused the drug epidemic of 10 million Chinese in the nineteenth century by forcing Chinese ports to engage in trade of Indian opium, a practice that had been previously illegal in China, we will introduce “torpedo” in the West and make it free and easy to find everywhere. It will melt the West’s will.

10.1.3 Scenario 10.3 The Protection Racket It was forecasted to be the hottest day of the year. The city was just waking up to unexpected chaos. The Philadelphia Inquirer morning edition had a headline that read: “Philadelphia Refrigerators and Freezers Held Hostage; Food Spoiling; Stench Over the City.” The newspaper’s report read as follows: “The Internet of Things (IoT) now has well over 100 billion ‘things’ interconnected. From heart pacers to automobile engines, from skyscraper elevators to fire trucks, ‘things’ now talk to each other and bank their data in data vaults that were presumed to be impenetrable. But yesterday it became clear that the vaults had been penetrated: none of the refrigerators or freezers that had been connected to the IoT in the city was working. Milk was spoiling, fish was rotting, medicine that was supposed to be refrigerated was warming and loosing potency, frozen embryos were of uncertain vitality. According to the Federal Bureau of Crypto Security the digital instructions to shut down were coming simultaneously from 1,000 sources in Asia and the Middle East… The ransom note was solicitous. It was received at about 1523 GMT on Twitter; it read, “Greetings Esteemed Philadelphians: we have taken the extraordinary step of protecting the turn-on commands of your cooling devices by encoding them with an unbreakable quantum-based coding system. We are offering you the one-time opportunity of protecting all of your online refrigeration appliances. This is not a matter of ransom—that would be quite illegal; it is an offer of protection services. For a small price we will remove our crypto safeguards and your refrigerators and freezers will again function. In addition, we will provide firewalls that will guard against similar intrusions in the future. We can’t guarantee that your freezers and refrigerators will work forever—after all they are mechanical systems—but we can provide protection against other cyber pirates. We are making this offer to individuals, not government or corporate entities; just pay using bitcoins if you wish, or credit cards on our website. You will find a complete explanation there on how to move forward with the modest bitcoin payments.”

82

10 The Fuzzy Line; Are We at War?

In a hastily assembled news conference held about three hours later, Mayor Marie del Norte said: “We have seen this kind of thing before, but never at this scale. Nations have unleashed destructive computer systems like NotPetya and WannaCry to tie up data and facilities in other countries in a new kind of warfare, with some success in creating chaos, I might say. Ransomware cyber-attacks directed at municipal systems have occurred in Baltimore, Atlanta, San Francisco, Cleveland, and Albany. Louisiana declared a state of emergency after a ransomware attack. Two years ago, 20 small towns in Texas had to respond to a spate of ransomware attacks that tied up their municipal computers by denying them access to their own files until a ransom was paid. This is extortion. One ransomware-for-hire operation announced that it was retiring, not because the police were closing in, but because they had made so much money there was no need to continue” [5]. “We are dealing with something different now in this IoT attack on our refrigerators and freezers: it is not municipal systems that are being kidnapped. Here the crooks have gone directly to the consumer. I know that the ten dollars per month they are demanding to unlock and ostensibly protect your refrigerators and freezers is a small sum but where will it end if we concede? The slope is slippery. Will our TVs be kidnapped? Will our voice assistants no longer recognize us? Will our emergency lines no longer function? Will our schedulers scramble our appointments? Will our personal school and health records be erased?” “Because of this uncertainty, I have today requested at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide our city with the emergency refrigeration trailers. If things go as planned, by tomorrow there will be refrigeration trailers in all high school parking lots in the city. You will be able to pick up Styrofoam containers to transport food and medicines that need to be cooled. I have ordered five million of them. We will provide guards to ensure that your material remains private and available only to you.” “You are, of course, free to pay the $10 per month demanded by these thugs. In the old days this used to be called ‘the protection racket.’ Then thugs would come to bodegas and other small stores and offer ‘protection’ for fees. Those that refused might find their shops burned or robbed or end up with a broken arm or rib. What we’re seeing now is just another form of that old protection racket. Comply if you must, but rest assured we are on the case.”

10.2 Discussion The above scenarios deal with a world that finds it necessary to test for normalcy, a society almost too drugged to realize it is under attack, and a new version of the protection racket: extortion to help avoid hidden possibly debilitating or deadly terror attacks.

10.2 Discussion

83

It used to be easier to tell when war was happening; the combatants were sovereign countries, the opening salvo was usually a clear attack, opponents were supposed to adhere to well-known rules of behavior and declarations of war made the status of the nations involved quite clear. But escalating terrorism has changed that; nonstate actors may now be involved. Who are they? Where are they hiding? Who is sponsoring them? As shown in the previous chapters, new technologies put at about everyone’s reach tools that make attacks easier, while identifying them is more difficult. Attacks can be non-lethal but debilitating and hidden (witness election interference through social media, or hacking of critical infrastructure); technologies can be employed that permit only the attacker to know a war is going on (consider an epidemic: are people becoming sick from natural or manufactured organisms?); nations or third parties can be openly and actively adversarial and yet camouflage their real intent; and the list goes on. An organization shouting its intent can be intimidating (NeoNazis claiming superiority and chanting “You will not replace us,” for example). At what point does bullying become terrorism? Terrorism can lead to war and war—even after cessation of open conflict—can lead to terrorism. The line between various types of conflict, aggressive behavior and terrorism becomes fuzzier.

10.2.1 Hacking as Terror Some of the threatening images of the future of terrorism include hacking by amateurs and professionals to obtain access to stored data for marketing, blackmailing, bullying, or for financial advantage at a personal, corporate, or national level. Hackers/intruders can copy, delete, or change stored data (like high school students who change the records of their grades), or even insert false data (like people who build false biographies). They can also assume false identities or use bots on social media for achieving certain objectives. In more elaborate schemes, hackers can interfere with operation of mechanical control systems such as the Stuxnet affair in which the USA and Israel hackers supposedly caused Iranian centrifuges used in that country’s uranium enrichment to overspeed and self-destroy [1]. The release of the cyber worm named NotPetya has been called “The most devastating cyber-attack in history” [12]. NotPetya was a computer worm that was developed by a Russian hacker organization known as ‘Fancy Bear’, a cyber espionage group. Allegedly, the initial target for NotPetya was the Ukraine, but the worm was designed to infect any computer it touched and it spread around the world like an evil digital epidemic causing hundreds of millions of dollars damage. A Wired article noted that the release of NotPetya could be considered an act of cyberwar, with consequences most likely more serious than its creators would have intended. The warm reached way beyond Ukraine. In only a few hours after its release, it infected computers “from hospitals in Pennsylvania to a chocolate factory

84

10 The Fuzzy Line; Are We at War?

in Tasmania”. In its strike around the world it affected multinationals such as the pharmaceutical giant Merck, transportation TNT Express, the French construction company Saint-Gobain, and even the Russian Rosneft state oil company [12]. This followed at least two major cyber-attacks by Russian forces on the utility industry in Ukraine. Some experts believe that this was part of a Russian “warm up” for attacks on infrastructure of Western countries, in particular, the USA. Cyber alerts were published by the Department of Homeland Security to warn government and commercial interests in the country of cyber-threats in a 2018 bulletin: “This joint Technical Alert (TA) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This alert provides information on Russian government actions targeting U.S. Government entities as well as organizations in the energy, nuclear, commercial facilities, water, aviation, and critical manufacturing sectors. It also contains indicators of compromise (IOCs) and technical details on the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) used by Russian government cyber actors on compromised victim networks. DHS and FBI produced this alert to educate network defenders to enhance their ability to identify and reduce exposure to malicious activity. DHS and FBI characterize this activity as a multi-stage intrusion campaign by Russian government cyber actors who targeted small commercial facilities’ networks where they staged malware, conducted spear phishing, and gained remote access into energy sector networks. After obtaining access, the Russian government cyber actors conducted network reconnaissance, moved laterally, and collected information pertaining to Industrial Control Systems” [6]. For many agencies, the war is already underway.

10.2.2 War as Terror Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy was in command of the Japanese strike force heading to Pearl Harbor in December, 1941. As planes took off from the aircraft carrier from which he directed the attack, he is famously (but probably erroneously) quoted as saying “I am afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant,” meaning that he sensed furious retribution was to come. The script of the film “Tora, Tora, Tora,” ended with this line, and although there is no hard documentation of his saying this, his correspondence and diary indicates this was probably his feeling [2]. Yamamoto was killed a year and a half after the Pearl Harbor attack when the USA successfully decoded secret Japanese transmissions and were able to pin-point the location of his transport aircraft. He was shot down by US Air Force P-38s in the Solomon Islands [9]. Why include Pearl Harbor, clearly an act of war, in this book on terrorism? Because the line between the two is imprecise and blurry, one can lead to the other; what is an act of war might later be seen as terrorism, and vice versa. And by any measure, the attack on Pearl Harbor was designed by the Japanese not only to destroy the American

10.2 Discussion

85

Pacific fleet but also to terrorize the United States—and it largely succeeded. But it also galvanized the USA into action. German use of V1 and V2 rockets against London were designed to terrorize; the USA carpet bombing of Dresden may have had similar intent.

10.2.3 Mob Terror Although not nearly as dramatic as Pearl Harbor, a far-right mob attempted to elicit terror in Charlottesville Virginia, USA, in a well-planned confrontation. Charlottesville is a pleasant place, founded in 1762, whose 46,000 citizens ordinarily worry about things like stickers for their trash collection, jobs, taxes, and the security of their families. It is close to the University of Virginia and Thomas Jefferson’s home at Monticello, and also not too far from Washington DC. Riots and terrorism took place there on a Friday night and Saturday in mid-August 2017. The town was the site for a “Unite the Right” rally by far-right groups, ostensibly to protest the removal of a statue of Robert E Lee. Neo-Nazis, KKK, skinheads, white supremacists, and white nationalists came to town looking for a fight. Many were dressed in para-military clothes, armed with long rifles, shields, and clubs. The terror began on Friday night when they marched, carrying torches in formations reminiscent of Nazi marches of the ‘30s, complete with stiff armed “heil Hitler” salutes, and chants of: “You Will Not Replace Us!” a slogan reflecting paranoia and the belief that white society is under attack by globalism. “Jews Will Not Replace Us!” no equivocating here: purely anti-Semitic. “Blood and Soil!” an English version of Nazi Germany’s “Blut und Boden!” the blood referring to Arian heredity and soil to territorial aspirations; a foundation of virulent antiSemitism and racism. “Hail Trump!” emphasizes that Trump is an alt right hero. “Make America Great Again” ball caps were prominent. “We Will Be Back!” A promise? A threat? (Source for the translations and interpretations of the chants is SPLC [15]).

The “Unite the Right” groups were confronted by counter-protesters, ad hoc local citizens and the more organized anti-fa (short for anti-fascist) groups. Using a vehicle-ramming terror tactic suggested online by ISIS and used in Nice, Stockholm, Beijing. Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, London, Saint Jean sur Richelieu (Canada), Barcelona, Berlin, and elsewhere, James Alex Fields Jr. of Maumee, Ohio, a white supremacist, drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters. One woman was killed and 34 people were injured. Two state troopers were also killed when their helicopter crashed. Fields was quickly apprehended and pleaded guilty to 29 hate crime counts and one count of “racially motivated violent interference” [4]. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 419 years. President Trump blamed both sides for the chaos. He drew a moral equivalency between the alt-right neo Nazi white supremacists and the counter-protesters.

86

10 The Fuzzy Line; Are We at War?

The alt-right cheered. Reportedly, the founder of the Daily Stormer (a neo-Nazi and white supremacist website) appreciated that the President “outright refused to disavow” the white nationalist rally and movement. “When reporters were screaming at him about White Nationalism he just walked out of the room [3].” There was reaction to Charlottesville. A protester, referring to President Trump’s remark that there are good people on both sides, held up a sign that said “There’s only one side.” Even one of Trump’s well-known supporters, Ana Navarro said: “This is not ‘many sides’. It’s white supremacist terrorism.” Former governor, senator, and former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said in a tweet “No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally these are different universes.” Florida Senator Marco Rubio, also a former Presidential candidate criticized the President for not describing the events in Charlottesville for what they were; “a terror attack by white supremacists.” Former speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, said in a tweet “The views fueling the spectacle in Charlottesville are repugnant. Let it only serve to unite Americans against this kind of vile bigotry.” But the most significant mob terror incident happened on January 5th, 2021 when President Trump himself encouraged a mob attack on the Congress then in session to validate results of the recent Presidential election that former vice president Joe Biden had won and Trump had lost. The Electoral College results were being tallied in a joint session of Congress as required by the Constitution and in the late morning he, his son, and several sycophants addressed the crowd that had been informed on social media of the rally near the Capital. Trump spoke for more than an hour and repeated his false claims of having won the election and the need to overthrow the results. He urged Vice President Pence to reject the vote counts of some states but Pence, usually a loyal supporter of the President, acknowledged he lacked “unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not” [18]. Nevertheless he urged Pence to “come through for us” and suggested the crowd should walk to the Capitol in protest. His son, Donald Trump, Jr. said, “We’re coming for you.” After repeating false claims of a fraudulent election, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer said, “If we are wrong we will be made fools of, but if we’re right a lot of them will go to jail. So let’s have trial by combat” [7]. Later Trump told supporters to “Take back our country.” It was as many said, an invitation to insurrection. How could one misunderstand the phrase “trial by combat” or “Take back our country”? The inflamed crowd walked to the Capitol building where as a mob they stormed the building, overrode the police, and vandalized and desecrated the building. Five people were killed. This mob wanted to intimidate and terrorize and no doubt broke the law; they were considered by many as domestic terrorists. Impeachment proceedings, drawn up by the House of Representatives after what can only be described as an insurrection, read: On January 6, 2021, pursuant to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives, and the Senate met at the United States Capitol for a Joint Session of Congress to count the votes of the Electoral College. In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly

10.2 Discussion

87

issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, DC. There, he reiterated false claims that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide”. He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged—and foreseeably resulted in—lawless action at the Capitol, such as: “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore”. Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts [10].

The impeachment was passed by the Congress (the second time for this President.) Trump was finally acquitted since the majority vote of 57 “guilty” against 47 “not guilty” didn’t suffice (67 “guilty” votes were necessary for conviction). Trump was formally accused for incitement of insurrection. This incident is very fresh and the final word has not been said yet. But it clearly demonstrates the fuzzy line between crime, civil protest, and terror in its extreme. Does “the other side” deserve the right to be heard? Near the end of the twentieth century, Deborah Lipstadt, author of Denying the Holocaust refused to appear in debates with holocaust deniers arguing that to do so would indicate their position was worth discussing. In trying to convince her to appear, the producer of one show said, “I certainly don’t agree with them, but don’t you think our viewers should hear the other side?” [13] No, some things are absolute and have no other side…

10.2.4 Surreptitious Terror The three examples—Pearl Harbor, Charlottesville, and the Trump insurrection— were separated in time and consequences, but had a few common attributes: they evoked terror, were overt, and designed to get maximum public attention. But what if a future terrorist plan called for surreptitious—covert—action to undermine institutions? There is a class of technology which has the property that when used as a weapon, only the user knows that it is in use and the other side may eventually realize that something is wrong. Suppose, for example, that means for controlling weather were at hand and deployed against the agriculture of a country. The victim country would only see that previously productive fields were now flooded or parched. And if the attack were detected what would be the response? Launching a thunder storm? And against whom? The USA, it turns out, tried to develop weather control as a weapon during the Vietnam War. Operation Popeye, as it was called, was a top-secret program in 1967, intended to make rain, pot-hole roads, flood rivers and make travel by enemy troops

88

10 The Fuzzy Line; Are We at War?

miserable and difficult [8]. Of course, now the UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other hostile Use of Environmental Modification Technique outlaws any “technique for changing - through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes - the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space” [19]. If that technology existed, terrorists would have a new weapon, and could cause concern by simply boasting that they had caused the drought (or floods) and proving otherwise would be difficult. That leads us to ask about all phenomena that could be attributed either to nature or to man. Are the wildfires we are seeing around the world, natural? Was the New York blackout a cyber-attack? Is the new Ebola outbreak a terrorist’s calling card? Some other bio-terror possibilities involving the threatened reintroduction of diseases thought to be conquered such as measles, polio, and smallpox, are mentioned elsewhere in this book. The world in which there is uncertainty about whether phenomena are natural or man-made is paranoiac. Formerly stable societies would be looking over their figurative shoulders, wondering if the changes-for-the-worse they are seeing are by chance or the product of their enemies. Terrorism devolves to a new kind of war and belief structure: if hospitals were no longer able to cure at their previous rate, some agency must be responsible; fertility clinics have continual genetic mix ups because someone is doing bad things; schools no longer produce accomplished graduates as a result of a plot to make us ignorant; police forces that used to be seen as helpful guardians of security are now seen as part of the problem; voting results are suspect; judges are seen as biased and news media are seen by some as the enemy of the people. Are our leaders Manchurian Candidates? Social media buzz with conspiracy theories. Only friends are trusted. Statistical analysis becomes an early warning system. What cure rates should our hospitals be experiencing? What is normal rainfall? What scores should students of our educational system attain? What is the expected failure rate of heart pacers, artificial kidneys, heart valves? We ask not only what is true but also what is natural and normal. What are the extreme but plausible expectations? Has some foreign agency induced the opioid crisis? Is it plausible as our flash scenario 10.2 suggests?? Take a look at history. The opium wars between Britain and China began in 1839, over trade in opium. The East India Company was exporting opium from India to China in an effort to “correct its growing trade imbalance with China” [16]. This trade resulted in a large-scale increase in addiction to the drug in China. One expert says “Over 5 million addicts prompted the Qing government to issue a decree banning opium consumption. A subsequent attempt to enforce the law led to the confiscation of some British opium imports in Canton, which provoked the British to attack the Chinese coast and ultimately resulted in the first Opium War” [Ibid]. Another source pegs the number of addicts at 10 million [17]. While free trade was the ostensible objective and was indeed one outcome of the Opium Wars, the wars have rightly been called “wars on behalf of drug traffickers” [Ibid].

10.2 Discussion

89

This episode from the history of the British Empire brings to mind the possibility that an attack on a society might be waged through the introduction of cheap addictive drugs or other mind-altering technologies. Addictive drugs speak for themselves— witness the use of illicit fentanyl and the opioid epidemic in the United States. The synthetic opioid, fentanyl, is said to be 100 times more potent than morphine. Overdoses kill more people in the USA than any other drug and it is easy to manufacture. It has apparently already been used as a weapon (suspected as the gas agent used by the Russians in the 2002 attack on Chechnyan terrorists holding hostages in a theater in Moscow) [14]. But we mean to imply here its use as an addictive substance, with its illicit manufacturers providing profits from its sale while reducing the will to resist of people addicted to its use. Fentanyl takes over the lives of addicts. Fake news and politically or criminally intended retweets fall into the category of unseen and surreptitious weapons. Memes such as “Lock her up” spread like epidemics and are unseen political weapons. In an era when weather can be controlled, unusual weather will be seen as possibly contrived. In an untrusting world outbreaks of new diseases such as Zika, COVID-19, and Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE) may be questioned and seen as (t)error events—attacks or weapons that were intentionally deployed or somehow escaped before their intended use. Today, data are literally kidnapped and held hostage by parties who gain unauthorized access to databases and encode the data or otherwise control access to it. Ransom is demanded for the release of the encryption key; tomorrow the data may remain available but modified or distorted and a ransom demanded to identify where the changes have been made. Imagine, for example, changing the data that records the DNA, facial, voice, or dental records of the President so that his or her identity could not be verified from stored data. Two Boeing MX 737 Max 8 s crashes have been attributed to hardware failures of components in the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). In the process of testing possible fixes, a software problem may also have been discovered as well [11]. In the paranoiac and untrusting world we are considering, we would ask if erroneous software instructions could have been inserted by a terrorist hacker or sleeper—implanted during design or maintenance of critical systems, and now waiting to fail autonomously when the circumstances are right. A destructive line of code can be very difficult to detect. Aircraft, commercial and military, carry instruments that communicate with each other and with other aircraft and ground monitors; these systems could be hacked. Countermeasures and safeguards are being considered for military aircraft [20]. This paranoiac world will be rife with conspiracy theories. We will always be looking over our shoulder, scanning the shadows.

10.3 Tripping Points The borders between terror and war, between low profile confrontations and fullscale wars are getting fuzzier. Sometimes one leads to the other, sometimes they

90

10 The Fuzzy Line; Are We at War?

interfere with each other. In addition, we should envision situations in which we won’t be able to distinguish between natural and man-made events. All these will have a significant impact on our counter-terror preparations and policies. Some of the tripping points that should be considered include: • New—sometimes unknown—terror weapons may come quietly into use in times of peace or wars. • Some fringe groups (e.g., skinheads, neo-Nazis, etc.) should be considered terrorists. • Surreptitious terrorist weapons may come on the scene. • Very efficient and hard to detect cyber-attacks could hold infrastructure hostage or destroy it. • The IoT offers attractive targets for terrorists. • Induced drug addiction could be a form of terrorism. Counterterrorism systems should be ready to respond to such surprises. While national and international regulations already cover most of the attacks described in this chapter, perpetrators and some new modes of attack will be hard to detect—not only in planning but also in execution. Furthermore, lack of appropriate enforcement mechanisms and lack of worldwide agreement on the terminology and legal aspects make eventual prosecution of perpetrators very difficult.

References 1. 60 Minutes (2012) Stuxnet: computer worm opens new Era of warfare. https://www.cbsnews. com/news/stuxnet-computer-worm-opens-new-era-of-warfare-04-06-2012/. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 2. Agawa H (2000) The reluctant admiral, Yamamoto and the imperial Navy 3. Bertrand N (2017) Neo-Nazis and white supremacist are celebrating trump’s remarks about the Charlottesville Riots. Bus Insid. https://www.businessinsider.com/neo-nazis-celebrate-tru mps-remarks-about-charlottesville-riots-2017-8. Accessed 11 July 2019 4. CBS (2019) White supremacist gets life in prison for deadly Charlottesville car. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-fields-jr-charlottesville-va-car-attack-driver-sen tenced-to-life-in-prison-today-2019-06-28/. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 5. Cimpandu C (2019) GandCrab ransomware operations says it’s shutting down. ZDNet. https:// www.zdnet.com/article/gandcrab-ransomware-operation-says-its-shutting-down/. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 6. CISA (2018) Russian government cyber activities targeting energy and other critical infrastructure sectors. Department of Homeland Security. https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA18074A. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 7. Colson T (2021) Rudy Giulianai called for ‘trial by combat’ before Trump supporters stormed the Capitol. Bus Insid. https://www.businessinsider.com/rudy-giuliani-called-on-trump-suppor ters-for-trial-by-combat-2021-1. Accessed 8 Jan 2021 8. Cummins E (2018) With operation popeye, the U.S. government made weather an instrument of war. Pop Sci. https://www.popsci.com/operation-popeye-government-weather-vietnam-war/. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 9. Davis Burke (1969) Get Yamamoto. Random House, New York

References

91

10. H.Res.24 - Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. 117th Congress (2021-2022) Engrossed in House (01/13/2021) https://www. congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24/text Accessed 9 Apr 2021 11. Levin A (2019) Latest 737 max fault that Alarmed test pilots rooted in software. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-27/latest-737-max-fault-thatalarmed-test-pilots-rooted-in-software. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 12. Greenberg A (2018) The untold story of NotPetya most devastating cyber attack in history. Wired. https://wired.com/story/notpetya-cyberattack-ukraine-russia-code-crashed-the-world. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 13. Lipstadt DE (1994) Denying the Holocaust. Plume (Penguin Press), New York 14. MacKenzie D (2002) Mystery of Russian gas deepens. New Scientist. https://www.newscient ist.com/article/dn2979-mystery-of-russian-gas-deepens/. Accessed 28 Dec 2020 15. Neiwert D (2017) When white nationalists chant their weird slogans, what do they mean? Southern poverty Law Center. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/10/10/when-whitenationalists-chant-their-weird-slogans-what-do-they-mean. Accessed 28 Dec 2020 16. Opium Addiction, Opium addiction in 19th-century China. https://www.smartdrugpolicy.org/ opium-addiction-in-19th-century-china/. Accessed 21 Aug 2019 17. Opium War, The opium war. https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/opium-war-1839-1842. Accessed 23 Aug 2019 18. PBS (2021) How the attack on the US capitol unfolded. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/pol itics/how-the-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol-unfolded. Accessed 8 Jan 2021 19. UN (1976) UN convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. New York. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx? src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVI-1&chapter=26&lang=en. Accessed 28 Dec 2020 20. Weisgerberr M (2019) New tech aims to tell pilots when their plane has been hacked. Defense One. https://www.defenseone.com/business/2019/10/new-app-tells-pilotswhen-their-plane-has-been-hacked/160378/?oref=d-river/. Accessed 28 Dec 2020

Chapter 11

Technology Early Warnings; A Plethora of Threats and Opportunities

11.1 Flash Scenarios 11.1.1 Scenario 11.1 A Magnet for Terrorists #1: Plutonium waste storage site? But isn’t that classified as Secret? Or even Top Secret? And if it is, do we have access? #2: Yes. DOE in its naivety has been most accommodating. They once had a small underground fire and their unclassified accident report provided us with a sketch of the storage plan [7]. Our plan is to substitute some dummy 50-gallon drums and take the hot ones up the elevator on the night shift. We have bribed five night-shift employees with $500,000 dollars each. The alarms will be silenced. We will escape with the real drums via helicopter; another $2.5 million-dollar expenditure, but all in all it is a relatively inexpensive operation considering what we will have. #1: What will we have? #2: The substitution and the robbery might not be detected for years, maybe decades. The people we have bribed might be sickened by radiation poisoning and die, but they like our suicide bombers face eternity in heaven. The government will, of course, be silent since they will not want publicity about the possibility of leaks at the site. And people seem to have forgotten that quality of plutonium waste may increase with storage time even though atomic decay is taking place. Even a public source like Wikipedia acknowledges: “High-level waste is full of highly radioactive fission products, most of which are relatively short-lived. This is a concern since if the waste is stored, perhaps in deep geological storage, over many years the fission products decay, decreasing the radioactivity of the waste and making the plutonium easier to access. The undesirable contaminant Pu-240 decays faster than the Pu-239, and thus the quality of the bomb material increases with time (although its quantity decreases

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Y. Sharan et al., Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror, Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72571-6_11

93

94

11 Technology Early Warnings; A Plethora …

during that time as well). Thus, some have argued, as time passes, these deep storage areas have the potential to become ‘plutonium mines’” [40].1 #2: So, you see, we have a shortcut route to plutonium, the magic elixir of our victory and it cost under $10 million and a few heroic lives. #1: What will we do with it? #1: Certainly, it will be useful in making dirty bombs, but we have some young people who want to try their hand at making an atomic bomb with the plutonium. #1: When do we do it? #2: Soon.

11.1.2 Scenario 11.2 You Are There In the years between 1953 and 1957 a TV program titled “You Are There” ran in the USA. TV displays were small and primitive back then often flickering and loosing vertical hold when the sync signal was weak. There was no such thing as streaming on demand; everyone who wanted to see a network program such “You Are There” tuned in at the same time; yes, really, that’s the way it was. Walter Cronkite, a network news reporter—deep voice, exuding wisdom—hosted the program on CBS; he was in many ways a trusted father figure to his TV audience. Program episodes focused on a crucial event in history, such as the murder of Julius Caesar, Pearl Harbor, or The Oklahoma Land Rush. The programs began with Cronkite, speaking from his desk in New York and dressed in modern clothes outlining the back story leading to that day’s episode; then the actors, re-enactors really, in costumes, gave a brief recap of the pre-event situation from their standpoint. Often they were interviewed by reporters in modern dress to get down to the meat of the affair; they responded in character. After these preliminaries, an off-stage announcer gave the date and the name of the event, and announced in clear firm voice, “You are there.” The TV drama followed, the audience was large for the time, and viewers were loyal, many watching every episode. At the end of the program, Cronkite returned and summarized the event and its outcome and said, “What sort of a day was it? A day like all days, filled with those events that alter and illuminate our times. All things are as they were then, and you were there.”2 Now since the series was re-initiated on VR-TV there has been an epidemic of false memories plaguing the psychiatric world. Take the case of one of my patients; let’s 1 This 2 All

is a true verbatim quote. statements about the program are true.

11.1 Flash Scenarios

95

call her Andrea, 25 years old, attractive, bright. She is convinced that she was involved in a murder attempt on the life of Teddy Roosevelt, a true event of years ago— that is the attempt on Roosevelt’s life, not Andrea’s involvement. But the attempted assassination was the subject of a recent episode of the most popular streaming show on VR-TV, “You Are There.” It happened when Roosevelt was in Milwaukee in October 1912 to deliver a political campaign speech in support of his bid for a third term. It seems the would-be assassin, John Schrank, a bible-quoting man, stepped out of the crowd and fired a 0.38 caliber pistol, almost point blank into Roosevelt’s chest. There was pandemonium, of course. Schrank was captured immediately and Roosevelt was hustled into his car. He was shot; the bullet was on its way to his heart, but strange as it sounds, the thick sheaf of notes for his 90-min speech, folded over in the chest pocket of his jacket and a steel eye glass case slowed the bullet sufficiently to avoid lethal injury. Roosevelt went on to deliver the speech and carried the bullet in his chest the rest of his life.3 Well, Andrea swears she was there and saved Roosevelt’s life by yelling “Look out!” It caused him to turn and place the notes and eye glass case in the bullet’s path. I can understand it. VR-TV with its actors dressed in period costumes, speaking in the vernacular of the time, you are in effect there. And since most homes now have immersive VR surround-rooms, the effect is astonishing. But equally astonishing is that the CDC which keeps track of such things using their large-scale epidemictracking early warning system has reported 3,527 cases that resemble Andrea’s. Some patients swear they knew Jesus, or Mohammad, or Moses; some say they fought in the Battle of New Orleans, yet others swear they lived a previous life in the age of dinosaurs. Some of my colleagues are calling this syndrome a meme—virus epidemic. I understand that various agencies are looking into the use of VR-TV for “retraining.” One wonders where this leads.

11.1.3 Scenario 11.3 I Forget The practice began as a street thing. The idea was to erase bad memories, a goal since the Greeks sought a drug they called nepenthe, meaning “that which chases away sorrow.” Nepenthe to the Greeks and to our contemporary Geeks is supposed to clean memories of bad events or if not completely clean, then at least make bad things seem less important. An experimental, self -administered drug culture existed on the streets then as it does now. People were trying all kinds of self -administered treatments (more than just drugs) to get high, see colors, remember where they put their keys and communicate 3 This

is a true event.

96

11 Technology Early Warnings; A Plethora …

with their gods. The street experimenters were trying to stimulate their brains using electrical EEG skull caps, radio, UV, and magnetic fields, and home brew drugs. One lucky dude managed to avoid killing himself and hit the right combination of magnetic field strength, pulse frequency, and experimental drug. The magnetic field had no effect without the drug, and the effect of the drug was weak or non-existent without the magnetic field. The magnetic field part was derived from a legitimate medical practice: a non-invasive treatment for depression and was called “Transcranial magnetic stimulation,” or TMS. It involved using magnetic pulses provided by a coil on the scalp placed non-invasively outside of the forehead. The drug part came from researchers at MIT, University of California at San Francisco, Washington University, and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology using HDAC inhibitors [10, 39].4 With street early adopters informally and unofficially having served as test subjects, the techniques have moved into clinical practice, particularly for PTSD and rape victims. Non-medical therapy centers also exist for existential worries from divorce to election losses. The process is called ‘Nepenthe therapy.’ It erases bad memories, sorrows, and regrets.

11.2 Discussion The number of flash scenarios that could be written on topics covered in this chapter is huge. We have chosen to write about three that could make a big difference to the future in which we will live, but there is an infinte number of others. CRISPR and AI are examples of powerful technologies that can be used by terrorists to create mayhem or used by counter-terror organizations to detect and thwart planned terror attacks. These are complex technologies and each has been given center stage in other chapters of this book: CRISPR is part of the discussion of the role of biology (Chaps. 4 and 5) and AI appears in the discussion of autonomous weapons (Chap. 6) and cyber developments (Chap. 12). These technologies are simultaneously threatening and promising depending on who is using them and for what purpose. By no means does the discussion of disruptive technologies end with biology and AI. This chapter is devoted to other technologies and potential risks, which may be waiting to trip us up on the road ahead or to give us a hand in avoiding the possible potholes. Exemplified in the flash scenarios, the potential threatening future technologies discussed in this chapter refer to vulnerabilities of storage sites of radioactive wastes; terrorist nuclear weapons; metadata programs; toxicology (new poisons); the malleability of the mind—creating and erasing human memories; entanglement; camouflage and transparency.

4 The

research and reference are real but don’t try this at home.

11.2 Discussion

97

The authors of this book discussed these and other technologies in a previous book (see Gordon et al. [14]).

11.2.1 Radioactive Wastes Storage Site Vulnerabilities Carlsbad New Mexico, USA, has a storage site for long-lived radioactive wastes. The transuranic radioactive waste materials stored there are by-products and wastes produced by various DOE nuclear facilities. Some of these materials have very long half-lives (e.g. 10,000 years) and there is as yet no effective means for neutralizing their detrimental health and environmental effects. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is a storage site to hold these materials until they cool down thousands of years from now. This specific site was selected because it is a deep salt bed and is supposed to be impermeable and geologically stable. In mid-1990, Sandia National Laboratories invited a carefully selected group of futurists, economists, geologists, physicists, environmentalists, political scientists and others to study how changes of the next 10,000 (sic) years might influence storage design and safety of the high-level radioactive wastes stored at the WIPP. Ted Gordon, one of the authors of this book, was one of the sixteen people who were asked to develop descriptions of society in and around WIPP as it might exist 10,000 years hence [15]. The purpose of this exercise was to provide some background information to a second task group for their assigned work: designing markers that would warn future generations about the dangers of materials buried there. The 10,000-year group was organized into four independent teams; each selected its own method of forecasting. One thing that all 16 participants agreed about was the impossibility of making 10,000-year forecasts. After all, ten thousand years ago cattle had not yet been widely domesticated, agriculture was just being invented, and the first cities were beginning in what we now call the Middle East. And, if as seems likely, change from the present continues to accelerate, in fact almost anything imaginable is possible in that time period—from annihilation to populating the universe beyond our solar system. The Boston team used point scenarios—not much different than the scenarios used in this book—as one of its techniques to form images of the far future. Their 10 scenarios included the obsolescence of written language and hence reading, the rise of a female dominated society, artificially intelligent people/machine cyborgs (and their infection with viruses), preservation of the memory and describing the dangers of WIPP through the continuity of an amusement park, underground tunnelboring robots that stumble on the storage site in boring an underground tunnel for a high speed subway between post-Dallas and post-Los Angeles, and the discovery of industrial uses and hence a soaring price for the materials buried at WIPP. Now in retrospect, if an 11th scenario had been produced, it would have involved terrorism. Here in one location is stored the worst of the worst transuranic elements, isolated from the world because of their danger, all in one spot, with abundant warnings marking the location. Inevitably after a decade or two, or century or two, or a

98

11 Technology Early Warnings; A Plethora …

millennium or two, security could become lax and materials for a dirty bomb or even a nuclear weapon could be stolen (as we have suggested in flash scenario 11.1). At least two of the teams suggested not marking the site at all, so that its location and even its existence would pass from memory. Should we have known better than to have marked the site? Will it become a magnet for terrorists? WIPP is designated as the single “permanent” storage site in the USA; it has not been problem free. In 2014 there was an accidental release from a leaking drum that caused an extended shut down of the facility. The source of the leak was the explosion of a storage drum. Why was there an explosion? The drum had been (mistakenly) packaged with organic kitty litter which reacted with the radioactive contents [8]. There are 80 sites in the USA, other than WIPP storing spent nuclear material, largely spent fuel used in generating power.

11.2.2 Nuclear Weapons in the Hands of Terrorists Can terrorists really get access to nuclear material such as those stored at WIPP or are these facilities sufficiently guarded against intrusion? These topics used to be on our minds—front and center—but seem to have been overshadowed by simpler suicide bombings in Afghanistan, Somalia, Columbia, and Mali; mass shooting in the USA, France, Nigeria, Congo, New Zealand and Sudan; and the use of trucks to kill civilians in France, Israel, Sri Lanka, and the USA. Somehow the possibility of nuclear-based weapons has slipped into temporary obscurity. That possibility has not passed, however; it is waiting to be rekindled. In October 2017, Greenpeace activists broke into a French nuclear generation facility and set off fireworks by the plant’s spent fuel pool. A month later they made a second incursion to demonstrate the plant’s vulnerability [11]. Experts estimate that some 250,000 tons of spent fuel are stored in generating plants reactor storage pools around the world. As ants are drawn to a drop of sugar water and no barrier seems effective, terrorists may see this trove of dangerous material at WIPP and other storage sites as massive stockpiles waiting to be plundered. In 1968, well before the 9/11 attack, the Nuclear Control Institute, a private anti-nuclear anti-terrorism organization brought together some American nuclear bomb specialists to answer whether or not they thought terrorists could build nuclear weapons. They considered a primitive crude device and concluded (paraphrased and compressed): 1. 2. 3. 4.

A crude implosion device could be constructed with reactor-grade plutonium or highly enriched uranium in its metallic or possibly even in its oxide form. A team of terrorists with appropriate training could do the job. The amounts of fissile material necessary would be large—certainly several and possibly ten times, the so-called formula quantities. The weight of the complete device would also be large, probably more than a ton.

11.2 Discussion

5.

6.

99

The use of uranium or plutonium oxide powder seems to be the simplest and most rapid way to make a bomb. However, the amount of material required would be considerably greater than if metal were used. The terrorists would face a number of potential hazards: handling of a high explosive; the possibility of inadvertently inducing a critical configuration of the fissile material at some stage in the procedure; and the chemical toxicity or radiological hazards inherent in the materials used.

Failure to foresee all the needs on these points could bring the operation to a close; however, with sufficient expertise all such problems could be dealt with successfully [25]. Dirty bombs are simpler; they use conventional explosives to disburse radioactive materials from medical sources (such as Cobalt 60) or from other sources such as spent fuel. Construction of these weapons requires much less skill, and the weapons themselves can be much smaller and lighter than nuclear bombs. In 2013, a truck was hauling a container of Cobalt 60 used previously in a discarded medical radiotherapy device by a hospital in Tijuana to a storage facility in central Mexico. The truck was hijacked and later abandoned by the thieves; the container had been opened and was left on the side of the road [2]. Less publicized thefts and cases of missing radioactive material have occurred all over the world; for example, The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) reports a number of cases in Central and South America [35]. Also, the possibility of theft of actual, functional nuclear weapons from weapons storage depots has been studied and seems to be a plausible threat. According to some experts, “As of mid-2017, we estimate that there are nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons located at some 107 sites in 14 countries. Roughly, 9400 of these weapons are in military arsenals; the remaining weapons are retired and awaiting dismantlement. Approximately 4150 are operationally available, and some 1800 are on high alert and ready for use on short notice” [20]. And this apparently doesn’t count weapons in submarines or the build-up that might have occurred in the saber-rattling periods after 2018. Three realities are common to all of these troubling possibilities: 1. 2. 3.

We tend to forget the magnitude of the threat with the passage of time. Safeguards in place at storage sites and weapons depots may not have been adequately tested in real life, and Weapon construction or theft could take place anywhere in the world, and is possible at many places simultaneously.

From a counter-terror perspective, both weapons depots and waste nuclear materials storage sites open the possibility of creating tempting honey pots to attract those who would do us harm. In the meantime, the ability to detect subtle nuclear chicanery is growing. Of course detectors of radioactivity, scintillators, have existed for a long time. When a neutron emitted from uranium or plutonium is sensed by these detectors, a flash of visible light is produced which may be used to generate an electrical signal. Often

100

11 Technology Early Warnings; A Plethora …

sensors that are sensitive enough to detect smuggled material are cumbersome. But researchers at Northwestern University and Argonne National Laboratory have developed a new semiconductor material that generates an electrical signal directly when it absorbs neutrons. Their new material, “lithium-indium-phosphorous-selenium, is layered in structure and enriched with the lithium-6 isotope” [4, 26].

11.2.3 Metadata Programs The National Security Agency (NSA) in the USA has programs in place that monitor communications from outside the country and when they originate from suspicious sources, then the FBI or the CIA follow-up. This surveillance is authorized under USA law and does not involve recording of actual conversations or content, but only the point of origin and destination of the contact. In fall of 2009, one such communication came from an associate of a known terrorist in Pakistan in the form of an email to [email protected], Najibullah Zazi, a person who was not known to be associated with Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. Tracked to New York, he met with associates to plan suicide bombings of New York subways on September 11, 2009 to commemorate the 2001 attacks. He had been trained in bomb making in Pakistan by Al-Qaeda in 2008. He and his associates bought over the counter materials for their suicide vests but were arrested before they could do damage. He pleaded guilty at his trial in February 2010 to “conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country and providing material support to a terrorist organization.” Eric Holder, then US attorney general, called the case “one of the most serious threats to our nation since September 11, 2001.” Zazi was sentenced to ten years in prison and during that time cooperated with authorities. In late 2019, he was released under surveillance [29]. This episode is an example of a successful counter-terror interdiction resulting from the NSA communications metadata collection effort. The NSA program has gone through several changes since its inception after 9/11. In 2015 the reauthorizing bill extended most of the program through 2019, but the metadata collection component was amended. No longer was NSA permitted to collect and store raw data, but rather was required to rely on telephone companies to retain the data. The bill permits NSA to obtain information about the communications of specific individuals only after applying to a Federal court [19]. Critics say the system is not working, that its results do not justify its costs, and that the program is damaging to privacy. The US Congress is considering whether or not to renew the program. In an unclassified letter to Congress, the Director of National Intelligence described three functions of the soon-to-expire USA Freedom Act: first, the acquisition of traditional business records; second, wiretap authority, which allows the government to collect intelligence on a target who seeks to thwart surveillance by, for example, cycling through cellphones; and third, the “lone wolf” authority, which allows the government to target certain non-US persons engaged in

11.2 Discussion

101

or preparing to engage in international terrorism. He said that in its 18 years there have been no cases of abuse and asked for reauthorization of these activities without sunset [6]. When Congress acts—as of May 2020, the bill had not yet cleared Congress [17]—we’ll see what form the metadata program takes. In the meantime, spying via eavesdropping is alive and well.

11.2.4 Toxicology: New Poisons The number of potentially lethal poisons, some natural, others artificial, is huge. Among the natural poisons are the deadliest of all, botulinum toxins, produced by an anaerobic bacterium (Clostridium botulinum) found in contaminated food, dust, and primarily soil. It functions in the body by causing paralysis in muscles by preventing the release of a neurotransmitter, acetylcholine, and hence has both cosmetic and clinical medicinal uses. The cosmetic uses of Botox are achieved by relaxing the muscles that causes wrinkles. In medical clinical use it functions as a muscle relaxant. The so called “A” variety of this poison is so powerful that injection of one nanogram per kilogram would be fatal, or put another way, one gram, about the weight of a raison, would kill 5.5 million men [38]. Can botulinum toxins be brewed in a small lab? Some sources say that “Very few laboratories have the capacity to handle neurotoxin …strains. They are complicated to culture and are spore-forming biohazardous microorganisms that require high levels of bio-containment” [13]. So, one counter-terror approach would be to survey death certificates to find if there have been unexplained deaths that might be an indication of botched attempts to brew botulism or other potent poisons. Another poison that might attract potential terrorists is Tetrodotoxin, the toxin used by pufferfish (blowfish) to paralyze and kill predators. The pufferfish is considered a food delicacy in some places, prized in some Asian countries, but if improperly prepared can also kill unwary adult humans by attacking their nervous system. It is more lethal than cyanide. At the other end of the scale is a toxin that is an irritant rather than a lethal threat, but it’s very dangerous too: giant hogweed, also known as Queen Anne’s Lace. It is an invasive plant in the carrot family, native to Europe, whose sap can act like an inverted sunblock—it exposes skin to harmful burns from UV rays of the sun. It can cause blindness if it gets in the eyes. Blisters form after exposure and go deep, and according to one source, can last six years [24]. Like other invasive plants, it is spreading and can now be found in the Northeast, ranging from Virginia to Ontario. From a terrorism standpoint, it will not knock out swaths of population but could make life miserable for those who touch it. Between the extremes of botulism and hogweed are literally dozens, perhaps hundreds of other poisons and dangerous agents, chemical and biological, that may be attractive to terrorists, from the deadly sarin nerve gas released in a Japanese subway

102

11 Technology Early Warnings; A Plethora …

by the Amu Shinrikyo in 1995, to anthrax spores mailed to selected targets after the 9/11 terror attack, a crime for which no perpetrator has ever been positively identified. Diseases thought to have been eliminated such as polio, smallpox, and measles might be used in terrorist blackmail plots: can we imagine an Internet message to the UN that says: “give us a million euros by next Tuesday or we will take the stopper out of the smallpox bottle…” It would be difficult to tell, at least at first, whether cases of a new plague were from natural or man-made causes, as was first suspected in the case of the virus causing the pandemic of COVID-19 in 2020. Some very lethal poisons have been developed as battlefield weapons and used for political assassinations. The nerve agent VX was apparently used by North Korean operatives to assassinate Kim Jong-un’s half-brother in 2017 [33]. A fourthgeneration nerve agent has been on the scene for a few decades and is said to be seven times more lethal than VX. A report on these toxins, known as Novichoks, notes that they were kept secret by the USA and its allies, given their “fiersome” power. Their existance became public when one of the compaunds was used in an assasination atempt of a former Russian spy on U.K. soil. Then, in 2020, the same nerve agent was used for poisonong Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, as identified by the Berlin hospital where he was treated. However, information about Novichoks has leaked for many years before. Vil Mirzayanov, a Soviet military chemist mentioned the Novchok program in 1992 and then in a 2008 memoir revealed more details about the chamicals’ structures, claiming that “some Novichok agents are several times more toxic than VX” [1, 36]. Reportedly, in 1987, a scientist involved in the development of Novichok weapons in a Moscow laboratory, got accidentally exposed to an unspecified Novichok agent. It took him ten days to regain consciousness, but remain critically ill and died five years later [39]. The Novoichok poisons are produced in the form of binary chemicals. It means that they are stored and handled in the form of separate precursors and mixed just before use, which is considerably safer than handling the potentiated toxin. These poisons are now included in the Chemical Weapons Convention that “aims to eliminate an entire category of weapons of mass destruction by prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons by States Parties” [27]. However, terrorists disregard any conventions; hence, we may see the poisons used yet again. And the search for protection against such poisons goes on. Future alternatives are being researched; as an example it might be possible to treat soldiers, terrorists or those who search for terrorist to withstand possible future poisonings. Scientists at the University of California at Berkley have genetically modified fruit flies so that “by making just three small changes to a single gene, the team gave the flies the ability to effectively eat poison and store it in their bodies, protecting themselves from predators in the process” [18].

11.2 Discussion

103

11.2.5 The Malleable Mind: Creating and Erasing Human Memories The three-pound organ that all of us carry inside our skulls has more nodes, interconnections of neurons, and ganglia, than there are stars in the heavens; it is the main repository of our memories, perceptions, and hopes and fears, the inherited psycho-genetic gifts from our ancestors, and to a great extent everything we are, will be, or hope to be. It poses the riddles of life and dilemma of consciousness and if God exists, he or she may reside there. The 80 billion neurons that constitute the brain are being mapped in much the same way that the genome was mapped several decades ago, and the new knowledge gained from the mapping will increase understanding of how the brain works and perhaps the mind as well. That effort and knowledge could be important to the construction of machines that are designed to emulate the human mind, diagnose disease, and improve education, and may have great consequences for terrorism and its growth or defeat. That brains are trying to understand how brains work is a fractal idea whose time has come. Already the effort has identified regions that, in a new kind of phrenology, are responsible for and regulate certain functions: vision, speech, and decision-making, for example. New tools such as 3D functional MRI (fMRI) are in use to show which areas of the brain activate when certain functions are performed, thoughts are created, or feelings are evoked. Neuroscience projects in Europe (Human Brain Project) and in the US (BRAIN) are directed at creating functional models of the human brain, neuron by neuron if that proves possible, until all 80 billion are mapped and accounted for [34]. These projects will hopefully provide better understanding of brain functioning and what happens when the usual and normal connections are disrupted. It is not at all certain at this point that a map of the brain can do that; for example, if we had a map of a computer’s interconnections would we understand how it worked? Probably not, but it would be a good start. This improved knowledge is likely to be important in the long-range fight against terrorism. It could add to understanding how biases are instilled, how memories of events that never happened are created and how memories of real events can be deliberately manipulated or erased. We already have many examples that show the ease and extent of memory manipulation. Elizabeth Loftus, a professor of law has written about her experiments and cases in which a psychiatrist implanted false memories: “In Missouri in 1992 a church counselor helped Beth Rutherford to remember during therapy that her father, a clergyman, had regularly raped her between the ages of seven and 14 and that her mother sometimes helped him by holding her down. […] The father had to resign from his post as a clergyman when the allegations were made public. Later medical examination of the daughter revealed, however, that she was still a virgin at age 22 and had never been pregnant. The daughter sued the therapist and received a $1-million settlement in 1996” [21].

104

11 Technology Early Warnings; A Plethora …

At some future time, memories might be created by direct manipulation of the brain. In recent experiments with zebra finch birds, scientists at the University of Texas have been able to make the birds sing a tune chosen by the research team. Male zebra finches it seems learn their vocalizations from their father’s song. In this experiment, however, young birds were isolated and had begun to develop their own song patterns. Using a process called optogenetics, the researchers used a fiber optic cable to illuminate a specific area of the birds’ brains and found that short pulses of light led to songs with short syllables; long pulses of light, long syllables. The research team identified a way to implant false memories about the duration of syllables [41]. Neuroscientists have been searching for the site in the brain where memories are stored. New experiments involving PET scanning and fMRI reveal that memory is a diffused mechanism: many parts of the brain “light up” when sensation or memory retrieval takes place. The pleasant remembrance of one’s senior prom or the painful recollection of a deceased child does not seem to reside in a single spot. All seems to be in the connections of neurons and their electro-chemical interplay. The concept of implanting ideas through some kind of external idea machine seems yet way off the mark. However, EEG signals, sampled by surface scalp sensors have recently been used to reconstruct images being watched by patients in real-time as shown in the photo of Fig. 11.1. What the patient saw is shown on the left and the brain wave derived image reconstructed from those surface sensors is shown on the right. This research is being performed at Neuro-Q Ltd. and the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology [30]. Elon Musk of Tesla fame has created a company named Neuralink which is trying to invent a chip that can be implanted in the brain with wires fine enough and placed with sufficient precision to excite specific neurons. Since the brain is mobile within the skull and is physically more like a bowl of jelly than an electronic apparatus, the attachments have to be flexible to survive. To make the chip with its fine wire interconnects, Nerualink has developed a manufacturing robot that stitches thousands of flexible tentacles to the chip. Musk’s description of the process was interpreted as a “state-of-the-art tool for understanding the brain, a clinical advance for people with neurological disorders, or the next step in human evolution” [31]. In the new field of neuro-criminology scientists are linking MRI scans of brains to anti-social and criminal behavior. One study involved nearly 1,000 offenders of all sorts, violent and non-violent. This study found that in some brain areas one can see the reduction of gray matter that was specifically related to homicide offenders and not to other kinds of criminals. Such a research could be viewed as a first try of neuroscience to help predict which people will potentially show homicide behaviour. Further research might assess such results [14]. The mind is malleable and this means a great deal in the pursuit of terrorism. It opens the possibility of erasing and creating ideas, beliefs, and biases, even inherited ideas if such prove to be the case. The technology of mind-changing can invalidate or reinforce all of these, true or fantastic, including experiences that never happened, making differentiation between reality and fiction even more difficult for self and others. Manipulation of the brain’s wiring may give rise to new forms of rewards and

11.2 Discussion

105

Fig. 11.1 Brain reconstructed images obtained after processing the co-occurring EEG signal. Source Natural image reconstruction from brain waves: a novel visual BCI system with native feedback. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/787101v2.full. Credit Anatoly Bobe, Neuro-Q Ltd.

inducements through triggering pleasure centers or infinite pain for those unlucky enough to experience it. Some aspects of this were explored in flash scenario 11.3 presented in this chapter.

11.2.6 Entanglement Quantum phenomena may be an important engine of future technological change. Quantum phenomena are processes of energy and matter that occur only at nanoscale (molecular, atomic, nuclear, and smaller dimensions) and involve ideas like “duality”—that is that light waves can act as particles and particles as waves and one can’t know both precisely, simultaneously. Improved knowledge of one diminishes knowledge of the other. At quantum scale, position is only known probabilistically. Quantum tunneling, predicted for a century, has been observed experimentally: it describes the ability of quantum particles to pass unimpeded through solid barriers. Quantum entanglement describes a process by which a particle, separated

106

11 Technology Early Warnings; A Plethora …

from another in which it is entangled, responds to measurements in the first, instantaneously and across large distances. It is a kind of information teleportation that Einstein is said to have called “spooky.” The record distance for entangled photons is, at this writing, 750 miles. The entanglement was part of an unmanned Chinese earth orbit satellite experiment. The photon source in the satellite emitted about 6 million entangled photon pairs per second; entanglement was maintained even between receiver stations on earth separated by 750 miles [42]. This Phenomenon could be an essential link to the development of unbreakable cryptography and might open the way for using secure keys between distant locations without relying on a trustful relay. Here is where entanglement might intersect with terrorism. Smart terror groups, especially those following technology can find here, in the future, opportunities for safe and secure distance communications. Some hundreds of miles are already possible and potential distance will get longer. There’s more to come in this field. Photons have been entangled with ions [22] which suggests that the promise of teleportation of macro-matter may ultimately be on the agenda. And when individuals have access to quantum computers they may be able to create or break cryptographic codes that are used to assure privacy [5].

11.2.7 Camouflage and Transparency Camouflage technology is intended to hide an object that would otherwise be in plain sight; transparency technology makes opaque objects transparent and therefore invisible. Progress in this field could prove important to terrorism and its detection. The object of camouflage is to make an object unnoticed or even unnoticeable by blending in with its background or by becoming disguised as something else. We are familiar, of course, with the kind of camouflage clothing that soldiers wear to fool the enemy or that is used in duck hunting blinds to fool the birds. Many animals (including fish and chameleon), and insects (such as walking sticks and butterflies) use dynamic camouflage to hide from predators or to aid their own predatory activities. Shape, motion, scent, heat, and sound can limit the effectiveness of color and pattern-based camouflage. Stealth aircraft use shape, and low reflectivity, highly absorbing materials to reduce chances for radar detection. There is more to come. For example, researchers at the University of Cambridge have developed a material composed of small polymer-coated gold particles compressed into micro-drops of water. They report the particles stick together when exposed to heat. The micro-drops are mobile and can be quickly repositioned using light [32]. The material is being developed in the form of roll-on films; layers of these films will provide a very broad range of colors and open the possibility of dynamic large-scale displays [3] and could be effective in creating dynamic camouflage that is as effective as the color and shape shifting employed by some of the insects and animals mentioned above.

11.2 Discussion

107

Photochromic materials already exist for windows and sun glasses that dim in bright light; the brighter the light, the greater the dimming effect. It is not hard to imagine their use in camouflage applications. Nexter, a French manufacturer of tanks and other heavy military weapons is reportedly developing a camouflage system that places a mosaic of liquid crystal tiles on the surface of the vehicles it is hiding and through the use of sensors around the vehicles that are connected to a central computer, determines the colors of the tiles to obtain the best stealth [23]. Researchers at the Electronic Photonic Microsystems lab of the University of Pennsylvania have developed a microwave imager chip that is about 2 mm on each side and yet contains over 1,000 photonic components. Since microwaves can travel through solid materials, they see the possibility of future cameras that can see through walls [28]. Invisibility cloaking in the Harry Potter sense (throw a blanketover an object and it disappears) is being pursued in several labs and companies around the United States. In general two techniques are being considered: bending light around a region containing the object to be hidden and second, developing materials that are truly transparent with minimally distorting optics. The former has been achieved at microwave frequencies and using the magicians’ trick of angled mirrors at optical frequencies [16]; the later approach is still a way off. Three dimensional images in the Star Wars sense seems feasible: not just a 3D screen that requires special glasses to see the 3D images, but without glasses. Imagine a spacial volume the size of a toaster oven in front of you. It containsan illusion streaming from a communications network or from a recording, tangible, almost alive. You can walk around it. How can this be? In a contemporary illustration, a small plastic ball is levitated by ultrasound energy from hundreds of high frequency audio speakers arrangedaroundthe volume. Red, blue, and green light illuminates the moving plastic ball at a frequency beyond the ability of the eye to detect. Crude virtual reality images have been created in this way [9]. In a future version, the size of the ball diminishes, the number of balls increases, the frequency of the ultrasound increases, active the volume expands. Result? We have high fidelityvirtual image display. Why is image teleport important to terrorism and its detection? A few decades from now, that question may seem as naïve as asking Marconi what good would come of radio transmission. Some speculations on consequences were presemted in flash scenario 11.2 of this chapter.

11.3 Tripping Points This chapter describes several future threats which should be seriously evaluated and studied. These future technologies open not only new opportunities for terrorists but also possibilities for detecting adversary activities and operations. Some prominent tripping points include:

108

11 Technology Early Warnings; A Plethora …

• Nuclear storage sites are vulnerable to theft by terrorists and also to terrorist attacks. • Vigilance and weak safeguards at nuclear weapons and material storage sites will diminish over time and increase nuclear-terrorism threats. • Lethality of stored nuclear material might be intensifying. • Amateurs-made atomic bombs are possible. • Changing communications privacy regulations may work to terrorists’ advantage. • The likelihood of fearsome, hard to detect poisons is increasing. • Brain manipulation can lead to risky and unexpected applications to be used by terrorists or their pursuers. It can’t be reiterated enough: one should be aware of the dark side of technology. New technologies developed for very good purposes might have negative uses which might seem attractive to terrorists. Technology assessments should be initiated and possible terrorist applications included in the analysis to minimize future risks. Every new technology should be assessed for all its potential applications—particularly those that seem unlikely but powerful (e.g., entanglement).

References 1. 60 Minutes (2020) Alexey Navalny on the poisoning attack he survived and why he thinks Putin was behind it. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alexey-navalny-poisoning-putin-russia60-minutes-2020-10-18/. Accessed 7 Nov 2020 2. Archibald R, Gladstone R (2013) Truck with radioactive load is recovered in Mexico. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/world/americas/Radioactive-CargoMexico.html. Accessed 29 December 2020 3. Cambridge (2019) Nanomachine power color-changing artificial ‘Chameleon Skin’. ScienceTech Daily. https://scitechdaily.com/nanomachines-power-color-changing-artificialchameleon-skin-video/. Accessed 3 November 2019 4. Chica DG, He Y, McCall KM et al (2020) Direct thermal neutron detection by the 2D semiconductor 6 LiInP2 Se6 . Nature 577:346–349. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1886-8. Accessed 26 Oct 2020 5. Cho A (2019) Cryptographers scramble to protect internet from attackers armed with quantum computers. Science. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/cryptographers-scrambleprotect-internet-hackers-quantum-computers?utm_campaign=news_weekly_2019-08-23. Accessed 3 Nov 2019 6. Coats DR (2019) Unclassified letter from the Director of National Security, Washington DC to the honorable richard Burr, The Honorable Lindsey O. Graham, The Honorable Mark Warner, and The Honorable Dianne Feinstein. https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/08/16/coats-congress-215spying.pdf. Accessed 26 Dec 2020 7. DOE (2016) Underground Salt Haul truck fire at the waste isolation pilot plant. US Department of Energy. https://www.wipp.energy.gov/Special/AIB%20Report.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2020 8. EPA (2014) Radiological event at the WIPP. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/2014-radiologicalevent-wipp. Accessed 30 Sep 2019 9. Fushimi T et al (2019) Acoustophoric volumetric displays using a fast-moving levitated particle. Phys Lett 115:064101. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5113467. Accessed 19 Nov 2019 10. Graff J, Nadine J et al (2014) Epigenetic priming of memory updating during reconsolidation to attenuate remote fear memories. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(13)01589-4. Accessed 4 Nov 2019

References

109

11. Greenpeace (2017) Greenpeace sounds alarm on nuclear safety new brake-in. Phys-org. https:// phys.org/news/2017-11-greenpeace-alarm-nuclear-safety-break-in.html. Accessed 2 Oct 2019 12. Gordon T, Sharan Y, Florescu E (2015) Lone wolf terrorism prospects and potential strategies to address the threat. ISBN 978-0-692-45554-8. http://www.lonewolfthreat.com/. Accessed 28 Dec 2020 13. Hackett G, Moore K, Burgin D, Hornby F, Gray B, Elliott M, Mir I, Beard M (2018) Purification and characterization of recombinant botulinum neurotoxin serotype FA, also known as serotype H. Toxins 10:195. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/10/5/195. Accessed 28 Oct 2019 14. Hardy R (2019) Inside the head of a killer: imhing study uncovers unique brain abnormalities in murderers. New Atlas. https://newatlas.com/brain-scan-murderers-homicide-neuroscience/ 60510/. Accessed 20 May 2020 15. Hora S, von Winterfeldt D, Trauth K (1981) Expert judgment on inadvertent human intrusion into the waste isolation pilot plant. Sandia Report SAD90-3063-UC-721. https://www.wipp.ene rgy.gov/library/cca/CCA_1996_References/Chapter%207/CREL3329.PDF. Accessed 23 June 2019. (Note the WIPP scenarios are contained in the original report but not in this reference; author’s records were used to reconstruct the scenarios.) 16. Howell J, Howell B (2013) Simple broadband optical spatial cloaking of very large objects. Department of Physics, University of Rochester. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0863.pdf. Accessed 3 Nov 2019 17. HR 6172 (2020) H.R. 6172: USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020. Govtrack. https:// www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr6172. Accessed 7 Nov 2020 18. Irving M (2019) CRISPR flies have been gene edited so they can eat poison. New Atlas. https:// newatlas.com/biology/crispr-flies-gene-edited-eat-poison/. Accessed 1 June 2019 19. Kelly E (2015) Senate approves USA freedom act. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/ story/news/politics/2015/06/02/patriot-act-usa-freedom-act-senate-vote/28345747/. Accessed 7 Oct 2019 20. Kristensen H, Norris RS (2017) Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons. Bull Atomic Sci 73(5):289–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2017.1363995. Accessed 29 Oct 2019 21. Loftus E (1997) Creating false memories. Sci Am. http://staff.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/ sciam.htm. Accessed 30 Oct 2019 22. Macdonald F (2017) Scientists achieve direct counterfactual quantum communication for the first time. Sci Alert. https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-achieved-direct-counterfa ctual-quantum-communication-for-the-first-time. Accessed 2 Nov 2019 23. Mackenzie C (2019) New military camo includes static and adaptive tech. MSN Outdoor Life. https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/new-military-camo-includes-staticand-adaptive-tech/ar-AAIiBAH. Accessed 3 Nov 2019 24. MacWelch T (2019) 13 Toxic wild plants that look like food. outdoor life. In: Popular science. https://www.popsci.com/identify-toxic-wild-plants/. Accessed 4 Nov 2020 25. Mark JC, Taylor T, Eyster E, Maraman W, Wechsler J (1968) Can terrorists build nuclear weapons? In: International task force on the prevention of nuclear terrorism. http://nci.org/km/makeab.htm. Accessed 2 Oct 2019 26. Northwestern University (2020) New neutron detector can fit in your pocket, critical for catching smuggled nuclear materials. SciRech Daily. https://scitechdaily.com/new-neutron-detectorcan-fit-in-your-pocket-critical-for-catching-smuggled-nuclear-materials/. Accessed 26 May 2020 27. OPCW (1997) The convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction (the Chemical Weapons Convention or CWC). Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. https://www.opcw.org/che mical-weapons-convention. Accessed 28 Dec 2020 28. Optical Society (2019) Hand held microwave imaging- to see through walls or detect tumors. The Optical Society, University of Pennsylvania. https://scitechdaily.com/hand-held-microw ave-imaging-to-see-through-walls-or-detect-tumors-possible-with-new-chip/. Accessed 3 Nov 2019

110

11 Technology Early Warnings; A Plethora …

29. Orden E (2019) Najibullah Zazi, Who plotted to bomb the new york subway, gets a second chance. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/us/najibullah-zazi-new-york-subway-bombplot-sentencing/index.html. Accessed 6 Oct 2019 30. Rashkov G, Bobe A, Fastovets D, Komarova M (2019) Natural image reconstruction from brain waves: a novel visual BCI system with native feedback. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/ 10.1101/787101v2.full. Accessed 20 Jan 2021 31. Rogers A (2019) Here’s how Elon musk plans to stitch a computer into your brain. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/heres-how-elon-musk-plans-to-stitch-a-computerinto-your-brain/. Accessed 30 Oct 2019 32. Salmon A et al (2019) Motile artificial chromatophores: light-triggered nanoparticles for microdroplet locomotion and color change. Adv Opt Mater. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1002/adom.201900951. Accessed 3 Dec 2020 33. Sang-Hun C, Gladstone R (2017) Kim Jong-un’s half brother is reported assassinated in Malaysia. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/asia/kim-jong-unbrother-killed-malaysia.html. Accessed 30 May 2020 34. Smith D (2013) Why spend $8 billion dollars to map the human brain? The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/why-spend-a-billion-dollars-tomap-the-human-brain/274594/. Accessed 28 Oct 2019 35. START (2013) Truck carrying radioactive material stolen in Mexico. https://www.start.umd. edu/sites/default/files/files/STARTBackgroundReport_StolenTruckWithCo60_Dec2013.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2019 36. Stone R (2019) Poison used in recent attack on Russian Spy may soon be bannd. Science. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/10/poison-used-recent-attack-russian-spymay-soon-be-banned. Accessed 28 Dec 2020 37. Stromberg J (2014) A new drug could help you forget long-term traumatic memories. Smithsonian.com. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-drug-could-help-you-for get-long-term-traumatic-memories-180949386/. Accessed 4 Dec 2020 38. Thomas H (2014) Botox-the world’s deadliest poison. The Boar. University of Warwick. https:// theboar.org/2014/02/botox-worlds-deadliest-poison/. Accessed 27 Oct 2019 39. Tucker JB (2008) War of nerves. Anchor Books, New York. ISBN 978-0-375-422294; reviewed in the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/arts/review-warof-nerves.html. Accessed 30 May 2020 40. Wikipedia (2019) Radioactive waste. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Ext ernal_links. Accessed 24 June 2019 41. Wong S (2019) Implanting false memories in a bird’s brain changes its tune. New Sci. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2218772-implanting-false-memories-in-a-birds-brainchanges-its-tune/. Accessed 30 Oct 2019 42. Yin J et al (2017) Satellite-based entanglement distribution over 1200 km. Science. https://sci ence.sciencemag.org/content/356/6343/1140. Accessed 2 Nov 2019

Chapter 12

Deep Fakes

12.1 Flash Scenarios 12.1.1 Scenario 12.1 Marionettes Inc. When Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to President Trump, was interviewed on the TV news show Meet the Press in 2017, she invented the term “alternative facts” in the defense of an incorrect estimate made by the President of the number of people attending the 2016 presidential inauguration. Well, our company manufactures alternative facts and you can buy these facts—indistinguishable from truths—by placing an order with us. We can produce a video in which we match and attach images of heads—yours or from our vast database of faces—to images of bodies—yours or from our vast database—of torsos, seamlessly. The finished product is guaranteed by us to be undetectable by any method of video forensics. We can even use our AI learning systems to match handwriting. We can dress the images in any way you select from our ‘clothing store.’ We can clone voices of people who you want to impersonate or we can use your own voice to make an audio avatar who will, like Siri, greet all callers personally in your voice. We can make dead actors rise from the grave, so to speak, and assuming you can solve the legal intellectual property problems, become stars in your movies,1 videos, or commercials. If you are the model for your avatar, you can appear as a lover or lantern holder, a tycoon or troubadour, cool or hot or all simultaneously. We have been warned by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that some unscrupulous people might try to use our technology in fraudulent 1 The

IP licensing company, Worldwide XR, is said to hold rights to the images of more than 400 dead celebrities including movie stars such as James Dean, Betty Davis and Burt Reynolds. Digital recreation of movie stars has been used before, particularly when a star dies during the filming of a movie. James Dean’s digitally recreated image is scheduled to appear in a new movie about the Vietnam War [7]. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Y. Sharan et al., Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror, Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72571-6_12

111

112

12 Deep Fakes

schemes, and we are sure that your application does not come close to the threshold they have established. Let me mention a few cases in which our competitors were implicated. One person used a digital model of the Pope to praise and seemingly endorse a political candidate while excoriating her opponent. A dozen religious leaders swore the image was really the Pope. In South America a political leader claimed victory in a national election before all the votes were counted. Not only did he convince voters of the country that he won but he convinced his opponent as well. By the time the fraud was discovered the challenger had already taken office and the real winner of the election had left the country. Finally, in a now famous money laundering case, a digital marionette of a Russian oligarch convinced the president of a bank in the Seychelles islands, to invest almost $100 million dollars in a fake research project for the development of an anti-aging drug ostensibly only one clinical trial from reality. Later the bank president explained “perhaps we should have been more careful. Easy to say in retrospect. But his signature appeared to be genuine and of course his commercial history of investment was spectacular and well known. There were even Harvard case studies and we heard him explain the project in that deep stentorian voice we came to know through Fox News. How could we have known? His certificate was valid.” Moral: like my old-school grandfather, a tailor in Odessa, used to say, “You’ve got to feel the material.”

12.1.2 Scenario 12.2 Face Off Inc. Facial recognition was everywhere: at the ball game, in the bank, on the street, in police body cams, in the new locks on the gym lockers, and in smart phones. You could point your phone at a man you hardly recognized walking down the street and it would whisper in your ear his name, this wife’s name, the pedigree of his dog, and what you and he talked about last time you met. “Recognition prosthesis” it was called. It was overkill, of course, but it was a marketer’s heaven. Go to the same restaurant twice, and the maître d’hôtel would know your name, your favorite beverage, what you ordered last time, and the size of the tip you left. Hell, restaurant chains were networked so that even if you didn’t go to the same place twice they knew about you the first time you showed up at a new place. And the virus epidemic scares made mask-wearing a requirement in many places; failure to do so in some venues was considered illegal. So, we saw a chance to solve a problem that was beginning to bug most of the population and started Face Off Inc. to provide anonymity through facial cosmetics and a bit of high fashion and disease prophylaxis through masks. The kickstart campaign raised 10 million dollars; investors—ordinary people who were concerned about the intrusive nature of facial recognition were lined up to get in on the action, but it was only the beginning. We were selling anonymity: high fashions face masks

12.1 Flash Scenarios

113

that looked like real skin, like wigs for the face, using a proprietary plastic fiber that we and our bio-firm partner developed, face paints based on aborigine patterns from the Americas, Asia, the Pacific Islands, and Africa. Masks became high fashion and the most original were issued patents. Social media went crazy; there were contests for most original make up or masks with big prizes, TV shows featuring personable anthropologists who explained the historical significance and provenance of various face patterns, from pre-Egyptian to current gang culture. The original purposes of evading facial recognition systems and viruses were still there, of course, but the fun element was strong too. Business was good because people had to change their make-up and masks or be recognized by their disguises. Every day was Halloween. My partner was the genius who recognized that we had a gold mine in our database. Psychologists could use the data to analyze the pattern selected by people with various backgrounds and aspirations. For example, Mr. Hyde’s face (as opposed to Dr. Jekyll), or Jack the Ripper was often selected by people with violent records. It wasn’t perfect, of course, but close enough to raise eyebrows. Stock market prices were correlated with the frequency that people selected financier disguises. Most popular were pop stars and sports heroes, selected so often that the same person was appearing simultaneously all over the world.

12.2 Discussion Deep fakes are artificial constructs masquerading as truth. Data, images, ideas, news, history, science, all can be real or fake and fakes are becoming indistinguishable from the real thing. The inability to distinguish what is false and what is real could bring down security systems, financial systems, health systems, elections, institutions, corporations, and governments. We already have had a national election and a continuing period beyond the election in the USA contaminated by fake stories, lies, and innuendoes. A world of deep fakes might also include resurrection of long dead actors to star in new movies; videos of powerful, rich, and famous people in acts they never committed; undetectable doctoring of audio to put words into someone’s mouth; stories and music in the style of dead authors and composers; avatars that look and “think” like people they mimic. Some entertainers, in decades past, earned their reputation by mimicking well-known people; now digitally augmented audio imitations can be essentially perfect. Today I can call my stock broker and he will execute my instructions to buy or sell stocks without fail. He knows it’s me because he recognizes my voice, but when voices can be easily falsified, when enunciation, intonation, and speech cadence are duplicated, how will he know? The Chinese firm Baidu has produced a software program called Deep Voice that can clone real voices given only 3.6 s of audio [11]. A few years ago it took 30 s. More samples make for better fidelity, of course, but I wonder if my stock broker, or indeed any keeper of records around the world, could

114

12 Deep Fakes

tell the difference between the voice of a real person they know, and a reproduction of the voice of that person. Or, if in the future, military leaders will be able to distinguish real commands from those of synthetic commanders or masquerading enemies. Some scientific research suggests that humans are naturally more susceptible to voice scams than other kinds of fakes. One report says: “Our key insight (from our research) is that there may be no statistically significant differences in the way the human brain processes the legitimate speakers vs. synthesized speakers, whereas clear differences are visible when encountering legitimate versus different other human speakers. This finding may help to explain users’ susceptibility to synthesized attacks, as seen from the behavioral self-reported analysis. That is, the impersonated synthesized voices may seem indistinguishable from the real voices in terms of both behavioral and neural perspectives. In sharp contrast, prior studies showed subconscious neural differences in other real vs. fake artifacts (e.g., paintings and websites), despite users failing to note these differences behaviorally. Overall, our work dissects the fundamental neural patterns underlying voice-based insecurity and reveals users’ susceptibility to voice synthesis attacks at a biological level. We believe that this could be a significant insight for the security community suggesting that the human detection of voice synthesis attacks may not improve over time, especially given that voice synthesis techniques will likely continue to improve, calling for the design of careful machine-assisted techniques to help humans counter these attacks” [12]. Facial recognition is a fast-evolving technology and is being used in applications ranging from law enforcement and security to tagging people on social media. When we ask how good facial recognition really is, we mean: can a system, correctly trained on a large number of photographs of a person, pick that person out of a random crowd of hundreds or thousands of people, even if that person has aged, is wearing different clothing, sunglasses, or makeup? The simple answer is that systems are already very good and the greater the number of tagged files of a person, the higher the chances that they can be identified out of a crowd of people. Proper identification for Caucasian males in some systems runs close to 100 percent, less for other genders and ethnicities. But mistakes happen and accuracy depends on the extent of machine learning involved as well as the confidence level specified in searches. Amazon’s Rekognition system which is thought to be in use by several police departments, the FBI, and ICE, has been criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for apparent gender and racial bias because the error rates are higher for all categories than are the error rates for white men. The ACLU ran a test using 25,000 publicly available arrest photos and then searched that database using pubic photos of all members of Congress, as though they were searching to find out if any member of Congress was in the set of arrest photos. The ACLU claimed that 95% of the time the system correctly showed the members were not among the 25,000 people in the arrest photos, but the system had false positive rate of 5%, and 28 out of the 535 members were misidentified [19]. That would be unacceptable for many applications. Incidentally, some sources report that the ACLU is suing the Justice Department, the Drug Enforcement Agency and the FBI to learn about their

12.2 Discussion

115

facial recognition practices, out of concerns that some powerful organizations might be “using facial recognition and emotional analytics2 in unethical ways” [10]. As long ago as 2014, researchers at Cornell University reported an accuracy rate of 98.52% using a database called Labeled Faces in The Wild (LFW) which exceeded the human-level of face verification of about 97.53% [9]. In one clinical application, researchers have tested a system called DeepGestalt which used computer vision and deep learning algorithms to help identify specific diseases that modify facial phenotypes. The algorithms were developed and trained on a data set of over 17,000 images representing more than 200 syndromes, and this system achieved a 91% accuracy in identifying the correct medical condition which was better than physicians could do using only visual examinations [3]. Facial recognition is already being used to lock and unlock cell phones, help police and counter-terrorists identify people who are in places they shouldn’t be, help find missing persons, track school and church attendance, marketing of products large and small, scanning air travelers at airports, matching passport photos, and detecting cheaters at casinos. One of the more unexpected applications of the use of facial recognition is in China, where toilet paper theft in public restrooms is apparently a problem. There, to hold down theft, mechanical systems role out toilet paper; cameras scan the users’ faces and won’t provide additional toilet paper to the same person unless 9 min has elapsed [17]. But for every advance there is a counter-advance; it appears that even advanced systems for facial recognition can be fooled by masks. Reportedly, running some tests accross three continents, reserchers from the artificial-intelligence firm Kneron “were able to fool some facial-recognition systems using a printed mask depicting a different person’s face [4]”. These included a border checkponit in China, a passport-control gate in Amsterdam’s Sciphol Airport, and payment tables run by Alipay and WeChat. However, more performent security systems could not be fooled by printed lifelike masks [Ibid]. There is concern, of course, that at election time, a state or non-state actor could initiate a deep fake video of a candidate in an attempt to swing the election or at least cause uncertainty at precisely the wrong time in the election process when suspicions can be triggered but time to refute is short. The House Intelligence Committee held hearings on this possibility in 2019 just after a fake video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appeared in which she was slurring her words and appeared drunk. It was reportedly viewed millions of times on social media [14]. So, a new game starts: good vocal impersonation (voice hacking) and photographic chicanery leads to the need for better authentication, and better authentication inevitably leads to better falsification techniques. In that coming world of almost perfect false voices and images, cellphone apps will have voice and image authentication that will warn us when the person speaking or comes into view might not be

2 Emotional analytics is the process by which facial recognition data, spoken language, vocal inflec-

tion, tone and other attributes are used to infer the mood of a person. The inference is derived from a statistical correlation engine which learns to match such parameters to mood.

116

12 Deep Fakes

the person we assume. That future app will probably flash a warning sign or display a confidence label. We can expect automatic cyber “open sesame” oral identification codes that check words as well as voices and facial scanners that will have low enough false positive rates to function as locks, granting access to data or places. Hearsay evidence and photos from surveillance and body cams will be under greater suspicion. Regulations should be updated and enforced to limit unauthorized copying of one’s voice, face, and proprietary features. Technology of “oral fingerprinting”, measurement of skin texture, odor, or other attribute will provide additional back-up for identification, until those too will be outsmarted by hackers. The race is on. Many speech generation systems today offer users a choice of voices of generic persons; more in the future will offer alternate voices that imitate recognizable people such as Donald Trump, Meryl Streep, or John Wayne. Google Assistant is already offering celebrity cameos [2]. Some software applications provide a very simple means of adding false words with fake voices to accompany videos—just type in the words [16]. Hyper-realistic masks that duplicate every freckle, wrinkle, and blemish of a real face are being created at the Universities of York and Kyoto (See photo in Fig. 12.1). Experiments have been conducted in which people informed of the experiments were asked to identify from pairs of photographs of real people and silicon masks, which showed a person and which was a mask. They were wrong 20% of the time— even though they knew they were looking for fakes. In the wild, the error rate would be much higher [15]. Applications for hyper-realistic masks of “real” people will include impersonations designed to scam, erotic sex robots, deceased people, etc. Like many other new technologies, pornographic applications may lead in the early days; today, one can buy hyper-realistic sex dolls, male or female (but mostly female), online for prices that start around $1,000 but can cost ten times that amount. For a higher price, some dolls use AI and are advertised to be able to learn and hold sexual or non-sexual conversations. They have facial expressions that range from smiles and winks to eyebrows that move. Internal heaters warm them to improve the illusions they offer. Years from now they may be seen as the first household robots. Fig. 12.1 Hyper-realistic mask. Source Universities of York and Kyoto https://www. york.ac.uk/news-and-events/ news/2019/research/hyperrealistic-masks-more-believ able-human-faces/. Credit Paul Shields, University of York

12.2 Discussion

117

How long will it be before we see such robots impersonating real people to aid in or commit crimes, scams, and acts of terror? The combination of hyper-realistic masks, precise voice impersonation, and accurate facial recognition will create a storm of uncertainty for police and security experts. Eye witnesses will become even more unreliable and surveillance cameras won’t be counted on to show truth; videos may show recognizable people but confidence in who they really are will be low. In the age of excellent fakes and superb impersonation technology, genetic evidence will be supreme. Certainly, there have been cases when contamination, mixed sources, small samples, clerical errors, or administrative incompetence have caused DNA forensic evidence to fail, but by and large it is the best identifier we have for either conviction or exoneration. The National Research Council notes that “With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source” [13]. It will only get better in the future. However, you can bet that somewhere, someone is working on how to falsify DNA at the genetic level. Today, the easiest way is simply to leave a snippet of someone else’s hair or tissue at the scene. In the future, fabricated DNA is possible. One group of experts says: “It turns out that standard molecular biology techniques such as PCR, molecular cloning, and recently developed whole genome amplification (WGA), enable anyone with basic equipment and know-how to produce practically unlimited amounts of in vitro synthesized (artificial) DNA with any desired genetic profile. This artificial DNA can then be applied to surfaces of objects or incorporated into genuine human tissues and planted in crime scenes. […] the current forensic procedure fails to distinguish between such samples of blood, saliva, and touched surfaces with artificial DNA, and corresponding samples with in vivo generated (natural) DNA […]. In order to effectively deal with this problem, we developed an authentication assay, which distinguishes between natural and artificial DNA […]. The assay was tested on natural and artificial samples of blood, saliva, and touched surfaces, with complete success” [1]. Beyond this is the possibility of constructing DNA molecules from records stored in DNA databases; this is deep fake genetics. Someone has even suggested that celebrities might have to fear “genetic paparazzi” [5] that is, reconstructed DNA molecules of famous people built from samples they have left unknowingly, or even more disconcerting, from stored inert genetic profile data. Whether DNA can remain a viable tool for police and security personnel remains a race between genetic forensics and the counter-science of synthesized DNA. Now, let’s move from the world of tangible fakes to the world of idea fakes. False ideas are perhaps the most important but least tangible part of the deep fake world. When Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to President Trump, was interviewed on the TV news show Meet the Press in 2017, she invented the term “alternative facts” in the defense of an incorrect estimate made by the President of the number of people attending the 2016 presidential inauguration. The output of his falsehoods since then has been prodigious. As per a Washington Post article, Trump told 5,000 “false and

118

12 Deep Fakes

misleading statements during his first 601 days in office”. The frequency of lies has increased over time, reaching almost 23 lies a day during midterm elections. [8].3 Why the lies? Is it to provide his political base with information that fits their image of him? Is it paranoia and self-aggrandizement? Is it to satisfy his ego? When Billy Bush (the person to whom he was talking on the infamous Access Hollywood tape) asked him about his lying, apparently Trump have said when the cameras were off, that people believe what they are told. “They just do” [18]. Fakers seem to have been selling snake oil since they first had a platform, from PT Barnum to Joseph Goebbels. The difference today is that their messages, true or false, promising or threatening, carry forward instantly and uncritically; instantly because they are on the Internet and like meme epidemics, multiply geometrically through re-tweeting; uncritically, aided by tribal instincts and unthinking lassitude that prevails on most social media. What to do? “Educate the users, believers, and re-tweeters of social media,” some say. “Make them more discerning.” But as fakes get even better and as lies look more like truth, as the gossip becomes more irresistible and tribally identified (“if you are a Democrat, you’ll love this one…”), as lies proliferate under the protection of freedom of speech, relying on the readers to become more discerning seems to be a lost cause. Technical solutions have been advanced: auto filtering by fact checking programs, de-ranking disinformation, rejecting material from certain authors and groups (Nazis and white supremacists, for example), changing monetary incentives for attracting clicks: all of these have been suggested to help halt the spread of misinformation and online extremism. But followers, clicks, and “likes” can be bought and paid for, and fake accounts are easy to establish, so popularity is certainly not a measure of veracity. Can AI come riding to the rescue to flag the fakes and tag the lies? In late 2019, Google produced several thousand deep fake videos and asked AI researchers to use them in finding a way to distinguish fake from otherwise legitimate videos [6]. The fakes were constructed by swapping heads among actors in the clips and the challenge was to identify those that were doctored. But apparently the fakes were not good enough. One forensic video expert said, “Videos like this with visual artifacts are not what we should be training and testing our forensic techniques on. We need significantly higher quality content.” (Ibid.) Other experts have pointed out that inconsistencies (like a shadow that is wrong for the time of day) might be apparent to a keen human observer but might elude an AI reviewer. This tripping point might be overcome with sufficient machine training but it’s not clear how much training will be required or the balance between training effort and improvement in detection. But of course, if AI machines can learn how to identify fakes, AI can also improve fakery. If it comes to a stalemate, some sort of certificate of authenticity ultimately may be necessary. And then the question remains: how to identify the authenticity of the certificate of authenticity?

3 The Washington Post’s Fact Checker database places the total through November 5, 2020 at 29,508.

(Wikipedia: Veracity of Statements by Donald Trump).

12.3 Tripping Points

119

12.3 Tripping Points Deep fakes—the growing inability to tell true facts from false—becomes an increasingly significant tripping point. Being in a post-truth era puts us in a very challenging situation. As described in this chapter there emerges a capability to counterfeit— almost any fact—of any source of data—physical and biological—including voice, facial images, biological prints, DNA identity and many others. These thus create an unforeseeable number of tripping points, as deep fake-generating technologies continue to evolve. Consider: • Confusion about the truth of news, knowledge, and information will be growing and will create challenges to effective leadership. • Falsehood, masquerading as truth, will be increasingly used as a weapon. • Essentially perfect impersonation: voice, videos, facial recognition, gait, etc. is becoming available to both terrorists and counter-terrorists. • AI could improve the probability of accurate identification and aid in distinguishing genuine from fake. • AI directed at identification is subject to hacking. • Certificates of authenticity may become common; but how can those be certified? • Realistic robots will stand-in for humans—for better or worse. • Genetic identification will be the gold standard, but even the gene can be counterfeited. • Fake remedies will always find ready customers, most of all in critical times. • We tend to believe that which has been repeated many times, fits our world image, or helps us avoid loss. The capability to falsify identities, facts, and data will have a significant impact on our ability to identify emerging threats and planning the protection and defense of society. More than ever, enemies can look like friends and offense like normality. Evaluating the various tripping points and threats involved will help anticipate dangers and opportunities. Along with AI, these technologies are set to take over a large portion of our lives.

References 1. Frumkin D, Wasserstrom A et al (2010) Authentication of forensic DNA samples. Forensic Science International: Genetics, Vol. 5 Issue 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.06. 009, https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(09)00099-4/fulltext. Elsevier Ireland Ltd. Accessed 23 Nov 2019 2. Gebbart A (2019) Google assistant launches first celebrity Cameo with John Legend. C/net. https://www.cnet.com/news/google-assistant-launches-first-celebrity-cameowith-john-legend/. Accessed 28 Dec 2020 3. Gurovch Y, Hanani Y et al (2019) Identifying facial phenotypes of genetic disorders using deep learning. Nat Med. https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/heritable/2019-gurovich.pdf. Accessed 22 Nov 2019

120

12 Deep Fakes

4. Holmes A (2020) Paper masks are fooling facial recognition software. Entrepreneur. https:// www.entrepreneur.com/article/346056. Accessed 25 May 2020 5. Javitt G(2009) The genetics and public policy center at Johns Hopkins University quoted in New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html. Accessed 23 Nov 2019 6. Knight W (2019) Even the AI behind deep fakes can’t save us from being duped. Wired. https:// www.wired.com/story/ai-deepfakes-cant-save-us-duped/. Accessed 20 Dec 2020 7. Lee A (2019) The messy legal fight to bring back celebrities from the dead. Wired. https:// www.wired.com/story/messy-legal-fight-to-bring-celebrities-back-from-the-dead/. Accessed 28 Dec 2020 8. Levin B (2019) Trump has told more than 10,000 lies since being inaugurated. Vanity Fair. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/trump-has-told-more-than-10000-liessince-being-inaugurated-washington-post. Accessed 28 Dec 2020 9. Lu C, Tang X (2014) Surpassing human level face verification performance on LFW with gaussianface. In: Proceedings of the 29th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI15), Oral Presentation. https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3840v3. Accessed 22 Nov 2019 10. Majic J (2019) We need to set rules and limits around face data. ITProPortal. https://www. itproportal.com/features/we-need-to-set-rules-and-limits-around-face-data/. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 11. Marr B (2019) Artificial intelligence can now copy your voice: what does that mean for humans? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2019/05/06/artificial-intellige nce-can-now-copy-your-voice-what-does-that-mean-for-humans/amp/. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 12. Neupane A, Sazena N et al (2019) The crux of voice (in)security: a brain study of speaker legitimacy detection. Paper presented at NDSS Symposium. https://www.ndss-symposium. org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ndss2019_08-3_Neupane_paper.pdf. Accessed 23 Nov 2019 13. NRC (2009) Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Committee on identifying the needs of the forensic sciences community, National Research Council. https:// www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 14. O’Sullivan D (2019) Doctored videos shared to make pelosi sound drunk viewed millions of times on social media. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics/doctored-video-pel osi/index.html. Accessed 28 Dec 2020 15. University of York (2019) Some hyper-realistic masks more believable than human faces study suggests. ScienceDaily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191121163324. htm. Accessed 22 Nov 2019 16. Vincent J (2019) AI deepfakes are now as simple as typing whatever you want your subject to say. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/10/18659432/deepfake-ai-fakes-tech-editvideo-by-typing-new-words/. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 17. West J (2019) 21 amazing uses for face recognition—facial recognition use cases. Facefirst. https://www.facefirst.com/blog/amazing-uses-for-face-recognition-facial-recognition-usecases/. Accessed 15 Nov 2019 18. Wemple E (2018) Why does trump lie? just ask billy bush. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/05/29/why-does-trumplie-just-ask-billy-bush/. Accessed 24 Nov 2019 19. Wood M (2018) Thoughts on machine learning accuracy. AWS Amazon Rekognition Blog. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/thoughts-on-machine-learning-accuracy/. Accessed 29 Dec 2020

Chapter 13

Unintended Consequences

13.1 Flash Scenarios 13.1.1 Scenario 13.1 The Scientist’s Oath When physicians take the Hippocratic Oath, they make a promise to be ethical, to do no harm. Circulating now in almost every National Science Academy, in the halls of UN agencies concerned with science, and in universities that graduate Ph.D’s in scientific fields is a proposal that scientists also take an oath of the same form. The Hippocratic Oath applies, primarily to the relationships between doctors and patients, but there is excitement about a similar oath for scientists and researchers [6]. Adapting freely from the medical text, it could sound like this: I promise to use my scientific skill and knowledge according to my ability and never intentionally to injure or wrong other men, women, future generations or the environment in which we all live. I know that I am responsible for my discoveries and how they are used now and may be used in the future and therefore I will study potential applications and integrate such studies into my research and warn against those that seem potentially deleterious and encourage those that promise to improve the way people live. In this research I will also consider to the fullest extent all plausible unintended consequences that might occur. In one form or another, such an oath is being ratified across the world.

13.1.2 Scenario 13.2 Firearm Transparency Well, our production is up 5% this month, year over year; we are making 2,000 hand guns per month now. We call it the Covid peak. Our 3D printers are running non-stop © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Y. Sharan et al., Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror, Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72571-6_13

121

122

13 Unintended Consequences

and word is out on the Internet that these guns are great and pass X-ray inspection without a glitch. Things are good and getting better. Our lab is developing some new plastic materials that will improve the strength of the barrels—some of our techies are guessing by 25% and that will enable our pistols to shoot high-speed, long-range bullets. We have even had inquiries from a half dozen countries about supplying them in bulk and about the possibility of transparent long guns as well, although between you and me, I can’t see any reasons to make long guns transparent. One of our guys has a great idea we are looking into. Since we have been able to formulate a plastic that is strong enough to use in firearms, is transparent to X-rays, and yet can be shaped in 3D printers, why not dope the plastic with a material that is also transparent to X-rays, but opaque—or at least detectable, at other wave lengths? That way we could manufacture pistols that pass common security, but not the special high-end detectors we would also manufacture. We would have both ends of the market. Neat, eh? Would you like to invest?

13.2 Discussion All acts have unintended consequences. However, some can worsen the exact situation they are trying to solve. There are endless such examples; what matters is the severity of the unintended consequences. In Israel, during the Corona-19 pandemic crisis, the government took significant measures to stop the virus spread by reducing congestion of people. One step was to limit the number of people entering a retail shop to four people at a time. The unintended consequence of this decision was the emergence of crowds near the entrance of shops. This, of course, increased the probability of infection contrary to the original intension. The decision was changed after some days; more people have been allowed at the same time in a shop. Could invasive species be used as a weapon of terrorism? Think killer bees, disease carrying insects, plague carrying rats, invasive plants that compromise agriculture, animal health, or mariculture, etc. In Delhi, India, during the time of British rule, there was a well-intentioned effort to wipe out venomous cobra snakes. Like our current X-Prize, authorities back then offered a monetary prize to accomplish a social goal: a reward was offered for dead snakes. They anticipated that people would become cobra vigilantes and round up the snakes; and in fact they did. But you guessed it: some entrepreneurs started breeding snakes for the reward. After a good bit of money changed hands, the government saw that their program had produced an unexpected reaction and the program was scrapped. What did the enterprising snake breeders do? They released their snakes. Net result: an increase in snake population.

13.2 Discussion

123

It also happened to the French administrators at the height of their colonial period (1902) in Indochina when they tried to implement a plan to eradicate rats from Hanoi. The new Governor General, with intent to eliminate some of the city’s filth, introduced a new sewer system. Rats, however, found the tunnels ideal for breeding and the rat population soon proliferated. To encourage public participation in the eradication program, the administration offered one cent per rat tail. A lot of rat tails were collected but they came from still living rats. Bounty hunters where “gaming” this system and were cutting the tails from living rats that continued to mate and proliferate; counting tails was not the same as counting dead rats. Some people were even raising rats for the bounty. The program itself was soon eradicated. Several attempts to eradicate invasive species are currently underway. It will be very interesting to see if these contemporary attempts to shape nature have unexpected consequences. Lord Howe Island is about 500 km northeast of Sydney Australia. It is infested with rodents, black rats, which came ashore after a ship foundered on a reef off shore in 1918. The rats multiplied and have eradicated several indigenous insect and bird species since then. The several hundred residents of Lord Howe Island voted to attempt to eradicate the rodents and after a study, a get-rid-of-the-rats program has been initiated. Some 42 tons of poisoned cereal pellets have been deposited in 28,000 bait stations across the island [18]. We’ll see what happens. Elsewhere, other programs have been designed to defeat invasive species. These include removing 13,500 nutria rodents in 2002 from the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Maryland; now completed and apparently successful [1]. Other programs by other agencies target lionfish, feral hogs, python snakes, gypsy moths, Asian carp, Japanese beetles, and many other insects and plants. When these programs have unintended consequences, we should remember the old cautionary adage: “No good deed goes unpunished.” There is a suspicion that safety devices may encourage unsafe behavior. For example, some general aviation airplanes now come equipped with whole-airplane parachutes. If the plane gets in trouble, the pilot can pull a lever and a parachute blossoms and lowers the whole aircraft, passengers and all. The manufacturer claims 383 lives have been saved in this way [25]. But some people believe that having the ability to deploy a parachute may encourage pilots, sub-consciously, to take more risks than they would have otherwise. The same is true of motorcyclists with respect to their helmets: wearing a helmet may lead motorcyclists to push beyond their previously considered safe limits. When child restraint seats were allowed in the front seats of automobiles, children were sometimes killed by air bags—a bad consequence of a safety device. Then regulations were changed to require that children be placed, restrained, in back seats. But then an unintended consequence was a rise in the number of children forgotten in cars. Social Security programs of the sort in place in the USA might also show a perverse characteristic. People expecting to receive this income later in life, save less when young than they might have and this has negative consequences for the economy: less saving, less investment, less growth. The consequence of changing regulation after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989 provides another example. The damage from that oil spill was extensive

124

13 Unintended Consequences

and many ocean border states passed laws that made tanker operators face unlimited liability for their operations. Oil companies like Royal Dutch that had fleets of tankers, shifted to independent operators to carry their product. As a guess, overall reliability may have dropped, and if a similar catastrophic leak occurs when the new rules are in effect, the likelihood of collecting damages may be less than it was [17]. Sometimes a counter intuitive response can be promoted and used to advantage. There is an old Jewish tale of a butcher in Poland who was bullied by the local tough kids. They would use chalk and write anti-Semitic slogans and slurs on the sidewalk in front of his butcher shop. Day after day he would, first thing in the morning, scrub down the chalk. Then he hit on a plan. He said to the boys: “I think what you have been doing has been bringing me attention and from that attention, more business. So, from now on I will be paying you to write bright and imaginative sayings on my sidewalk.” The boys looked at one another, not able to believe their good fortune. They readily agreed to get paid for something they were doing anyway. This arrangement went on for about a month when, according to his plan, the butcher announced he would no longer pay for their “advertising services.” The boys responded, “Well if you’re not going to pay us, we are certainly not going to make chalk slogans for you anymore. Go find someone else.” Butcher’s job accomplished. Some examples of unintended consequences from history include: the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the USA into World War II. The USA had been ambivalent about joining the Allies’ fight against the Nazis but the Japanese attack galvanized the country into positive action. The historian Barbara Tuchman has asked why governments often take actions that are contrary to their own interests [21]. Her examples include the legend of the Trojan horse in which the Greeks, after a 10-year siege of Troy, used a hollow wooden horse containing hidden warriors to enter the city, which welcomed the statue, but certainly not the warriors. She also cites the actions of the Renaissance popes that provoked the Protestant succession, the story of how the British lost America through misplaced, apparently blind policies, and American policies in Vietnam, a war that certainly had unintended consequences. To the list of developments that had unintended consequences that changed the world we would add the Internet, birth control pills, the rise of feminism, atomic chain reactions, and the discovery of DNA and its relationship to genetics; the list is long. The case of the emergence of the Internet deserves special attention [9]. A tool which was intended to improve the communication between researchers and scientists to interchange data and knowledge worldwide developed to be a platform for terrorists to recruit manpower, market their ideas, communicate among themselves and serve their objectives. However, the same unintended result enables new ways for identifying terrorists and detecting their plans. Technologies don’t care which side employs them; they are servants of their users. A weapon is a weapon, no matter who uses it. For example, CRISPR, in the hands of a bio-terrorist can create new viruses capable of causing vast epidemics and yet the same technology can be used to find cures or create firewalls that block the spread of diseases. Fitbits, the wearable exercise watch, can be used to pinpoint time of death in murder cases since the device also records heartbeats. A DNA database can be used forensically to help police solve crimes or even avoid future crimes but at the

13.2 Discussion

125

potential price of loss of privacy. Unbreakable encryption systems protect data but can lead to unauthorized denial of access and blackmail. The anonymity provided by unbreakable end to end encryption can protect child pornographers and provide secure communications among terrorists. GPS can tell us where we are, but also tell everyone else. Arguments about the consequences of artificial general intelligence have already raised a red flag in advance of the emergence of that technology. It seems then that technologies have their “dark side” and one has to take that into account when evaluating future technologies [10]. Another unintended consequence worth considering is the possibility that our own weapons may be used against us. Enemy use of captured weapons probably dates back to the earliest tribal conflicts when the prize was a sling or a flint tool. In Afghanistan, the Taliban have used USA weapons, including Humvees, high tech lasers, night vision goggles, as well as assault rifles, radios, and more mundane weapons [20]. There is a thriving black market—soldiers and police simply sell their weapons, weapons are stolen in raids on armories, or by simply having weapons assigned to them when they infiltrate and impersonate soldiers, or police [2]. Weapons might be obtained by an enemy not only from battlefield capture but through illicit sale of contraband by corrupt officials to anyone who will pay for them, including enemies or terrorists. The poppy fields of Afghanistan provide an ample source of capital (estimated as high as two billion USD per year) to fund Taliban activities and buy weapons from those who can supply them [14]. Navies capture ships, refit them, rename them, and bring them into battle again to face their former owners. In WWII, Soviets used captured German tanks and other weapons; each side, USA included, used captured aircraft built by their enemies. When one country buys weapons from another it generally must sign an end-use certificate stating that it will not sell the weapons to a third country. These certificates reside in the files of monitoring agencies to check for compliance as time passes after a sale. An employee of such an agency was watching an ISIS video that clearly showed the lot number on a crate of rocket propelled grenades. He noted the numbers. Later, checking the end-use certificates, he found that grenades with the same lot number came from the USA which had purchased 9,252 rocket propelled grenades, PG-9’s, from Romania. So how did they come to be in Iraq in ISIS’ hands? Talk about an unanticipated consequence: how about meeting your own weapons on the terrorist battlefield. There is a fairly well-founded rumor that the United States, in a secret CIA program that lasted from 2013 to 2017, trained and armed Syrian rebels in an attempt to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad that was engaged in a bloody and seemingly endless civil war. The program was terminated by the Trump administration partially over concern that the weapons furnished by the USA were being siphoned off to the rebels. Russia welcomed the move since it was supporting Assad [12]. So, it’s a pretty good bet we will meet our own weapons when the rebels we are arming lose them on the battlefield, through defection, or sell them under the table. Will we ever know if we will face our own weapons in the hands of some future enemy when we give them to our friends today? (Based on Castner [4]).

126

13 Unintended Consequences

Other examples of unintended consequences flowing from attempts to lessen terrorist threats are easy to imagine. A scheme to create a “terror” score for tracking potentially threatening people has been proposed; while it might work to reduce terror it could cost dearly in liberty. In this scheme, big data would be used to create an index for every individual (like a credit score does today) that indicates the likelihood of their performing an act of violence sometime in the future [7]. It would be composed of variables that have been found to correlate with violence such as childhood maltreatment combined with lower than normal amounts of the neurotransmitter MAOA.1 Thus, two variables in this new “propensity to violence” index (call it the PVI) might well be levels of MAOA or associated promoters or inhibitors and an assessment of childhood maltreatment. In addition, variables describing behavioral factors that are thought to correlate with antisocial behavior might be included; for example, early delinquency, irresponsibility, lack of empathy, and tendency to lie. The arithmetic of this new index would be simple enough but using it might be a step toward a much more restrictive life, and its costs might not become apparent until it was too late to back away from the idea. Would we do it? We have made such mistakes before at a smaller scale. Given a massive attack, unthinking and uninspired leadership, we might be tempted. From algorithms designed to give us freedom from terrorism might come unintended totalitarianism. China has been more than tempted; apparently, it is currently engaged in building such a ‘social credit’ system. The project consists in awarding citizens and businesses credits for good behavior and removing credits for unethical behavior. For example, donating blood gains a person credits, while littering or not respecting rules results in removing credits. The number of credits entitles people to access or not various services, such as travel, financial credit, or even access to high quality education and better job opportunities. If “blacklisted”, it might take 2–5 years to be cleared, unless the person makes some extra remedial efforts. Sometimes officials post a photograph from the ID card of a blacklisted person on a billboard or huge electronic screen near public traffic, saying that this person is untrustworthy. Legal recourse is theoretically possible but practically difficult. So far, the social credit system is managed locally or regionally. However, the aim is to have a uniform system implemented nationwide [19, 26]. This looks as a giant step toward Orwell’s Big Brother state. Before judging, let’s remember that sometimes government programs designed to influence behavior are not only well intentioned but are effective and garner public support; to name a few: anti-smoking, Social Security, Medicare, and mandatory use 1 In

the 1990’s, Dr. Terrie Moffitt and her colleagues found that a combination of an abusive childhood and low activity of promoter levels in the brain of the monoamine oxidase-A (MAOA) gene correlated in high propensity for anti-social behaviour. The Moffitt study involved about 500 boys tracked from birth to adulthood and examined how levels of MOMA modulated the effects of childhood maltreatment. In the words of the authors, “These findings provide the strongest evidence to date suggesting that the MAOA gene influences vulnerability to environmental stress, and that this biological process can be initiated early in life.” [3]. The findings have been replicated and expanded in a number of other studies, for example [8].

13.2 Discussion

127

of seat belts. The “Green New Deal” might also fit in this group of examples of helpful social engineering. But falling into the “Orwell” trap is one massive unintended consequence and is like a steep edged well into which it is easy to fall but from which it is hard to escape. Tapping large databases and using artificial intelligence to organize and analyze to assign “threat priorities” on PVI lists is the rationale for surveillance systems such as that being developed in China. But there are reports that this technology even in its current limited form is being used to identify and target Uighurs, a Muslim minority in China [11]. The app used by police in Xinjiang Province at security check points was reverse engineered by technicians at Human Rights Watch to find the attributes used in surveillance; among these were “religious practices, political affiliations, use of social media platforms, and blood type” [13] and presumably, in the future, DNA data. In the USA, essentially all newborn babies furnish DNA samples to help identify genetic diseases they may carry at the earliest possible time. In some states the blood samples are stored and may be used later for other purposes. A Supreme Court decision allows police to collect DNA samples from people arrested but not yet convicted [24]. If only there were a way to positively identity people remotely; say, point an augmented reality camera at a person and get back a profile that is 100% correct and along with that person’s identification, an accurate and unbiased threat assessment that did not depend on stereotyping, we might have a digital weapon for finding terrorist suspects but ultimately with the unfortunate side effect of helping to create a police state. Technology is moving us that way. China has massive numbers of surveillance cameras, currently estimated at 200 million, or one for every 7 persons (the USA is said to have 30 million) but no real-time identification system as yet, but the latent intent seems to exist. For example, some Chinese police are said to have facial recognition sunglasses that provide near real-time identification through facial recognition [22]. The glasses are reportedly used by police the spot people traveling through train stations during a period of heavy travel; e.g., the New Year migration. Police say the glasses helped them capture seven suspects wanted in major cases and 26 people who were traveling under false identities. The sunglasses cost about $600 each and can apparently identify individuals from a preloaded database of 10,000 suspects in just 100 milliseconds [22]. To the list of technologies that carry significant unanticipated consequences we add future techniques for neutralizing traumatic memories or implanting artificial experiences, escape of laboratory diseases developed to test preventative measures or therapies, leakage of nuclear wastes from long-term storage, land mines that must be dug up after a conflict, sometimes when memory of where they have been implanted has been lost. More mundane are extracurricular uses of “always on” remote speakers and microphones connected to the Internet (like Alexa, and Siri) that listen continuously for commands. Relatively simple changes in code can turn these devices into “hot mikes,” and although the manufacturers of these devices have closed several coding loopholes the potential for spying via smart

128

13 Unintended Consequences

assistants is real [16]. These natural eavesdroppers are always online and police have already sought their use in murder cases [23] and perhaps the two biggest of uncertainties of all is the potential of artificial general intelligence (AGI) to change society, its people, and governments, and the potential of genetic modification to do the same. All of these technologies might be employed in the search for incipient terrorists and by terrorists in their plans. So, what can be done about reducing the threat of unanticipated consequences or using them to our advantage? In the future, critical weapons might be designed to deteriorate rapidly, so that unintended use in the future would be time-limited. Planned obsolescence is, after all, part of the marketing strategy of many products, from computer printer ink cartridges to light bulbs, to iPhones, to textbooks that renew every year, to automobiles. Why not weapons that last only months and then fall apart, or are limited to a given number of firings? Take them into the field and give them to troops whose loyalties are less than certain. This principle could be applied to almost all weapon categories, from tanks to landing craft, from viruses to nuclear weapons. We know that nuclear warheads deteriorate in storage and must be “upgraded” periodically. What if deterioration were to be deliberately built in? Would the diminishing firepower be an incentive for the use of such weapons or would it help assure the world that stockpiles are dropping, by design, over time? We should of course be aware that such actions might by themselves result in unintended consequences. National security would be reduced if weapons were allowed to deteriorate, budgets would have to grow for weapons’ maintenance and production and so on. Every such decision should thus be carefully evaluated trying to anticipate possible outcomes to prevent unwanted results. We could encourage the establishment and unfettered operation of scientifically based, apolitical objective agencies concerned with the consequences of science and technology, such as Finland’s Committee for the Future—a permanent committee of parliamentarians representing all political parties and guaranteed by Finland’s constitution. It is responsible for assessing future technological developments and their social consequences. The EC also conducts broad foresight studies and indepth analyses of certain technologies and their potential consequences; the UN sponsors ad hoc studies dealing with progress toward global development goals and its agencies often conduct specific studies on changes-in-progress. The USA had an Office of Technology Assessment that functioned as an apolitical scientific resource for Congress between 1972 and 1995 when it was closed, apparently for political reasons. One hopes it will be re-established. The Millennium Project, is a nonprofit global think tank originally formed under the American Council for the UN University in 1996 and is still functioning today with more than 60 nodes around the world; it develops methods for studying the future, tracks 15 global challenges and actions to address them, and studies issues such as environmental security, terrorism, and the future of work [15].

13.3 Tripping points

129

13.3 Tripping points This chapter dealt with the phenomena of unintended consequences of developments and decisions which were taken to solve a troublesome problem but ended up aggravating the situation by triggering unwanted behaviors and applications. Failing to anticipate unintended consequences of plans and R&D achievements might bring surprising impacts which should be identified before-hand if possible. The developments discussed in this chapter suggest many tripping points and possible policy steps including: • Safety devices may encourage unsafe behavior. • There is a trade-off between “terror” propensity scores for individuals and privacy and freedom. • A “terror score” database could become the object of attacks, further increasing terror. • Black lists can be created with AI access to big databases but these lists and the techniques by which they are formed will be inimical to freedom. • Hot microphones and face-recognition systems will be omnipresent, with automated identification and eavesdropping capabilities. • The weapons used to address terrorism can be turned and used against the counterterrorism organizations or civilians. • Limited lifetime weapons might end the problem of the enemy taking over our weapons, black market sales of weapons, growing stockpiles, etc. But budget and other implications should be considered. • A scientist’s equivalent to the Hippocratic Oath might help make some scientists aware of their responsibility for uses of their inventions. However, can’t stop the advancement of malicious research by mal-intending organizations. New technologies and major decisions should be studied across their entire potential to identify potential unwanted consequences. The possible misuses of a technology should be considered from its early developments to reduce the eventual negative impacts. Establishing apolitical national science agencies to assess potential consequences of science and technology and to develop alternative scenarios should be considered by all policymaking and science and research organization.

References 1. Blackwater (2013) Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. US Fish and Wildlife Service. https:// www.fws.gov/refuge/Blackwater/what_we_do/invasivespecies.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2019 2. Bodetti A (2018) How the US Is indirectly arming the Taliban. The Diplomat. https://thedip lomat.com/2018/06/how-the-us-is-indirectly-arming-the-taliban/. 9 Accessed Dec 2020 3. Caspi AI, McClay J, Moffitt TE, Mill J, Martin J, Craig IW, Taylor A, Poulton R (2002) Role of the genotype in the cycle of violence it maltreated children. Science. http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/12161658. 16 Accessed Apr 2019

130

13 Unintended Consequences

4. Castner B (2017) Exclusive: tracing ISIS’ Weapons supply chain—back to the US. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/terror-industrial-complex-isis-munitions-supply-chain/. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 5. Committee for the Future, The Committee For The Future, Finish Parliament Researches LongTerm Issues And Comments On Government Policy. Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development, London. http://www.fdsd.org/ideas/the-committee-for-the-future-finnishparliament/. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 6. Glenn J, Gordon T (2004) Future issues of science and technology. Technol Forecast Soc Change 71(4). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162504000101. Accessed 1 Dec 2019 7. Gordon T, Sharan Y, Florescu E (2015) Potential measures for the pre-detection of terrorism assessment using a real-time Delphi. http://www.realtimedelphi.com/library/Pre-DetectionRTD-Report.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 8. Guo G, Ou X, Roettger M, Shih J (2008) The VNTR repeat in MAOA and delinquent behavior in adolescence and young adulthood; associations and MAOA promoter activity. Euro J Hum Genet. https://www.nature.com/articles/5201999. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 9. Hans-Liudiger D, Sharan Y, Rapp C, Ahituv N (2010) Terrorism and the internet. IOS Press, NATO SPS series 10. Hauptman A, Sharan Y (2013) Foresight of evolving security threats posed by emerging technologies. Foresight 11. Human Rights Watch (2019) China’s algorithms of repression; reverse engineering a Xinjiang police mass surveillance app. https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/05/01/chinas-algorithms-rep ression/reverse-engineering-xinjiang-police-mass-surveillance. Accessed 22 May 2019 12. Jaffe G, Entous A (2017) Trump ends covert CIA program to arm anti-assad rebels in Syria, a move sought by Russia. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nationalsecurity/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria-a-move-soughtby-moscow/2017/07/19/b6821a62-6beb-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html. Accessed 17 Sep 2019 13. Matthews K, Royer A (2019) Artificial intelligence has been Weaponized in China. That should be a wake-up call for the world. CBC news. https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/ai-china-1.514 0612. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 14. Micallef JV (2017) Follow the money: the taliban’s growing criminal empire. Military news. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/04/03/follow-the-money-the-talibansgrowing-criminal-empire.html. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 15. Millennium Project. http://www.millennium-project.org. Accessed 28 Dec 2020 16. Newman LH (2018) Turning an echo into a spy device only took some clever coding. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-echo-alexa-skill-spying/. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 17. Norton R (2002) Unintended consequences. In: The library of economics and liberty. https:// www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/UnintendedConsequences.html. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 18. Pickrell J (2019) Mass rodent poisoning on this remote Australian Island could bring back giant stick insect. Science. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/06/mass-rodent-poisoning-rem ote-australian-island-could-bring-back-giant-stick-insect. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 19. Smith SV (2018) What it’s like to be on the blacklist in China’s new social credit system. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/31/662696776/what-its-like-to-be-on-the-blacklist-in-chi nas-new-social-credit-system. Accessed 7 June 2020 20. Stone R (2019) Weapons that the Taliban capture don’t need to be fired to wreak Havoc. TRT world. https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/weapons-that-the-taliban-capture-don-t-need-to-befired-to-wreak-havoc-25790. Accessed 16 Apr 2019 21. Tuchman B (1984) The March of Folly from Troy to Vietnam. New York: Ballantine Books 22. Vincent J (2018) Chinese police are using facial recognition sunglasses to track citizens. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/8/16990030/china-facial-recognition-sunglasses-sur veillance. Accessed 22 Dec 2020 23. Wang AB (2016) Can Alexa help solve a murder case? police think so but amazon won’t give up the data. In: Los angeles times. https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-amazon-alexapolice-20161228-story.html. Accessed 18 Dec 2020

References

131

24. Wolf R (2013) Supreme court okays DNA swab of people under arrest. USA today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/03/supreme-court-dna-cheekswab-rape-unsolved-crimes/2116453/. Accessed 2 June 2019 25. Wynbrandt J (2018) Those parachutes for small airplanes really do save lives. Airspacemag.com. https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/those-parachutes-small-airpla nes-really-do-work-180969057. Accessed 8 December 2020 26. Wikipedia (2021) Social Credit System. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

Chapter 14

Conclusions

We live in a time of incredible complexity, far beyond anything that we might have credibly imagined a few years ago. We have simultaneous threats from expanding terrorism, a global pandemic and its consequent economic and social upheavals, global warming, class inequities and injustices, and confusion between reality and artificial truths with diminishing ability to distinguish between them. Terrorists can be non-state actors or state-sponsored actors. This vastly complicates the vital tasks of apprehending terrorists before they have the opportunity to act. From high precision surveillance and identification, to brain mapping and thought manipulation, the range of tools for increasing (or extinguishing) the security of our society is growing by the day. Malicious forces are developing their own means of attaining advantage within or outside the rule of law and attempt to change the evolution of society toward their own interests and beliefs. Terrorism and pandemics have many similarities. Neither respects borders; both are simultaneously present in most countries; and both are lethal. Both hold surprises and there is as yet, no certain immunization from either. And both in one form or another, will remain with us for a long time. The fight against terrorism and the defense against pandemics have triggered dramatic economic and social changes. Privacy will continue to be compromised by surveillance and scanning everywhere, by limiting economic options, by limiting access to gatherings and goods. Hidden cameras are everywhere; movements are restricted. Public places are equipped with means of automated identification and check posts with other sentinels of protection. People not only tolerate these intrusions but hope that checks for infection or sedition are adequate for public safety. The world is alert to new signs of terrorism or invading viruses. It won’t be If , but When and What. Fighting pandemics and fighting terrorism are imbedded in our futures. The next generations will grow in this changing world and will learn how to live with these threats: one man-made and the other natural or potentially man-made as well.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Y. Sharan et al., Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror, Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72571-6_14

133

134

14 Conclusions

There is a growing compromise between a democratic society’s expectations for freedom and the requirements for assuring security and health. A new social contract is evolving, with citizens accepting growing surveillance and tougher enforcement mechanisms. There is a third element to this complex mix: the growth of increasingly violent overt public protests. Certainly such protests have existed for centuries or millennia but new tools may expand the frequency and depth of public discord. Social media amplify memes, the inability to identify fakes, the inadequacy of old laws and regulations to cover new situations, intolerance of immigration, xenophobia, sharp racial and economic distinctions; these are all forces that de-homogenize society. Displays of these divisions occur all over the world. In the USA, in the wake of the murder by a police officer of George Floyd, there is discussion about what anarchism is. The President, the FBI and others say: “Anarchism is a belief that society should have no government, laws, police, or any other authority. Having that belief is perfectly legal, and the majority of anarchists in the U.S. advocate change through non-violent, non-criminal means. A small minority, however, believes change can only be accomplished through violence and criminal acts… and that, of course, is against the law” [1]. Among USA domestic terror organizations, the FBI now lists eco-terrorists and animal rights extremists, members of a sovereign citizens movement (antigovernment extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or “sovereign” from the USA), racially motivated violent extremism, and militia members. There seems to be increasing restrictions on protests around the world—including in China, Russia, and other countries. This confirms the outcomes of the Real-Time Delphi study, which projects a decreasing acceptance of peaceful protests in the future compared to today. Restriction of freedoms is a counter-productive tripping point, resulting in unintended consequences, fueling the very ideas it would try to overcome. The final question in the Real-Time Delphi study which gave birth to this book asked respondents about what worries them the most about the decades immediately ahead. Some tripping points that emerge from their answers include: • The rise of undetectable deep fakes. • Effective propaganda from recruiters for terrorist causes and organizations. • Lack of adequate penalties for republishing false news or taking input from known terrorist sources. • State-sponsored actions to deliberately undermine the health or living standard of people in other countries. • Meaningless terrorism—thousands of people performing small actions that together would have a big effect to disrupt elements of society. • Emergence of super-empowered individuals—driven by relatively coherent political-ideological worldviews—and able to harness bio-weapons or technology to wreak mass-scale disruption, destruction and loss of life.

14 Conclusions

135

• What some may call new-generation warfare. Rogue governments—driven by extremist religious, ethnic or political ideologies—employing a range of means from legislative and economic to kinetic, against parts of their own or other countries’ population, resulting in structural violence. • Merger with transnational organized crime. This last point, a possible alliance between terrorist organizations and transnational organized crime, needs a bit more discussion. With income estimated at US$2.2 trillion per year [2], transnational organized crime can bribe, intimidate, counterfeit with impunity and—for the “right” anticipated return on investment—facilitate almost any terrorist scheme. When might their objectives match? A few have been already mentioned: the development and sale of super addicting drugs for profit; undermining order and creating chaos; distortion of elections to favor particular candidates; arms’ trade; acquiring advanced technologies and/or advancing science for gaining technological advantage. Two trillion dollars goes a long way. So, we end as we began: seeking a definition of terrorism. The definition will evolve as the means to commit attacks, and the actors that commit them change. People ultimately say what is terrifying. Laws are necessary but not enough to stop this plague. In the end, failure of leadership may be the most serious tripping point of all.

References 1. FBI (2010) Domestic terrorism; anarchist extremism: a primer. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/ news/stories/2010/november/anarchist_111610/anarchist_111610. Accessed 29 Dec 2020 2. Yancey-Bragg N (2017) NGO: transnational organized crime groups make US$2.2 trillion a year. Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/6240-ngotransnational-organized-crime-groups-make-us-2-2-trillion-a-year. Accessed 28 Dec 2020

Appendix

Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

A Real-Time Delphi (RTD) study has been conducted to help identify the elements of a potentially worldwide-accepted definition of terrorism and their likely evolution by 2040. The study was conducted in January-February 2020. It engaged security experts and futurists from around the world. Out of the some 100 people invited, 84 from 28 countries provided answers to the questionnaire. This Appendix contains the study’s full report.

A1 Executive Summary One of the main impediments for developing coherent, trans-border policies and strategies for detecting and avoiding terrorism activities is simply that there is no shared definition of what actions or contemplated actions would make a person or a group be considered terrorists. A person can be a criminal without being a terrorist and a terrorist may not always be perceived as a criminal in certain countries or societies, as the continuing controversy over terrorists and freedom-fighters suggests. The methods used for combating terrorism also vary greatly and with the advent of new technologies, the scope and spectrum of terrorism will be expanding, challenging and testing existing definitions and laws. The Real-time Delphi (RTD) study which is described in this report was designed to help improve understanding of this fuzzy area and its possible future development. The online questionnaire asked the participants to assess a dozen or so scenario vignettes that may or may not be called terrorism today or in the future 20 years. The scenario vignettes reflect contemporary and future potential events derived from literature sources and discussions among the authors and other researchers. The questionnaire was first evaluated in a pilot among experts who helped shape the final version. The panel chosen consisted of some 100 selected persons, of whom 84 people from 28 countries provided an answer to at least one question.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Y. Sharan et al., Tripping Points on the Roads to Outwit Terror, Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72571-6

137

138

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Fig. A1.1 IOT Hacking; more certain tomorrow than today

A total of 2,834 quantitative answers and 450 narrative comments were received. The study ran from mid-January to end of February 2020. The study was unusual in that the questions were based on future vignettes (miniscenarios) about which the panelists were asked to comment. The mini scenarios described acts that might be considered either crimes or terrorism or something new in their respective countries, today and in 2040. The panelists were asked for their opinions by choosing their answers from among five options, ranging from “certainly” to “certainly not”, and to provide the reasons behind their choices. Participation was anonymous (in the sense that none of the inputs could be attributed to a particular person), but all the participants are listed in Appendix A6 of this report. In an RTD, all the responses are updated instantaneously and fed back to all the participants in almost real time in an effort to encourage discussions and pull towards consensus. The study assessed two important issues: first (vignettes 1–12) which acts should be called terrorism; and second (vignettes 13–16) which acts would be justified as part of counterterrorism policy. While there was some level of agreement among the participants, broad consensus on an agreed definition of terrorism was neither sought, nor achieved. Nevertheless, elements of a definition and some impediments to agreement were identified. The study reveals a great deal of uncertainty about what acts might or might not be considered terrorism. Overall, for the mini-scenarios presented, there was a large distribution of the ratings among the five choices of answers. However, generally, responses showed a tendency towards tougher regulations in the future, with similar acts being more likely to be perceived as terrorism by 2040 than they are today. For example, as shown in the graph of Fig. A1.1 for mini-scenario “4. Hacking of devices in the Internet of Things”, the group’s opinion moves toward certainty that the act would be considered terrorism by 2040. There were also diverse opinions about whether the acts presented in the vignettes would be considered a “crime”, “terror”, “both”, “neither” or represent a “new” class of behavior. This corroborates the fuzzy and legally-challenging distinctions

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

139

that persist. Nevertheless, some of the comments provided could help for eventual further legal developments. Some of the most important findings include: • A terrorism act must be intentional, not accidental. It doesn’t need to be physical, but could be any activity that evokes fear, chaos, intimidation, uncertainty, instability, or trigger distrust of social institutions. Usually—but not always—there is a political, ideological, or religious motivation. Some crimes are also acts of terrorism. • The boundary between low profile war, dissent, crime, and terrorism is situation dependent, fuzzy, and shifting. • Vigilance seems to be increasing in the future; most of the situations presented in the vignettes were more likely to be considered terrorism in the future than they are today. However, this could also indicate a potential creep toward paranoia and authoritarianism. • Existing laws may not be adequate to define potential future terror acts, since most acts that today are only considered illegal could be considered terrorism in the future. • Traditional disruptive techniques may play a lesser role in the future. • The scale of terrorism—for both perpetrators and victims—could be very different in the future and technology will make this scale even larger and more diverse. • Perpetrators could be single individuals or groups. Nations producing extensive damage against other nations, individuals, or groups of individuals (e.g., a largescale impact hacking, or a bio-weapon attack) might be perceived as terrorist nations. • Counterterrorism policies and techniques might remain highly controversial, if the answers of this panel could be of any guidance. Nevertheless, they will be diversifying and likely become tougher. • There is a large diversity of views among experts—at least of those participating in this study—on what should be considered a terror act or not and who is or not a terrorist. The same act might be perceived very differently pending of countries and circumstances. The acts with the highest consensus (50% or more of the participants) as “certainly” or “likely” to be considered terrorism at the present were: • • • •

Arson—intentional fires that target specific groups are set in cities GMO insects—a super bug is released into the wild Genocide—genocide or ethnic cleansing is pursued by governments Hacking—hacker or group of hackers or a nation controlling them break into international funds • Shooters—shooters kill masses of people. Looking into the future 20 years, the following would be added to the list of TERROR:

140

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

• IOT hacking—destroying command and control links used in the Internet of Things • Bio-lab—lethal bio-agents are produced in private labs • Skinheads—threats or actions from extremists such as Neo Nazis and white supremacists. The acts which gained the highest consensus as being NON-TERROR actsat present were: • Peaceful disobedience (99%!) • Fake news—creation or distribution of false news • Election chaos—means of disinformation and manipulation of elections. However, looking into the future, only “Peaceful protests” would remain clearly perceived as non-terror in the future, although with a lower rating of being so, than in the present. Generally, the answers provided by the participants suggest that most of the situations presented in the vignettes are more likely to be considered terrorism in the future than they are today. The entropy-like shift in perception toward judging an act as terrorism was most apparent for the following: • IOT hacking: Is destroying command and control links in the Internet of Things terrorism? • GMO insect: Is it terrorism when a weapon such as a super bug is released into the wild? • Censorship: Would publications and reports of mass shootings be banned from media? • No privacy: Would abuse in data collection qualify as terrorism? • Bio-lab: Is private bio-research considered a terrorism act? • Social media chaos: Is inciting to riot via social media a form of terrorism? The study also tried to assess the preferred counterterrorism policies that might be considered. In general, there was a low level of agreement among the participants as of the application of extreme actions against terrorists—both for the present as for the future. Specifically: • No consensus has been reached on applying tougher laws as part of the counterterrorism strategy. • No consensus has been reached on applying very aggressive interrogation techniques to identify additional suspects and targets. • The majority of the responders deny the possibility to intrude peoples’ privacy to prevent terrorism. • Censorship is accepted by the majority of responders to prevent publications in press or social media which might help terrorists.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

141

Conclusions There is a low consensus among experts on a shared definition on what a terror act is, or who is or not a terrorist. The perception on terrorism differs between nations and between societies and cultures. There is a broad agreement that a terror act should be intentional and not accidental and its objective is to cause chaos, fear and instability. It can be motivated by ideologies of many sorts as well as religious objectives. There is a clear increase in vigilance in the future. Even acts like distribution of fake news or manipulation of elections could more and more be seen as a kind of terror activity. However, the act of peaceful disobedience is strongly believed to be non-terror activity at present and will remain so in the future, even if illegal in some places. A non-aggressive act, physical or another, won’t thus be considered terror neither will its participants be considered terrorists. Finally, there are diverse opinions on the need to apply tougher rules in order to reduce terrorism. Especially intrusion into peoples’ privacy and applying extreme ways of interrogation are not accepted as parts of a more effective counterterrorism policy. Considering the views expressed in this study, a definition of terrorism could emerge as follows: Terrorism is an aggressive act with the objective to create chaos among societies, invoke fear among people or cause instability and uncertainty in nations and social institutions. It can occur in physical space as well as in cyber space. Terrorism is motivated by ideology, religion, or politics and can be carried out by individuals or groups, as well as terrorist nations who would commit it directly or act through specialized cooperative groups.

This definition aligns well with many of the definitions of terrorism already in existence. However, the novelty of this study consists in identifying emerging elements and potential trajectories in the perception of terrorism.

A2 Introduction and Background What if the COVID-19 pandemic was caused by a (t)error event (a supposition supported by some theorists,1 given the Wuhan Institute of Virology program2 )? While this would have violated the Biological Weapons Convention3 (BWC), the 1 U.S.-Chinese

Distrust Is Inviting Dangerous Coronavirus Conspiracy Theories, Foreign Affairs, March 5, 2020 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-03-05/us-chinese-dis trust-inviting-dangerous-coronavirus-conspiracy. 2 Shoham, Dany. China’s Biological Warfare Programme: An Integrative Study with Special Reference to Biological Weapons Capabilities, Journal of Defence Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2 April-June 2015, pp. 131–156 https://idsa.in/jds/9_2_2015_ChinasBiologicalWarfareProgramme. 3 The Biological Weapons Convention. Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/bio/.

142

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

lack of a definition of terrorism and enforcement mechanism for the BWC would make it impossible to conduct an effective investigation, let alone prosecution,4 unless, of course, the offending party confessed. This is only one aspect of how lack of international agreement could lead to the spread of weapons of mass destruction, increasing the risk of their use with terrorism intent. The COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to change geopolitics and international collaboration. It is a warning of the devastating consequences of massive biological, cyber or other attacks that propagate fast globally and therefore need global strategies for preventive or counter actions. As pointed out by UN Secretary General,5 “the weaknesses and lack of preparedness exposed by this pandemic provide a window onto how a bioterrorist attack might unfold—and may increase its risks. Non-state groups could gain access to virulent strains that could pose similar devastation to societies around the globe.” With the advent of new technologies, what used to be “wild cards”, now are daily realities. Amplifying and being amplified by terrorism, they make dealing with other existential challenges—such as climate change, economic crises and erosion of democracy—even more difficult, reinforcing and expanding the crisis spiral. One positive outcome of the COVID-19 crisis would be agreement that global strategies and mechanisms to address future crises are needed, including the growing threat of terrorism. However, anti-terror policies and strategies depend greatly on the definition of terrorism. Despite sustained efforts by international organizations and nation-state governments, there are no globally-accepted criteria or elements that would make a perpetrator (individual, group or nation-state) be considered terrorist. Even the negotiations for the Comprehensive Terrorism Convention are stalled,6 given lack of consensus over a definition.

4 Addressing a noncompliance case to the UN Security Council would be a dead-end, given the veto

power of the most potentially suspected actors. remarks to the Security Council on the COVID-19 Pandemic [as delivered] https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2020-04-09/secretary-generals-remarks-thesecurity-council-the-covid-19-pandemic-delivered. 6 Fight against International Terrorism Impeded by Stalemate on Comprehensive Convention, Sixth Committee Hears as Seventy-Third Session Begins https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/gal3566.doc. htm. 5 Secretary-General’s

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

143

There are many7 attempted definitions of terrorism—ranging from scholarly designed8 to national definitions9 and the international but non-binding UN Security Council Resolution 1566.10 Most definitions include some level of violence directed to inflict terror and disrupt normal life, with the goal of achieving or raising attention over specific political or ideological agenda. On the other hand, there are also opinions that given the heterogeneous contexts in which the term is used, there is no need—and it might be even irrelevant11 —to reach consensus on a definition in order to effectively address the terrorism phenomenon. Given the fast technological and social developments, both—definitions and policies—are evolving over time. As new technologies are supporting the diversification and increasing destructive power of terrorism, national and international regulations should also adapt to enable prosecution and even pre-emptive actions to reduce the threats. Social media and free and fast flow of information, the high dependency on computer technology and strategic infrastructure, as well as ever faster developments in biotechnology are taken for granted and—despite repeated warnings—rarely are perceived as weaponizable. This Real-Time Delphi study was conducted in order to get a better understanding about the potential evolution of various acts and technologies and whether or not they would fit or affect terrorism definitions. The questionnaire was designed to collect opinions from international experts on the elements that might determine if an act would be considered terrorism now or in the future in their respective countries. The participants were asked to judge particular scenarios based on evolving technologies. There is a high debate about the double-edge sword technologies; and rightfully so. This questionnaire tried to address both—the potentially increasing dangers, but also the increasing possibilities offered by emerging technologies for pre-detection of potential future perpetrators. Easier access to new tools enables terrorists to develop massively destructive weapons, such as using CRISPR and synthetic biology to create new infectious 7 Some

260 definitions are compiled by Joseph J. Easson and Alex P. Schmid in The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research, pp. 99 -200. London and New York: Routledge, 2011. 8 Alex P. Schmid. The Revised Academic Consensus Definition of Terrorism. Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2012. http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/ schmid-terrorism-definition/html. Richards, Anthony. Conceptualizing Terrorism. Oxford Scholarship Online, October 2015 https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198746966.001.0001/acp rof-9780198746966. Prabha, Kshitij. Defining terrorism. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, India. https:// www.idsa-india.org/an-apr-08.html. 9 Liesbeth van der Heide &ReinierBergema. Terrorism Threat Assessment 2018–2019. International Centre for Counter-Terrorism—The Hague (ICCT), 2019. https://icct.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/ 12/ICCT_Terrorism_Threat_Assessment.pdf. 10 UN Security Council Resolution 1566. October 2004. https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/n04 54282.pdf. 11 Gilbert Ramsay. Why terrorism can, but should not be defined. University of St Andrews, 2015 https://risweb.st-andrews.ac.uk/portal/en/researchoutput/why-terrorism-can-but-should-notbe-defined(caf47778-e31c-4cc1-a9c6-cc3265f8172d).html.

144

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

diseases, or digital viruses in cyberspace to cause disruption of vital services. If AI becomes a public good as seems likely, it will be difficult to prevent its use in war or terrorism. Drones and autonomous vehicles can be terror weapons; 3D printing opens the possibility to new weapons production methods and weapons that pass screening points without triggering alarms. Some of these weapons will be very dangerous, potentially destructive, and very difficult to pre-detect, making anticipation and thwarting of terrorism acts more challenging and urgent. But let’s also remember that simple machines remain as well part of the unholy mix or weapons terrorists can choose to use: a truck driving through a crowd killed 86 people in Nice on Bastille Day in 2016, and a fertilizer bomb killed 168 people in Oklahoma in 1995. The list is long and dangerously increasing by the day. However, the same technologies that give terrorists more power may also increase the potential of anti-terror detection: DNA databases enable the new field of forensic genealogy, a police tool that uses genetic histories and family trees to help identify contemporary suspects. AI maybe useful in identifying terrorists before they have a chance to act by searching for indicators of plots in progress. The Internet of Things (IoT) can provide clues about who is buying things that might add up to danger. Autonomous systems—systems that can decide to act on their own—might be useful when time is short, for example, blocking a person who is attempting to enter a sensitive location. There are infinite potential scenarios on how terrorism and counter-terrorism could evolve over the next 20 years. We depicted a few vignettes (very short scenario ideas) for some of the most representative potential developments. They include developments that may flow from work in progress today or that may be discontinuous and unexpected. But even without surprises, the array of possibilities is staggering: robot soldiers from giants to ant-sized; new man-made diseases; surreptitious attacks so well hidden that only one side knows an attack is underway; data seemingly well-protected but somehow in disarray; fakes indistinguishable from reality, where most insects are natural but others are constructed of 3D printed parts, where machines make decisions, where some people reach for survival while others reach for immortality; and so the stories evolve, with the unimaginable increasingly becoming potential reality. The role of the vignettes was only to set the scene and help the participants better imagine those potential cases, to provide a more vivid and tangible sense of what might be. We think that striving for plausibility can limit imagination about what might be, since, as we have all seen, the most important elements of the future may seem quite implausible today.

A3 Brief Description of the Method Beginning in the 1960s, Delphi studies were used to collect expert judgment from small groups of experts using sequential questionnaires, each building on the results of the prior questionnaire. The questioning sequence was designed to elicit reasons

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

145

for outlier positions which, when fed back to the group, tended to move the group average toward consensus. The essential elements of a Delphi study are: the need for expert participants, since panel sizes are generally small; anonymity of participants to avoid some biases; and feedback of group opinion. Despite their popularity, Delphi studies have been expensive and take months to complete; e.g., a three round Delphi can take three- to four-months. The Real-Time Delphi, by contrast, is an efficient online system that does not employ sequential rounds but rather displays group responses to all participants immediately after they are generated. It differs from “classic” online surveys by providing real-time group feedback as the questionnaire is being completed, so that the participants can see the responses provided that far and learn from the group as the study progresses. They can revisit the questionnaire as many times as they want to see how the responses evolve, and even complete, edit or change their own answers if they consider so. The first RTD studies were published in 2004 and since then several versions have been produced and used in a variety of applications. For more information see: Glenn, Jerome and Gordon, Theodore, “The RealTime Delphi Method” in Futures Research Methodology—V3.0. Washington DC: The Millennium Project. http://www.millennium-project.org/publications-2/futuresresearch-methodology-version-3-0/. For an example of the Real-Time Delphi method see: https://www.realtimedelphi. com/.

A4 Responses on the Mini-Scenarios—Full Results and Texts This Appendix includes all the questions (mini-scenarios) with graphs showing the summary of the ratings, as well as the verbatim reasoning and comments provided by the participants for each sub-question. Note: in the graphs, the ratings show the percentage of the participants who considered the respective likelihood of the scenarios as an act of terrorism. In the title of the graphs, in parenthesis is indicated the number of responses received for the respective sub-question. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Bio Lab: Is private lab of bio-research considered a terrorism act? Arson: Can arson be classed as terrorism? Hacking: Can a super hack be classed as terrorism? IOT Hacking: Is destroying command and control links in the Internet of Things terrorism? Election Chaos: Can disinformation and manipulation be considered terrorism? GMO Insect: Is it terrorism when a weapon such as a super-bug is released into the wild? Social Media Chaos: Is inciting to riot via social media a form of terrorism? Genocide: Is genocide or ethnic cleansing by governments a form of terrorism?

146

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

9. 10. 11.

Fake News: Is creation or distribution of false news a form of terrorism? Shooters: Are mass shooters considered to be terrorists? Skinheads: Are extremists such as Neo Nazis and white supremacists considered terrorists? Peaceful Protests: Would peaceful civil disobedience be considered terrorism? Instigation: Would intimidation or instigation to chaos qualify as terrorism and therefore qualify for tougher laws? Torture: Would torture be acceptable to identify suspects and targets? Censorship: Would publications and reports of mass shootings be banned from media? No Privacy: Would abuse in data collection qualify as terrorism? Potential new terrorist entities or forms of terrorism Final Question: Additional Suggestions Some other Comments

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Question 1: Bio Lab: Is a private lab of bio-research considered a terrorism act? A person with an undergraduate degree in Biology has a small lab in his house. He was reported as being engaged in suspicious activity by some neighbors. On questioning, FBI technicians found that he was using CRISPR to develop a bacterium lethal to humans and apparently resistant to antibiotics. His work had no government oversight or funding. As far as can be determined he has broken no laws; he says he is trying to improve understanding of the disease but he has written a few anti-government pieces on social media. Is his course of research a terrorist act? Ratings Bio-lab activities are expected to be more likely to be considered terrorism in the future than they are today, as revealed by the responses showed in Fig. A4.1. However, the opinions were very diverse as of their potential classification, with a few respondents considering that a new category might be needed, as revealed in Fig. A4.2. Comments Today: 1. 2.

3. 4.

It depends on whether or not it can be demonstrated that he has intent to use his results to harm people or to provide them to others with that intent. This is definitely outside the realm of terrorism. Using these technologies is, at his level, innocent. It requires much more than he has to go from concept to implementation. Neighbors opinion about what he makes is not a standard for classifying his actions as terrorism, nor are his anti-governmental views. Intentions not very clear. Not enough evidence of the link between the activity and potential ideological intent.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

147

Fig. A4.1 Bio-lab terrorism today and by 2040

Fig. A4.2 Bio-lab classification

5. 6.

7.

8.

The individual has neither clearly planned nor engaged in an act of violence, so it cannot be terrorism. This person clearly poses a serious threat which must be addressed. However to define him as a terrorist he would have to intend using his weapon for a political purpose, as an instrument of terror to accomplish an ulterior political purpose. That is not clear in the example. However he is no less threatening for that, simply that he presents another sort of threat. In America we have traditionally given the benefit of the doubt in virtually every instance, a reactive posture. This position is well known across the rest of the world. Those with evil intent have taken advantage of us. In recent time some who hate us have taken advantage of us, have seen this as a weakness. Each of his/her activities—either playing games with synthetic biology or expressing anti-social opinions—may be harmless alone. But the combination

148

9. 10.

11. 12.

13.

14.

15. 16.

17. 18. 19. 20.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

of these places him/her as certainly antisocial. A question that remains is his/her motives. Why harmless? because it is not certain what may come out of his/her games—either a disastrous outcome (less likely, in my opinion) or nothing at all but some inconvenience, like bad smells or suspicious objects, unknown to non-professionals, in the trash bin, to his neighbors (more likely). His actions alone are not terrorism; if INTENT to use his work for terrorism can be shown, then I believe the conclusion for terrorism is clear. First of all, the lad has only an undergrad degree. Therefore, he cannot be considered for real an expert, but rather somebody with solid knowledge in biology. Secondly, even if prove successful, antibiotics are not the only thing can kill a bacteria, may be only the most common one. Thirdly, research can be interpreted in many ways and there is definitely a huge step from research to practice. The fact that has no governmental oversight or funding is not relevant. There is no political intent; no crime committed. Check his or her social media: are there references to causes contrary to interests of his or her country? In other words, judge intent on the basis of corollary information. Being smart researcher and anti-gov doesn’t make someone a terrorist. Nevertheless, as a related issues: there should be international regulations making mandatory that in case any entity (private, government, or research organization) develops a new biological organism or agent (e.g. virus) which could be harmful to humans or nature in general, also develops the antidote (reversal agent) at the same time. I understand terrorism as an act that is politically or ideologically motivated. That he wrote a few anti-government pieces implies he may have political motivation to use it—but unless this is substantiated with evidence, my view is that his action is not terrorism albeit very dangerous. The scenario does not provide a linkage to deliberate usage or demonstrated intent to use the products of his research. The activity of this person CAN BE used for terrorist purposes, even if he can be an innocent that studies something what can be dangerous for others. If the person is innocent, he has broken no laws; the effects of his actions can be lethal accidentally or used by others persons. Can be considered a sort of unconscious terrorism, pre-terrorism, potential terrorism. The definition of terrorism acts can be enlarged. The course of action is questionable but there is not enough evidence of preparation of criminal acts. If no proof of harmful activity in planning, this as such is not a crime nor terrorism. The most important is if he was trying to develop a bacterium lethal to humans and how it can be proved. Having a small lab to handle such bacteria in his house is very suspicious. Furthermore this represents a danger for the neighborhood and possibly beyond.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

21.

22.

23. 24. 25.

26.

27. 28.

149

Some technology and thus the research in these fields are regulated for a good cause. His ’garage lab’ is not safe to do research on dangerous Bacteriums. Therefore the whole activities should be checked thoroughly. It’s true he didn’t break any law; anyway, the connection between the lethal bacterium research and the anti-government posts on social media might be taken into account/surveillance. Today he is an undergrad and maybe not able to master CRISPR appropriately (I read few comments on that), in the near future he might be able to do that. Intensions here are unclear. Terrorism can be an option. Reminds me of the student who plaid with chemicals in his home and caused an explosion. It is not possible to punish suspicions or intentions. It is not entirely clear what his exact motivations were—although it is said he had written a few anti-government pieces on social media. This is suggestive of a degree of possible political-ideological intent. Combined with the possibly lethal implications of his research, he could be a biological terrorist in the making. Today’s concept of terrorism and terrorists is based on government and media discourses, which are about the person and not the acts. The discourse of the piece is very similar… It is cause of suspicion, but not a criminal or Terrorism act in itself. Why would someone without a proper degree in science play with dangerous substances at home? Even if he is not a terrorist or has no bad intentions, his activity should be prohibited. In a similar way as I would forbid the private ownership of large cats of prey just for fun.

By 2040: 29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

In 2040, it is likely that such activity will be regulated or controlled in some way, suggesting that this might be a crime if not licensed. The issue with whether terrorism will remain that of intent. The evidence is still weak, but it will depend on whether CBRN activities by extremists will have become more mainstream. In this case, it could at the very least raise more eyebrows and fit as an indicator of potential precursors to terrorism This scenario realistically depicts the possible and probable (Ed Cornish 1977). We must find the rationale for establishing proactive criteria for thwarting behavior depicted in this scenario–the PREFERABLE (Ed Cornish 1977). The classification such a person as a terrorist requires additional information on the motives, social circle, etc. The same may be true for 2040. Such activities may be classified as illegal if biohacking will be outlawed, like cyber and computer offences today. Though attitudes may change, it should NOT be defined as terrorism. Again the actions are certainly suspicious and the actor should be monitored. He is not (yet?) a terrorist.

150

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

34.

I can imagine that definitions of terrorism might be broadened to include research on genetic engineering without a clear medical or scientific intent Considering that the climate will keep worsening, this will probably mean social riots and more authoritative regimes in many countries (with various degrees of democracy kept). Hence such suspicious behavior would probably be suspected (or, in lesser democratic regimes, immediately classified) as terrorist. With expected advances in biotechnology and the continuing Internet-driven democratization of information and technology by 2040, the potential for such bioterrorism scenarios would be very realistic I hope that by then we would have gone full circle away from thinking of people as good or bad, to thinking about their acts. Regulation is expanding its capacity more and more. At some point in the future I suspect some sort of research will not necessarily be banned but more controlled. 2040 is not too far away. It would take up more time to link terrorism to research, even for factual reasons. Hopefully, labs are more safe in the future, that also citizen scientist can do research in fields that today are a little too dangerous. The individual has neither clearly planned nor engaged in an act of violence, so it cannot be terrorism. Hopefully we will have clarified our concepts by 2040. Concepts are important, and we must be very clear about what we mean by terrorism. By 2040 there could be several epidemics due to the consequences of climate change and overpopulation. Synthetic Biology will be more advanced and used; I am not sure about the existence/role of DIY concept. There will presumably be strict regulations on the manipulations of life forms, especially pathogens. Any change in perception of terrorism in this case may depend on other technologies that have developed. These include the continued decay of privacy, the degree to which CRISPR technology is readily available to a broader spectrum of the public, and the ability to easily detect incidences in which CRISPR has been used. In 25 yrs a person’s profile will be complete enough to be able to assess criminal intent. Unless regulatory oversight evolves by 2040 to cover home brew operations (it currently only covers work with pathogens on a select agent list), it is unlikely that this would fall under any controls. Demonstrating intent of usage will still be a legal standard that will have to be met. Stricter interpretation of the person’s intentions may prevail in 2040 (even potential planning of harmful activity may be considered criminal) We can guess that by 2040 we would have more knowledge about the effects of the technology and we have been proven that the risk is higher than we are able to reckon today. Some cases may have aroused the interest of the legislators. It depends if the research in this specific topic is regulated in terms so restrictive that this kind of research must be developed by postgraduate phd in sciences and with the gov. permission.

35.

36.

37. 38.

39. 40. 41. 42.

43.

44. 45.

46. 47.

48.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

49.

50. 51.

52.

151

If in the 20 years between 2020 and 2040, epidemics have occurred and have been shown to be the result of genetic manipulation (as some believe coronavirus to be) laws will toughen significantly. Consider: It may be required that any genetic modification must include a genetic fingerprint identifying the author and his or her institution. Failure to do so will be taken as prima fascia evidence of intent to commit terrorism (a new crime). Time passage should not alter suitable terrorism definition. In 2040 the opportunity of cheap micro labs that produce harmful substances that could contribute to terrorism is enabled by technological progress (CRISPER, 3D printing, new methods of bio-engineering, etc.) The national security activities with big data analytics will be very much possible to identify early activities (maybe the Chinese social credit system is an approach already today.) Bio will certainly be a component of the terror threat in the future. CRISPR and its daughter technologies will enable its spread.

Classification 53. 54. 55.

56.

57.

58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.

Not a crime because there are no current laws against this type of research. Question of intent is still relevant in deciding whether terrorism or not. I do not know! Such behavior is so dangerous that proactive measures must be enacted enabling law enforcement to take action. A comparable scenario: An employee authorized to be in the area of a potable water tank is observed walking toward that water source with a vial of unknown substance. Should that person be allowed to proceed, or should that individual be prevented from emptying the vial into the water source? I do not know of existing laws that ban such activities, contrary to institutional activities that are well regulated. This is a novel situation which requires legislation just like more normal activities like driving a car. In Israel it would be consider as breaking the rules of research not a crime or terrorism. The guy could be suspected as aiming terror if he was a far right or far left person. If no criminal intent can be proved, he only does research for the good of humanity This would be far too next level for a country like Romania, where not even terrorism made its appearance. Not a crime nor terrorism, but it may be picked up as suspicious behavior by the intelligence community and followed for monitoring purposes. Not enough evidence of the potential criminal uses of the technology. Humans have curiosity. That has kept us alive so far. People discover. They invent. It is not a crime. No crime has been committed as, to my knowledge there are no laws in the U.S. The pertain to the facts presented.

152

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

64.

This is the definition of Terrorism in Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code [1] defines terrorism as an act committed in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause with the intention of intimidating the public …with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act. The case study write up states it’s not against the law. So, it is not a crime although not sure whether that premise is correct. But if this premise is correct one can think about whether DIY actions like this have to be regulated for safety reasons and be made a crime if not under oversight. If an epidemic has occurred before this research is discovered, legal standards and definitions will have changed. What used to be acceptable will no longer be tolerated. If an epidemic has occurred before this research is discovered, legal standards and definitions will have changed. What used to be acceptable will no longer be tolerated. Anti-social movement may assume new channels and forms. Interest in technology, biotechnology and AI may be used by individuals who harbour anarchistic or simply anti-social imaginaries and concrete plans to make them reality. As far as I know, these activities would be illegal in Germany. This would classify this as a crime, probably in most countries, not only in mine: to have unauthorized such dangerous activity is far too dangerous. In Singapore, such experimentation would be carefully regulated and it would likely be a crime to be engaging in it free of formal oversight. It may also be seen as terrorism if evidence of a clear political-ideological slant is confirmed. In the United States, higher order weapon forays would probably elicit terrorism label. Low scientific literacy and media sensationalism contributes to misperception of what is a terrorist threat—this could be seen as being some kind of vague terrorist threat even if it does not meet the legal standard for being classified as such. No crime at the moment because the lack of legislation, perceived as terrorism by the population, on news media and social network. A crime because the research using bacteria must be carried out under permission and need to fill concrete regulations.

65.

66.

67.

68. 69. 70.

71. 72.

73. 74.

Question 2: Arson: Can arson be classed as terrorism? Fires have occurred in half dozen cities. There are similarities among these fires that suggest a single person or group is behind them. Possible motives include hate crimes or intimidation since all have occurred in places of worship of a single sect. Can arson be classed as terrorism?

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

153

Fig. A4.3 Arson considered terrorism today and by 2040

Fig. A4.4 Arson classification

Ratings Arson as it has been described in this vignette was considered by the majority of respondents as a terrorist act today and even more so in the future, as shown in Fig. A4.3. It would certainly be classified as crime or as both, crime and terrorism, as revealed in Fig. A4.4. Comments Today: 75. 76. 77.

Fire is not typical terrorism attack Half dozen fires in different cities, with similarities, could be considered as act of terror, aimed to cause chaos and fear. Here fire is being used as a weapon against a specific religious group. That is terrorism and a hate crime.

154

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

78.

It would definitely be a crime if the fires are indeed man-made. Motives are not clearly established although racism or fanaticism against certain religious groups could be postulated. Although the result would be chaos and fear (naturally), it has to be established to be so in order to be characterized as terrorism. Of course arson can be a weapon of terrorism. Arson by itself is not necessarily a terrorist in current understanding. Again, the intent is a deciding factor; here there is a possible basis if motives are hate crimes, intimidation of a specific group. Arson is a crime. It may also be terrorism as judged by the places burned. Intent must be established. Method does not, should not, inform us about judging an act as terrorism Arson is a crime in the US. Arson directed against a single group is just another method of terrorist application of pressure, regardless of whether the desired outcome is clearly known. Sure, arson is a crime, if it is an unlawful destruction of assets of any kind. The motives are not clear here to classify this as terrorist act or not Setting fire is a popular terror threat in Israel. I would be careful with the limits of terrorism; crime is vaster. At its root terrorism of course means terrorizing. However, also mafia people can keep in terror certain people, or a pack of wolves can keep in terror an entire village. I guess animals cannot be terrorists, while mafias are not terrorists, but rather law breakers, at a certain level. In Romania, in every agricultural season there is a moron that smokes in the fields of somebody who through a lighten cigar set crops on fire. Of course in this case, the intention is not there, however the effect is the same. Reading the provided articles, I would say is more a matter of hooliganism, or ordinary crime, revenge, can even be some stupid show off unrequested bravery that went amazingly wrong. On the other hand, Nero burning down Rome could have been regarded as a matter of terrorism, but this would be a niche case. If the fires were all in places of worship of a single sect the target is clear and mostly predictable, that’s why I see it more as a crime than terrorism. Only if it declared intentionally to be also an act of terrorism. Again, this is serious and must be dealt with. However whether it is terrorism depends upon whether the fires have been used for a political or criminal purpose. If there is evidence of a religious-ideological motive for targeting this outgroup, identifying it an existential threat of some sort to some in-group, it qualifies as a terrorist act Certainly it’s a crime. But to be considered terrorism, it’s necessary to investigate and know the motivation and the author or authors. Perhaps there are differences in the definition of a sect. A well-known, recognized religion is not called a sect. Sect usually has a negative connotation. An assignment is not possible without knowing the subject.

79. 80.

81. 82. 83.

84. 85. 86.

87. 88. 89.

90.

91. 92.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

93.

94.

95. 96.

155

In many countries, given the growing attention to climate change and the environment, criminal actions against nature and the environment are increasingly considered serious. Twenty years ago, lighting a small fire in the countryside was normal and nobody was scandalized. Today it is prohibited by law and, above all, it is socially considered a criminal act. Each case needs to be examined and tried. The act of arson is certainly a crime. The fact that churches are involved suggests it is probably a local act of terrorism, but there could be other reasons and intent. There could also be a local reason, even personal, and the arsonists could also be inspired by or even members of a larger organization that promotes such crimes as part of a terrorism campaign. These kinds of things have been going on since we began living in buildings that burn and using fire. This series of acts are ostensibly aimed at causing terror. The only doubt is whether they have enough magnitude as to be considered attacks. The scenario suggests that the fires were likely set by a single person but, while it seems probable, it is not proven. It probably doesn’t matter, however, whether they were set by a single person or by multiple people as long as they were indeed intentionally set. Either way they are a hate crime if they were set and, if there was coordination it was terrorism, that might require proof of intent.

Comments By 2040: 97. 98.

99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104.

105.

Time should not change the fact that use of fire as a weapon against a religious group is both terrorism and a hate crime. Religiously-motivated types of terrorism are not likely to go away by 2040. If anything continued technological and cultural globalization will likely intensify identity-group fault lines within and between religions worldwide. Intent and motives are still relevant to terrorism. Terrorism tends to sophisticates itself. Arson is just a far to basic method. May prove efficient, but rudimentary. Robust terrorism conceptualization/definition is resistant to time passage This is not likely to change over time; setting fires is a low-tech means of destroying infrastructure. Climate change getting dramatically worse by 2040s, arson would be considered a crime and punished more than currently If the definition of terrorism broadens by 2040 this might fit. Causing fear is arguably more central than the requirement of violence against people, so if the intent is to spread fear this would fit a broadened definition. Some of the references cannot be read for the following reasons: Our partners and we use non-sensitive data such as cookies or device identifiers to display personalized advertising, measure traffic and visitor preferences, and personalize content. I have installed a general rejection.

156

106. 107. 108.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

In 20 years the act of arson may be included into the definition of terrorism because of its aim to destruct and arouse terror. There is a tendency in broadening the types of activities that are considered terrorism. I can’t think of any plausible social changes that would change the status by 2040.

Classification 109. 110.

111. 112.

113. 114. 115. 116.

117. 118. 119.

Recent such acts have been branded terrorism and hate crimes. You might say, terrorism is so threatening that we, society, are willing to enact practices that bias the press toward NOT reporting on crimes and punishment of captured terrorists and mass shooters; otherwise they could become models for others to emulate. Arson is currently a crime in the US; using arson to intimidate a specific religious group is terrorism. Setting fire is punishable by law as criminal mischief or aggravated criminal mischief which in turn are listed as specific terrorist offences if a terrorist intent can be shown. In Israel setting fire is a crime and as commented also a common terror act In Singapore such acts against a faith group would fall afoul of several aimed at preserving public order such as the Penal Code etc. Certainly a hate crime and probably terrorism, perhaps depending on intent. In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code [1] defines terrorism as an act committed in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause with the intention of intimidating the public …with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act. As such it seems a terrorist act in Canada. However, worldwide various countries might see this differently And arson is also in general a crime in Canada Prevailing social ideology/political considerations help dictate what is deemed terrorism by contrast to crime Setting fire is a crime and it is punished by law. To be considered terrorism it would be necessary to establish some connections between groups and a political purpose of the actions.

Question 3: Hacking: Can a super hack be classed as terrorism? A super-hacker or group of hackers or nation controlling them has broken into the international funds transfer system and has made a mess. It is generally known that funds were previously siphoned off, but this attack was different. Instead of taking funds, the hackers have apparently inserted a great deal of false information into the system. Accounts don’t balance, claims of errors soar, banking is in turmoil. Funds transfer has gone back to pencil and paper records. This situation has lasted more than 6 months. There has been a run on several banks.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

157

Fig. A4.5 Hacking as terrorism today and by 2040

Fig. A4.6 Hacking classification

Can this super hack be classed as terrorism? Ratings Hacking was rated by most respondents as potentially being considered terrorism both today and even more so in the future, as shown in Fig. A4.5. However, while there was general agreement that it is a crime, only about 30% of the respondents considered it also a terrorist act, as revealed by the graph in Fig. A4.6.

158

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Comments Today: 120. 121.

122. 123.

124. 125. 126. 127.

128. 129. 130.

131.

132. 133.

134.

135. 136. 137.

138.

It looks as unsocial attack. In my mind there needs to be a direct link between the act and terror. While financial system turmoil can cause a lot of damage, I am not sure it would cause terror. The possible goal of disrupting the system is not by itself a terrorist act, as troublesome and dangerous as it may be. This is a clearly a cyber attack with the intension to make the banking system not working—there could be people behind then it is rather a cyber terrorism or foreign states, then it is rather cyber warfare. This falls under cyber terrorism. This kind of multidirectional attack certainly cause social panic and go against the system, so, the consequence is the population fills terror. No political themes articulated This is hard core anti social activity, likely with the purpose of enriching the perpetrator(s) or perhaps for simply wrecking havoc. It is not clear if the intent is to break down the trust in the financial system and its processes, therefore to early to characterize this as terrorism. It depends of the connection of the hackers to other terrorist activities. If a nation is controlling it, it is cyber warfare, not terrorism. For this to be terrorism, the intent would have to be shown that degrading the confidence of the public was the ultimate target, rather than some bored kid breaking in to simply show what they could do. The situation is complex. Generally I would not relate this to terrorism. There can be a niche case where a terrorist group has done that to the bank, to hide certain operations, or finance themselves. Otherwise, look like a cyber attack. It looks more like the willingness to disrupt but no to create terror Same answer as above. This is an attack approaching the same severity level as in the first bioweapon example, but severe consequences are not the same as terrorism. There must an effort to use the attack for a political or criminal purpose. Again, what is the motive? If it is some anti-globalization, anti-technological political-ideological motivation to return society to simpler times—think Unabomber—this could be a terrorist action. In terms of out-group violence, it does not always have to be physical, it could be structural as well, in this case, targeted at entire populations. If intent with certain scope can be proved, it can qualify as terrorism, depending on the state’s framework for terrorism definition. Of course, terrorist can use cyber-weapons to create turmoil. It can be considered cyber-terrorism because the elements of producing fear, chaos, uncertainty, and/or distrust in institutions are recognizable in the action. The multi-layer aspect of the mess suggests an intent beyond criminal.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

139.

159

Such an attack on the general public can certainly be described as terrorism. It is much more than a normal bank robbery. Moreover, the intention is obviously not—only—to steal money.

By 2040: 140. 141.

142.

143. 144.

145.

146.

147. 148. 149.

150.

With time cyber crime will likely be defined as terrorism because of the potential ramifications to the social system. Cyber attack is an increasing crime that becomes more and more important. In scale can be worst than terrorism, but I do not think so it will be introduce under this category, but kept on its own. Blocking the financial banking system is a harm on the whole societal system—Maybe with a rise of failed states and their increasing abilities to put harm on other states—and terrorist groups that have structures like a state, the concepts of warfare and terrorism are no more different. Cyber terror hacking included falls well into future terror threat and it’s not going to change in the next decades. Due to technological and economic globalization and the rise of so-called smart cities with multiple interlocking interdependencies, this kind of cyberterrorist attack is likely to be a regular threat by 2040 Considering that it is a higher probability that in 2040 the most of the current domestic financial activities of the people will be on line and under AI parameters, this kind of attack represents a very high risk for the confidence in the system. It should not be characterized as terrorism, although it may wreck havoc. However, varying political observations may call it terrorism in order to further its own policies and go after certain pesky groups. This is a very likely scenario in totalitarian countries. Hacking, even very malevolent, has become widespread. However, it may not be considered as terrorism as such but rather illegal digital activity. In a digitalized world those types of actions will be probably surpassed by other types of disruptive actions. The pace of change in sophistication of both financial systems and the ability to disrupt them may put tools that could accomplish this scenario at the disposal of pranksters as well as more nefarious (terrorist) individuals. The redefinition of what terrorism is by 2040 may have led to consider this terrorism.

Classification 151.

In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause with the intention of intimidating the public …with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain

160

152. 153.

154.

155. 156. 157. 158. 159.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

from doing any act. So here if it’s run by a nation it’s very likely it’s a terrorist event. If just individuals or a group it depends on the reason why. As such it could be or not be a terrorist act. In both cases it is seen as a crime This is right now a cyber crime Hacking is usually prosecuted under existing computer fraud laws in the US. The effects described in this scenario are likely to be perceived as terrorism, with the intent to influence perceptions and possibly actions with false information. Described form of hacking is punishable by law as aggravated interference in an information system which in turn is listed specifically as terrorist offence if terrorist intent can be shown. Breaking into accounts is considered a crime. Could be done by a terror state (IRAN) or a terror group (HAMAS). Actually envisioned in Israel daily. Clearly a crime has been committed under U.S. law and the extended effect suggests a level of sophistication with a broad and devastating effect. Hacking or cracking or cyber attacks of any kind are related to fraud or to privacy of data, and punished by appropriate laws. As it causes purposefully damages, it is a crime, but hardly a terrorist attack without due connections with terrorist groups. This would clearly be seen as a crime at this point, punishable under existing cybersecurity laws.

Question 4: IOT Hacking: Is destroying command and control links in the Internet of Things terrorism? There has been a rash of failures of medical devices, worldwide. Some heart pacers no longer pace accurately, oximeters show unexpectedly low oxygen content, 3D organ printers no longer follow their programmed instructions. The only common thing about these failures is that they all have some links to the Internet of Things. No one has claimed responsibility for these failures, although there have been some attempts at extortion that the security forces claim are not genuine. Is destroying command and control links used in the Internet of Things classed as terrorism? Ratings The likelihood of IoT hacking being considered terrorism was rated considerable higher in the future than it is today, as shown in Fig. A4.7. Similarly to hacking, most of the participants considered IoT as a ‘crime’, with about a quarter of participants considering it both, ‘crime’ and ‘terrorism’, as revealed in Fig. A4.8. Comments Today: 160.

Though the affected populations may consider themselves as attacked, the acts themselves do not fit the definition of terrorism.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

161

Fig. A4.7 IoT Hacking as terrorism today and by 2040

Fig. A4.8 IoT Hacking classification

161.

162. 163. 164. 165.

This is a deliberate and indiscriminate attack on the health of many to cause insecurity and fear. This, in my opinion, meets one of THE definitions of terrorism. If no one has claimed responsibility, it hardly can be considered terrorism. Public exposure is crucial for terrorist activities. This is a standard risk involved in use of sophisticated technology. Who is behind and why is central to label this as crime or terrorism Since there was no claim, the personal gain and enhanced notoriety element is missing from the current definition of terrorism.

162

166.

167.

168.

169. 170. 171.

172. 173.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Extortion is generally for some kind of financial gain, while terrorism is for some kind of political gain. Terrorists may use extortion to gain resources to perpetuate terrorist acts, so this boils down to distal intent—is it to get money or is it to influence confidence in the health system? What is the motivation for these actions? If there is evidence of a relatively coherent anti-globalization, anti-technological ideological bent, it could be terrorism in nature. The note about potential extortion though suggests blackmail, hence more criminal motivation here. The anonymity seems antithetical to terrorism, unless there is some broader information campaign sowing doubt and fear through reference to the high number of incidents, even without specific claim of responsibility. It depends of the intention and the nature of the persons involved in the attack. Depending of the state’s definition of terrorism, this can be an example of Criminal Terrorism—terrorist act used for criminal profit. The previous example was a soft act of cyber attacks. The example provided here on Row 4, looks like a terrorist attack due to the level of terror and panic it generated, potential reasons behind it, and innocent people died. A well known possible terror scenario. Without claims or perceived goals—other than disruption—these acts seem to be criminal more than terrorist.

By 2040: 174.

175.

176. 177. 178. 179. 180.

181.

With the ubiquity of the internet of things for all kinds of economic, social, and human activities, this could be seen as an attack on the critical backbone of the world. By 2040, assuming that an ideological manifesto justifying these attacks is discovered, this could be terrorism. If not, it would be cybercrime, a parallel development by then. This kind of abuse of technology with the intent for extortion is becoming more and more widespread. Same as present day. The legal system must define and distinguish well the difference between crime and terrorist act. Given advancements in profiling and security, it will be easy to determine if it is or not a terrorist act. By 2040, my guess is that only affluent people will have enough money to have such sophisticated medical devices. Such rich people will not tolerate any faulty behavior putting their health into danger. They will probably have enough influence to classify this as a terrorist attack. It can be a terroristic act in the future aimed at global chaos and maybe an attack to civilization as it will be in 2040.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

163

Classification 182.

183.

184.

185.

186. 187.

188. 189.

The attempts to extortion etc. are crimes. The organ failures could cause terror to parts of the population. But the act that causes things has not been established. This is sloppy manufacturing (unless proven to be entirely intentional) and sloppy surveillance/regulation follow-up procedures (-probably gross neglect) and not terrorism. Although disruptive (and potentially dangerous) it seems to have no political objective and no obvious specific target. Given this in Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause with the intention of intimidating the public …with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act. It’s not a terrorism one but it’s a crime in the way the case study is written. Attempted extortion is a crime. If system failures are the result of hacking, they can be punishable by law as aggravated interference in an information system which in turn is listed specifically as terrorist offence if terrorist intent can be shown. As the account stands, there is no political context. Extortion is prosecuted as a criminal act in the US, but depending on whether it is linked to an intended sociopolitical effect will determine if it is perceived as terrorism. This would be seen as a crime, given the suggestion of blackmail and extortion motivations. A crime with or without extortion since it imposes risk on a population segment.

Question 5: Election Chaos: Can disinformation and manipulation be considered terrorism? In reviewing the 2016 US election all USA security agencies found that Russia had made a deliberate attempt to sway USA voters toward their selection of a President, influencing an election through deliberate subversion of the voting process or other means. From all indications, other nations are using such techniques in other places and other elections to affect the outcome. The techniques for influencing an election through deliberate subversion of the voting process will likely improve over time. As the means of disinformation and manipulation evolve, will they be considered terrorism? Ratings While the opinions about disinformation for influencing an election were very diverse, generally the tendency seemed to be that they are not to be considered a terrorism act nor today, nor in the future, as revealed in Fig. A4.9.

164

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Fig. A4.9 Election chaos as terrorism today and by 2040

Fig. A4.10 Election chaos classification

While half of the participants considered that techniques for influencing an election through deliberate subversion of the voting process would be a crime, few thought that it should be classified as terrorism, as shown in Fig. A4.10. Comments Today: 190.

This may be terrorism on a state-player level; there is no direct physical harm, but the actions are politically (and socially) motivated.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

191.

192.

193. 194. 195. 196.

197. 198. 199.

200.

201.

165

There are many means by which opinions are shaped for political results, but if there is no direct negative physical effect, then it would not cross the line into terrorism. This action has a political motive which in essence could be obtained by other means (although it is easier now in the digital age) to implement. But there is no element of terrorism involved. It could, in its extreme form, be a way to take over a country—As unwanted as it may be for the people affected by this, they are no harm or danger of harm associated with this activity. I do not think terrorism can be link directly to a state. We have a different word and concept for this. It is called subversive activity. This is a case of foreign political interference in another country’s domestic politics. It is subversion, not terrorism. This act is a political inspired attack, but does not fill the concept of terrorism. As mentioned above the activities of foreign states are rather seen as new form of warfare, where as terrorists are non-state actors. I assume this division could blur in the future. Malevolent manipulation of information and influencing elections and other political action is increasing, but not considered as terrorism. The fact that Russia attempted to mute the realization suggests that it was done to achieve a result in the election rather than to spread fear. My first reaction was, yes, it is terrorism. But then wouldn’t any manipulation of elections through lies be an act of terrorism? So are Donald Trump or Boris Johnson terrorists? Liars, definitely. Criminals, maybe. But terrorists? I’m not sure. If disinformation and manipulation are to inflict terror, impact the quality of life of the population of a certain country, or even lead to crime, they might be considered acts for terrorism. This could be a form of State-Sponsored terrorism. However, since influencing elections does not directly reflect intent of inflicting neither terror, nor any crime per se, most likely it won’t qualify as an act of terrorism. Yes, I believe distorting an election through external means WILL BE considered terrorism and will evoke harsh penalties that are now absent. One possibility is state retribution- you fool with my elections and I fool with yours.

By 2040: 202. 203.

204.

No. States would still be states while terrorists will remain non statists actors, regardless the so called self proclaimed Islamic State. This kind of foreign intervention in another state’s domestic politics is likely to be intensified through advancing ICT by 2040. It would not be terrorism, but subversion. It depends on whether the attack causes a system breakdown and causes destruction and deaths

166

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Classification 205. 206.

207.

208.

209.

210. 211.

Propaganda is neither a crime nor terrorism If there is hacking involved, then computer fraud laws would be broken in the US. Likewise, if electioneering laws are broken, then a perpetrator could be prosecuted under those statutes. Deliberately made false statements could also be pursued legally as slander or libel, but these would be tort claims, not a criminal wrong in the US. In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause with the intention of intimidating the public …with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act. Given the above it not a terrorist act and not a crime as I assume the case study is not about hacking but about fake news. For other countries the answer might be different I do not think this will change in Canada After all, there is a relatively simple antidote to such attacks, namely the truth. If the population has the opportunity to be properly informed, ideally any attack on electoral manipulation can be rejected. If subversion would include hacking, then it might be punishable by law as interference in an information system and possibly as falsification of election returns. Other options might be to classify subversive action as dissemination of information violating personal privacy which has reduced scope of application when politicians or public figures are in question. Under existing internal security or upcoming prevention of foreign interference laws, this would be seen as a crime. Not terrorism. It is an international crime and even a diplomatic situation.

Question 6: GMO Insect: Is it terrorism when a weapon such as a super-bug is released into the wild? A government laboratory has created a breed of genetically modified insects (e.g. super locusts) intended to affect agricultural production of an enemy nation. If plans of the aggressor nation work out, the bug will cause wide scale crop failures and only the aggressor will have an effective insecticide targeted at the bug. The bug has been tested on a small scale but wide distribution through natural means is on the schedule. Is it terrorism when a surreptitious weapon such as this super bug is released into the wild? Ratings The rating for the use of surreptitious weapons (e.g. GMO insects)being considered an act of terrorism was higher for the future than for today, as shown in Fig. A4.11. About half of the respondents considered such an act as both ‘crime’ and ‘terrorism’, as revealed in Fig. A4.12.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

167

Fig. A4.11 GMO insects as terrorism today and by 2040

Fig. A4.12 GMO insects classification

Comments Today: 212. 213. 214.

This may be seen as terrorism on a nation-player scale, to disrupt and harm a perceived enemy without formal declaration of hostilities. It depends on who releases the superbug. If it is an rouge nation, than it is a new kind of warfare, not terrorism. States are not terrorists. This is war by other means. Also, can be considered crimes against humanity.

168

215.

216. 217. 218.

219. 220. 221.

222. 223.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Breeding and testing the insects is research, not terrorism. However, releasing them for their intended use is a violation of the Biological Weapons Convention, and goes beyond terrorism to being an act of war. The greatest possible terrorism is war. In this case, a particularly perfidious form of warfare, genocide. This is an attack against the population and their economic, social and food safety. As devastating this might be (at least in a short term), this is not terrorism. It could be—and probably will be—considered biological warfare and should be dealt with as such. I would consider it as biological war/attack, since the target is an enemy nation. If it comes from a government lab, then it is a new form of warfare, if it comes from non-governmental groups, then it is terrorism. If the government itself releases the bug on the target state causing largescale crop failures presumably affecting entire cities, this would be an act of war. If the government uses a non-state actor to release the bug, it would be state-sponsored terrorism. In the latter case, based on the scale of the impact within the target state, and if attribution to the aggressor state is possible, the targeted state may upgrade its assessment from state-sponsored terrorism to an act of war by the aggressor state. This could be an example of state-sponsored terrorism. It is either terrorism or an act of war depending on whether the government provides the super locusts to private citizens or releases them through a government agency.

By 2040: 224. 225. 226.

227.

This could be a type of state-sponsored terrorism in 2040, with the clear potential for escalation to interstate war. By 2040 threats from the advances in biotechnology are likely to have been more extensively codified in international treaties. The agricultural system must produce safety food for a population of almost 9 thousand millions in the year 2040. So, an attack like this will be certainly terrorism. it seems more a war like scenario, moreover the enemy country might be able to develop the insecticide in a short time

Classification 228.

229.

Using the insects to destroy food supplies of a hostile nation is an act of war. If this action would only make the crop look and smell horrible than, maybe, it could be considered terrorism. Releasing a weapon is an act of war. An experiment going wrong is an accident. Intent matters.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

230. 231. 232. 233.

234. 235.

236.

169

This would be considered an act of war, if attribution to the offending state is possible This is an act of war, not terrorism. It is perceived as a war crime. The aggressor state having the only effective pesticide sets up a possible extortion situation, which might be prosecutable under the criminal extortion laws of the attacked nation (if they have such laws). If released for its intended purpose, the wide scale effect on national food security would easily make it perceived as a terrorist act. In the U.S. an obvious crime that would be widely reported and perceived as terrorism. In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause with the intention of intimidating the public …with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act. This would be seen as a crime and a terrorist act given the above. Probably depends on who the perpetrators are. Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi [What is permissible for Jupiter is not permissible for a bull]. Internationally customary cynicism.

Question 7: Social Media Chaos: Is inciting to riot via social media a form of terrorism? Operators of social media sites have proven unable to control the content of certain advertisements or posts. Lately, inflammatory material has appeared, targeting particular groups and questioning their national loyalty and long-range objectives. In response, some "patriots" have organized and a few direct confrontations have occurred. Some people have advocated imposing tighter controls on social media content, to assure domestic tranquility. Is inciting to riot via social media a form of terrorism? Ratings The responses about inciting to riot via social media were much divided, but with an increased likelihood for social media chaos being considered terrorism in the future, as shown in Fig. A4.13. While about half of the respondents considered social media chaos a crime, another third of the respondents considered that a new category would be needed for their classification in the future, as revealed in Fig. A4.14. Comments Today: 237.

The actions are clearly criminal, and the goals—rioting, etc.—are terrorism, even if there is no direct physical involvement by the groups.

170

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Fig. A4.13 Social media chaos as terrorism today and by 2040

Fig. A4.14 Social media chaos classification

238.

It is not a given that SoMe has the responsibility to censure the information that is expressed on their platforms—although some may wish for that to be the case. We may well narrow the free speech concept in the Constitution at some point in the future (as exists in many countries in Europe in regards, for example, to Nazism and the Swastika, but that is an issue of . . . free speech. As norms for expression change over time, it will be a political issue to what extent such limitation will/should take place, but it falls under all circumstances outside the concept of terrorism. Inciting to riot, even conducting a riot, is a crime, not terrorism.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

239. 240. 241.

242.

243.

171

Inciting to riot via social media is already considered a crime by some countries and depending on the context, it might be considered as terrorism. The problem is: who is to judge? What standards to use if social media material is to be censored. Inciting to riot can be the path to terrorism. The classical example is the french revolution. Every way that conduct to assassinations, lynching or other killings of people are ways to terrorism. If the inflammable material displays a relative coherent ideological program justifying out-group violence, then this is one sign of the existence of an organized extremist agenda. Extremism can—through social media exploitation—manifest itself in a range of violent activities, such as riots, demonstrations and even terrorist acts such as knifings, assassinations and bombings. In the U.S. some protesters, inflamed by the more energetic media accounts, would claim terror, but the majority would insist its free speech.

By 2040: 244.

245.

246.

247. 248.

249.

Organized online incitement campaigns against particular out-groups based on some marker of identity is a feature of extremism. Extremism—through adroit and sustained social media manipulation—can manifest itself in terrorist acts, even genocide, certainly by 2040 as well. Social media and terrorism? Really? Not a single link. Many virtual bombs emoticons can explode on my Facebook; it would make me laugh not panic. This case scenario like a social media protest. We may change our opinion about inflammatory and hate based postings to be so harmful that it comes close to terrorism. However, there are laws and penalties for such behavior if prosecuted. These may gradually tighten if it is seem as an increasingly harmful activity to more than one or a few people. If social media has continued to be ever more effectively weaponized in the U.S., this would almost certainly be classed as a crime and possibly as terror. I assume this is perceived as inciting riots against the state or particular groups. In case freedom of demonstration may be limited as populist movements are growing bigger and there is no option for a political dialogue (maybe like the yellow vest movement with protests with destruction/demolition), the state could change its perception of demonstration vs terroristic riots. Neo Nazis and white supremacists are terrorists; they may incite to violence or may intimidate by their menacing presence

Classification 250.

In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause with the intention of intimidating the public …with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a

172

251. 252. 253.

254.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act. Actions done at the riot such as harming people could be seen as domestic terrorism and hate crime. Inciting to do the riot I think might not be seen as terrorism but may be hate speech Hybrid war is not terrorism, but terrorism tactics can be used in hybrid war efforts. Intent must be proven in the U.S. Since this is already happening today, people are reluctant to use the term terrorism. Often enough, the actors are already sitting in parliaments, so classifying them as terrorism would possibly result in undesirable solidarity. Under current laws this would fall under say, the Penal Code for instance, which criminalizes hate speech aimed at disrupting peaceful relations between various groups in society

Question 8: Genocide: Is genocide or ethnic cleansing by governments a form of terrorism? Despite its illegality, genocide and ethnic cleansing by rogue governments have sometimes been the apparent objective of military attacks. Often classed as civil wars, to outside observers the conflicts often appear to be directed at eliminating particular groups forcing them to move out of the country or eliminating them by other means. Is genocide or ethnic cleansing by governments a form of terrorism? Ratings Genocide was generally rated as terrorism both for today and for the future, as shown in Fig. A4.15. However, only half of the respondents considered that it should be classified as ‘both’ terrorism and crime, while the other half considered it only a ‘crime’, as revealed in Fig. A4.16. Comments Today: 255.

256. 257.

258.

It is certainly terrorism for the people under attack. However, the State to which this army belongs to will not recognized it as terrorism. Ambiguous question. Such actions SHOULD be considered as terrorism, even if a state is the responsible party. The way I perceive terrorism is very limited to violence, non-state acts, but with a political reasons behind. The situation described is civil war, or ethnic cleansing. I see that the responses of others relate to state sponsored terrorism. That I believe is something very niche, and even hard to prove. Classical state-sponsored terrorism, although in most cases not considered so.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

173

Fig. A4.15 Genocide as terrorism today and by 2040

Fig. A4.16 Genocide classification

259.

260.

This situation is state sponsored terrorism. The deliberate use of violence, and infliction of harm on people in any shape and form, are acts of terrorism. The government will, of course, consider this a necessary protection of the state and call it a civil war… BUT it is different from civil war in as much as the people (presumably) are not acting forcefully against the government. They are being terrorized into submission because of what they are, not what they do. I perceive this as warfare against own people, like in the Syrian war, when the state troops were carrying out chemical attacks against their own people (in 2018). However, if the government is not properly installed and accepted, then it is a civil war or even a form of terrorism

174

261.

262. 263.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Legally speaking, I would consider ethnic cleansing and genocide as categories that are beyond terrorism. If a government, through its armed forces or militias, attacks entire towns within its own territory as in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, in order to drive out the entire populations of those areas, that is beyond mere state terrorism, it is ethnic cleansing. If the government has an industrial-like policy to exterminate entire people groups within its territory, that is beyond state terrorism; that is likely genocide. Genocide is beyond terrorism, in my opinion. Genocide can have roots on terrorism very often. It is a crime, but could be consider as a state terrorism.

By 2040: 264. 265. 266.

Even in 2040, I would consider ethnic cleansing and genocide as categories that are beyond terrorism. Only if states would use mercenaries or actual terrorists to do this. Depend of the evolution of this kind of crime, it could be considered as a state terrorism in 2040.

Classification 267.

268. 269. 270.

In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause with the intention of intimidating the public …with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act. Given the Canadian definition it would be a crime and a terrorist act I would say. Genocide and ethnic cleansing are crimes on their own. Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are categorized as independent crimes and they are not mentioned in the list of terrorist offences. Genocide and ethnic cleansing would be seen as crimes.

Question 9: Fake News: Is creation or distribution of false news a form of terrorism? Fake news is inimical to freedom of the press. With improved photographic falsification and synthetic voice impersonation, it becomes harder to distinguish truth from fiction and therefore which news stories are real or fake. With chances for validation becoming less likely, how will we know what really has happened and place policy on a sound footing? Is creation or distribution of false news a form of terrorism? Ratings The quantitative ratings of how fake news might be preserved as of terrorism today and by 2040 are presented in Fig. A4.17. While the opinions are much dispersed, there

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

175

Fig. A4.17 Fake news as terrorism today and by 2040

Fig. A4.18 Fake news classification

seems to be an inclination towards increasing perception of fake news as terrorism in the future. The responses reveal an inclination towards the need for having a new class of felony for fake news by 2040, as shown in Fig. A4.18. Comments Today: 271.

272.

The goal or intent is important; lies by themselves are not terror, but if social unrest, targeted hate, etc., is the intent, then these actions should be defined as terror. As despicable as fake news are, and in particular deep fake news, they are not terrorism. Surely, they are conducted with the motive of influence a subject (it

176

273.

274.

275. 276.

277.

278. 279.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

can be as innocent as spreading unsubstantiated information about diseases caused by vaccination or as nefarious as calling a presidential candidate a pedophile). Although harm may result from creating (and spreading) such false information, it falls in the same category as malicious gossip—but not terrorism. The antidote is to educate people, to teach them to discern information, seek many sources, be skeptical of unlikely happenings, and stop spreading it. Fake new is not an act of terrorism. Is an act of deepening the asymmetry of information. It can definitely harm, emotionally, even financially in some cases, but it is far less than terrorism. Freedom works both ways. Do not expect only positive aspects out of it. Disinformation per se should not be seen as terrorism. As a specific tactic, it may be used by terrorist groups to spread fear and confusion as part of a coordinated campaign though. The current environment in the U.S. is highly permissive of fake news. There is freedom to believe or not and to cross-reference any news. If there is no prove of intention to inflict terror or cause violence, they are not terrorist acts. However, the technological and ideological players along with the online platforms that are only interested in increasing revenues should be held accountable for proliferation of disinformation. When money and/or ideologically-motivated distorted reality become leaders, the future of humanity and the planet is in danger. And this should qualify as terrorism. It only gets worse as means for falsifying facts improve. In a few years it will be almost impossible to identify doctored photo, videos, or audio recordings. What then? Can we have certificates of authenticity? Who would issue them? By itself, false news not automatically genocidal, except where crafted wit slants of provoking a group or groups against other group or groups. It is antisocial behavior, a crime, but to be considered terrorism, depends of the effects on the population and over the political and economic system.

By 2040: 280.

281.

282. 283. 284.

Disinformation is a tactic. In 2040 it can certainly be used though by social media-savvy terrorist groups as part of a coordinated campaign to undermine social cohesion and trust in pluralistic societies then, as now. It is not the fake news itself that is dangerous, but the cascading effects it could create. Some apparently banal news may trigger a butterfly effect, just as described in chaos theory. Perhaps chaos models should be studied by applying them to fake news. Fake and misleading news is the new normal. It becomes next to impossible for average citizen to distinguish between true and false news. Not fake news as such, but the usage of it by terrorists would make it a terrorism act, for terrorists’ intentions. By 2040, both the extent to which fake news may be made to seem real and the sophistication of detection will have advanced substantially. If the

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

285. 286.

177

weaponisation of fake news has become more common and/or more lethal, laws will have been passed in an effort to contain it. It depends of the effects on the population and over the political and economic system. The argument is similar to the social media issue (item 7).

Classification 287.

288. 289.

In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause with the intention of intimidating the public …with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act. Given this is not a terrorist act. It could fit under hate speech and libel laws. Not sure if legislation in Romania addressed fake news yet. Will do at some point. In Singapore a new law on dealing with disinformation and fake news was passed in 2019. It is called POFMA or Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act. POFMA seeks to prevent the electronic dissemination of false statements of fact or misleading information via social media. It covers purported statements of fact, not subjective opinions. There is debate in Singapore about this legislation. But this issue is not seen as linked to terrorism per se.

Question 10: Shooters: Are mass shooters considered to be terrorists? School shootings, workplace shootings, random shootings: we see these events so often we have become used to them. A person shooting many people with an AK 47 at a concert or a school has almost lost its shock value. Despite overwhelming popular support, even simple gun control measures have not been implemented. Are mass shooters considered to be terrorists? Ratings Shooters seem to be perceived as terrorists today and even more so by 2040 are presented in Fig. A4.19. While shooting is certainly considered crime, the majority of respondents considers it both, crime and terrorism, as shown in Fig. A4.20. Comments Today: 290.

Without an understanding (letters, social media postings, etc.) of the intent, the act—as despicable as it may be—is not terrorism.

178

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Fig. A4.19 Shooting as terrorism today and by 2040

Fig. A4.20 Shooting classification

291.

292. 293.

As in other cases, whether a mass shooting killer is a terrorist or not depends on the motive. Clear motives appear to be absent in these cases. It is characteristic that these crimes typically are (a) perpetrated by mentally deranged people and (almost) always executed by one individual with no formal affiliation to a terrorist group (although their methods may be inspired by them) (b) singular events. Although fear often follows in the wake of an event, fear is not the motive of the perpetrator, and by being stand-alone events, they serve no terrorism function (c) often used to call attention to a case, a personal issue or as a revenge against an institution (say, an employer). It depends on the intent of the action, of a mental illness condition etc. The significant question is how to prevent such events, no matter what their cause. Gun control is apparently desired b y most citizens yet even simple

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

294. 295.

296.

297.

298. 299. 300. 301. 302.

179

limits on gun ownership have been frustrated by the gun lobby. What controls are possible to reign in such corporate influence over national policy? Depends on the intent. Some active shooter events have been perpetrated by those with mental illnesses, some by those who have a personal agenda such as revenge for past treatment, and others by those who have have a sociopolitical or religious agenda. The intent for the shooting would determine if it was criminal or terrorist in classification. Perpetrators of active shooter incidents have made some type of manifestos which have included excerpts from previous, internationally known active shooters´ manifestos. As a rough generalization one could say that the main reason for incidents has been unstable mental health and adoration of violence. It depends on whether these shooters are driven by a relatively coherent ideological motive e.g., recent far right extremist shooters such as Brenton Tarrant in New Zealand 2019. Depends on intent. If the shooting is driven by hate of a definable group it is a hate crime. If it is intended to evoke fear and hysteria, it is terrorism. You need a column called ‘Depends’. It depends—see my answer to the third column covering Canada. It depends on the motivation and intention of the person who commits the attacks. I consider this small scale terrorism, barely to be introduced at the bottom of category. These are terrorism attacks, only if these are caused by confused people not pushed and instrumentalized by terrorists, then this is not terror.

By 2040: 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308.

Random shooting terrorism incident only if clearly expressed so. It would depend if there is evidence of an ideological motivation. Same as current days. You need a column called depends. It depends–see my answer to the third column covering Canada. It depends who commits the attacks, and the reasons to do that. Can be introduced under the domestic terrorism category as a way to control it better, though they hit at unexpected and decentralized.

Classification 309.

310. 311.

Depends on political Motives and Network (according to German law, terrorism Needs coordinated activities of at least 3 People), if lacking, it is only a crime. Homicide or murder can be categorized as terrorist offence if terrorist intent is shown. If no evidence of ideological motivation, it would be seen as a crime

180

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Fig. A4.21 Skinheads as terrorists today and by 2040

Question 11: Skinheads: Are extremists such as Neo Nazis and white supremacists considered terrorists? In Skokie, Charlottesville, and elsewhere, the desire to preserve free speech has allowed far right and left forces to converge, sometimes violently. Many people took exception to President Trumps’ equating of far-right and far-left (e.g. “good people on both sides..”) implying that white supremacists, skinheads, KKK, and neo Nazi’s were “good people” and not in fact terrorists. Are extremists such as Neo Nazis and white supremacists considered terrorists? Ratings The opinions about skinheads being perceived as terrorists were much divided both for today as well as for the future, as shown in Fig. A4.21. Over 40% of the respondents agreed that skinheads’ acts are crime, while some 20% considered them both a crime and terrorism, and some other 20% think that a new category might be needed for this type of actions in the future, as shown in Fig. A4.22. Comments Today: 312. 313. 314.

The actions and symbols are not terrorism and may be part of free speech, and incitement to violence may be criminal, but not terrorism Holding a particular opinion or being labeled as part of particular group does not make somebody a terrorist, their actions do. The far right demonstration, with or without violence, are not terrorism, although some may like to characterize them as such because it serves their own political agenda (create a fear that isn’t there). They are expression of free speech that should be protected. The violent aspects are not directed against one group as, for example, the case was in the lynching of black

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

181

Fig. A4.22 Skinheads classification

315. 316. 317.

318.

319.

320.

321.

people. Yes, nooses, swastikas, white hoods are symbols of suppression and terror even today, but the intent of using them seems more like a provocation than a deliberate attempt of creating terror. In support of this, one could argue that without counter-demonstrations, there would be no violence—just expression of hatefulness. No one can be considered a terrorist based only on his/her ideas. They are antisocial movements, not terrorists per se. Different thing is if they commit acts of terrorism. To what extent the historical NAZI can be considered terrorists, that is arguable. Modern NAZI, that are not backed up by a state, can successfully be considered terrorists, similar with other groups. They are not famous as terrorists because their acts are limited, as presented by the media. Extremism is an ideology to act as an enemy of the constitution. This is a form of a crime. It becomes terrorism when it connected with harmful attacks on people, property, infrastructure, etc. under the extremist ideology. There is a small steps from thinking (ideology) to terrorist action. The actual terrorists need helpers from like-minded, but less radical people to hide their identity, hide themselves, get information, passports, weapons etc. The three NSU terrorist, where seen as the real terrorists, but they could only act over 10 year being supported by the neo Nazi groups. Extremists such as neo-Nazis and white supremacists are driven by ideological agendas. When some of these individuals express and seek to actuate such agendas through acts of terror against out-groups, they become terrorists. You still Need Terrorist activities to label extremists as terrorists. Without These Acts, they are only extremists, which might be illegal, but most of the time is only a political label, not a judicial one. It’s a potential element of terrorism, but it’s not terrorism.

182

322.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

It’s in the eye of the beholder unless and until it results in physical harm.

By 2040: 323. 324.

325.

326. 327. 328.

These are groups of extremists, not terrorists yet, not by 2040 I guess. Racism is a crime. In 2040 there will be more widespread racism, but also various new forms of racism, e.g. based on age, sex-orientation, lifestyles, not just ethnic ones. The logic holds by 2020: extremists such as neo-Nazis and white supremacists are driven by ideological agendas. When some of these individuals express and seek to actuate such agendas through acts of terror against out-groups, they become terrorists. The thing is: do they commit acts of terrorism systematically? I assume that when states are getting under more pressure, also the preparatory steps for terrorism might be added to the concept of terrorism If hate expands to ethnic cleansing, it becomes terrorism.

Classification 329.

330.

331.

332.

333. 334. 335.

336.

In Germany, certain forms of expression of right-wing extremist sentiments are fortunately punishable in themselves, e.g., the so-called Hitler salute, the wearing of National Socialist symbols such as the swastika, etc. The so-called re-activation can therefore be punishable, but cannot be called terrorism as long as no physical violence is exercised. In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code [1] defines terrorism as an act committed in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause with the intention of intimidating the public …with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act. Depends on the actions of the groups. An extremist who only expresses his extremist opinions is not considered as a terrorist. But usual, they have contacts into networks with other extremists who sometimes perform terrorist acts. In this case the extremist can be accused of being part of a terrorist organization. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are guaranteed by the US Constitution. Unless a specific law is broken in conducting such activities, there is no criminality in them, let alone terrorism. They can act as common criminals and be punished under those legal rules. I’d suggest either/or rather than both. They are not criminals under the Constitution until they break a law. The law might be inciting to riot, hate crimes, etc. but peaceful demonstrations are permitted in a free society. In Austria praising the Nazi regime is a crime. However, without a violent act this is maybe inciting of violence.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

183

Fig. A4.23 Peaceful protests not perceived as terrorism today or by 2040

337.

338.

In Germany there is a regulation which signs are not allowed to show (mainly National-socialism/Hitler related flags and signs). Showing them in public is seen as a crime. In Singapore, expressing hatred toward other groups and causing disharmony is a crime under the Penal Code and Sedition Act for instance.

Question 12: Peaceful Protests: Would peaceful civil disobedience be considered terrorism? Gandhi in India, Martin Luther King in the US, and dozens of anti-policy protest marches and “sit-ins” attempted to show how peaceful civil disobedience could win out over violent protests. Violence, they argued, tends to escalate and expand, but peaceful civil disobedience appears to calm. Would civil disobedience be considered an act of terrorism? Ratings Generally, peaceful protests are not considered acts of terrorism neither today nor by the 2040, although the respondents’ confidence seems lower about that for the future, as revealed in Fig. A4.23. In any event, Fig. A4.24 shows an almost agreement that peaceful protests should not be classified nor crime nor terrorism. Comments Today: 339. 340.

If the actions are legal—even if disruptive—without intent to harm, but rather to promote change, then they are not terrorist acts. Civil disobedience, calm or violent, has another world for it: revolution. In a funny way civil disobedience is an alternative form of terrorism. However, somebody’s terrorists can be somebody else’s heroes.

184

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Fig. A4.24 Peaceful protests neither terrorism nor crime

341.

342.

343.

344.

By the simple fact that these activities are peaceful places them outside the concept of terrorism. They may well be disruptive and inconvenient, but they do not harm or threaten anyone. They are used to call attention to matters the participants care about—as did Gandhi who influenced the public opinion back in fair minded England and created a public sense of humiliation (in treating Indian people like this). Peaceful acts of civil disobedience may be driven by a clear politicalideological agenda, but as they are forms of principled non-violent action, they do not constitute terrorism at all. I can imagine acts of civil disobedience being considered terrorism: for example, shutting down a city through blockades to protest a foreign policy, or an apparently unfair judicial ruling. The problem will be distinguishing between freedom of expression and unacceptable deviations from social norms. I don’t see the fear and chaos element in this action for the current definition.

By 2040: 345. 346.

347.

348.

With time, people may be less patient and more likely to classify these acts as terrorism—for their own goals of suppression. Peaceful civil disobedience combined with peaceful voluntary work for benevolent action for the welfare of society is one of the few promising social weapons existing. Even by 2040, peaceful acts of civil disobedience may be driven by a clear political-ideological agenda, but as they are forms of principled non-violent action, they would not constitute terrorism at all. Increasing state-control and surveillance might lead to disobedience being included among the terrorist acts.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

349.

350.

185

If peaceful civil disobedience gets to an epidemic level, it might well be that some States will consider it as a terrorist activity, even in our ’democratic societies. For sure, even now some autocratic states consider it already as a crime. In a high surveillance regime this might be considered as terrorism.

Classification 351.

352.

353.

354.

355. 356.

As the need to coordinate social behavior for certain collective outcomes (greenhouse gas emissions etc) becomes more important, civil disobedience is likely to become increasingly disrupting to social order. In Singapore, public assembles involving sizable numbers of people are regulated. It would only be a crime if large groups convene without alerting the relevant authorities beforehand and especially if they cause public disorder. It depends on the nature and effect of civil disobedience. If the economic interests of those affected are adversely affected, this can have consequences under criminal law. In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause with the intention of intimidating the public …with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act. given this not a terrorist act. When protests are approved, not even an anti social behavior. Just protests, possibly revolution. If civil disobedience inhibits a public act, it can be regarded as obstruction of public official or contumacy to the police. However, the threshold for using sanctions described in Criminal Code is quite high.

Question 13: Instigation: Would intimidation or instigation to chaos qualify as terrorism and therefore qualify for tougher laws? Counterterrorism: Enforcing the death penalty for persons found guilty of certain terrorist actions. When terrorism results in a death, existing laws can be used to establish appropriate level of punishment. But when terrorism is used to intimidate or cause chaos, are current laws adequate? Would intimidation or instigation to chaos qualify as acts of terrorism and hence justify tougher laws as part of the counter-terrorism strategy? Ratings The opinions about tougher counter-terrorism strategies against intimidation or instigation to chaos as considered terrorism were much spread, as showed in Fig. A4.25. However, there was rather high agreement that intimidation or instigation to chaos should not be classified as terrorism, as presented in Fig. A4.26.

186

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Fig. A4.25 Perception about intimidation or instigation to chaos today and by 2040

Fig. A4.26 Instigation not to be classified as terrorism

Comments Today: 357.

358.

The acts of intimidation or instigation to chaos may be considered to approach terrorism, but more severe punishment—and certainly the death penalty— seem to be over reaction, and may even have an opposite effect on the groups behind the actions. This is a very elastic subject. The use of death penalty is an act of revenge— but one that is applied to specific cases and used in line with the laws of the given country (which one can agree with or not). The philosophy is an act of deterrent. That would not be terrorism. However, some regimes have

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

359.

360.

361.

362.

363.

364.

187

used/use state-terrorism to suppress political activism (or eliminate ethnic groups). And that would be state terrorism. On the specific question: Intent in itself is not an act of terrorism. However intimidation could well be terrorism if backed by force. The laws are probably not adequate today to cover this; but specific case, if/when they occur, may be a guide for this field. Never the death penalty will be adequate to combat the terrorism. The International Penalty Court and the abolition of the death penalty must be preserved all the time The death penalty is state terrorism. That has nothing to do with tougher laws. Intimidation or instigation to chaos may be considered as terrorist acts in individual cases. For me, the arguments go in the direction of the issue of social media and fake news. They are even more clearly related to the act of terror. But it is still a prior step to get more attention or prepare the ground for the chaos, defined as terrorism. States that feel themselves under attack extend their definition of what is terrorism and tend to include this. The US Home Security activities went after 9/11 much further than before and included activities as terror, that were not included before. In a way, this is a dynamic process and differs between the ethical baselines of different countries, e.g. compare China, North Korea with Western countries. Of itself, instigation to chaos by extremists would be a crime as it represents a disruption of public order. However, such instigation to chaos could also be part of a terrorist group’s wider strategy to destroy social cohesion. As far as I know, in the USA the War on Terror started in the 60 or 70s. Laws evolve, sometimes slow, but address modern challenges, in a reactive way. Laws are being done after the events, to try to prevent future ones. Use of a punishment is meant as a preventative more than revenge. When a terrorist act causes a single untargeted death it may not justify the death penalty. If a terrorist act was designed to result in widespread carnage, however, the death penalty may be appropriate.

By 2040: 365.

366.

367. 368.

Never the death penalty will be adequate to combat the terrorism. The International Penalty Court and the abolition of the death penalty must be preserved all the time. In 2040, of itself, instigation to chaos by extremists would be a crime as it represents a disruption of public order. However, such instigation to chaos could also be part of a terrorist group’s wider strategy to destroy social cohesion. Current laws are inadequate to combat anti-Semitism or its equivalent for other religions. There could be tougher laws, even though death penalty was not applied.

188

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Classification 369.

370.

371.

372.

Not sure I follow what the question is here. Are current laws adequate? Depends on the country. Is intimidation or instigation terrorism? Can be. Are tougher laws justified? Depends on what is in place already. As future better understanding of complexity will lead to better definitions of chaos, there is likely to be stricter regulation of behaviors leading to chaotic outcomes. Never the death penalty will be adequate to combat the terrorism. The International Penalty Court and the abolition of the death penalty must be preserved all the time In Singapore, instigation to chaos would be seen as a disturbance to public order, which is a crime. If there is evidence of terrorist involvement, then internal security legislation could kick in.

Question 14: Torture: Would torture be acceptable to identify suspects and targets? Counterterrorism: Suppose a suspected terrorist were apprehended who confessed to participating in planning a massive attack on the USA and its allies. Would use of very aggressive interrogation techniques be acceptable to identify additional suspects and targets? Ratings The responses concerning the use of torture for identification of additional suspects were much dispersed, as shown in Fig. A4.27. Even more, most respondents considered that torture could be classified as ‘crime’, reveals Fig. A4.28. Comments Today: 373.

374. 375. 376. 377.

Difficult to draw the line between very aggressive interrogation techniques and torture; perhaps the two are the same here. A ticking bomb needs to be defused (i.e., information needs to be obtained) but there is a moral question as well as a practical one—how reliable is the information provided? Are answers given just to satisfy the interrogator and stop the aggressive techniques? Torture is terrorism, not anti-terrorism. Most reviews in the U.S. have considered it illegal and many studies have suggested it is ineffective as well. What does very aggressive interrogation techniques means? Torture? Certainly it is not acceptable. Torture in this context would be categorized as a crime under most national jurisdictions. It should not be conflated with the concept of terrorism.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

189

Fig. A4.27 Use of torture in counter-terror strategies today and by 2040

Fig. A4.28 Classification of torture in counter-terror strategies

378.

379.

380.

This a matter of ethics but also a matter of human nature of both the interrogator and of the interrogated. Better to prevent an attack. I am not qualified to fully answer this question. I have the impression that the interrogators in related cases tend to act beyond the regulation to squeeze information/answers out. It is a moral question if inhuman techniques are ethically accepted if acute danger is ahead. While torture may be considered a crime in most developed countries, after a devastating terrorist attack, anger and retribution may prevail. So, the question is, would the torturers always be considered criminals? What would it take to reverse civilized restraints against terrorism? Not too much, I fear.

190

381.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

This is a moral high ground issue: In the USA, we generally abhor enhanced interrogation used by foreign countries or groups. We should look at it the same way when we ourselves do it (waterboarding, electric shock were the most recent cases). It is a humanistic issue. It is dangerous to use a Machiavellian philosophy about the end justifying the means, because is raises the critical question about who defines the end? It is a typical authoritarian strategy that should be considered in the same class as terrorism.

By 2040: 382.

383.

In 2040, torture in this context would still be categorized as a crime under most national jurisdictions. It should not be conflated with the concept of terrorism. What does very aggressive interrogation techniques means? Torture? Certainly it is not acceptable today or in the 2090.

Classification 384.

385.

386.

387.

388.

389.

What is the question? If the question is “would the use of very aggressive interrogation techniques be acceptable to identify additional suspects and targets”, the answer is NO, under no circumstances. If you ask how stateordered torture could be classified, it would probably be as a crime, not as terrorism. The question being Would use of very aggressive interrogation techniques be acceptable to identify additional suspects and targets?, it refers of course to the authorities in charge of the investigation, so the sentence this be considered a crime or terrorism or both, is not adequate unless you suspect these authorities of criminal or terrorist intentions or actions. Not sure I follow the structure of this question. Acceptability of various aggressive interrogation techniques depends on what they are. In the US, torture is a crime. Structure of this question is somewhat ambiguous. Criminal Investigation Act defines unequivocally the treatment of the person being questioned prohibiting any action/measure which might be described as aggressive interrogation technique. Torture is a crime. History shows that torture has been used by all states in order to extract vital information to save lives. International courts of justice may manage to make this torture acts public, but usually mostly for the ’losers’ while for the ’winners’ it take longer, probably one generation or even two. I tend to believe I would not allow torture, but what if my kids are kidnapped and slowly cut into pieces … unless this captured terrorist in front of me tells the police where is comrades are hiding? As techniques for brain reading improve, this situation is likely to be more nuanced in the future—maybe not liked to physical pain.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

191

Fig. A4.29 Use of censorship as counter-terrorism strategy today and by 2040

390.

There are legal guidelines for interrogation of terror suspects. Torture would be deemed a crime. In Singapore moreover the emphasis is heavily on rehabilitation of the terror detainee with a view to eventual reintegration back into society.

Question 15: Censorship: Would publications and reports of mass shootings be banned from media? Counterterrorism: Publication of manifestos, essays, and do it yourself instructions inspire and help potential terrorists. Would such publications and reports of mass shootings be banned from open press and in social media as part of a counter-terrorism strategy? Ratings Although opinions were highly divided, there was a slight inclination towards use of censorship as part of counter-terrorism strategy both for today and slightly more so in the future, as revealed in Fig. A4.29. Opinions were also divided about the classification of censorship, as showed in Fig. A4.30. Comments Today: 391. 392.

Banning or censorship would not prevent their distribution, in more surreptitious ways. And freedom of speech must be maintained. Publicizing your viewpoints should be (is) protected under the Constitution. The fact that we do not like the viewpoints is no reason (in a free/democratic society) for suppressing them. Yes, such publications do inspire others, and they do enable copycats to do big league stuff on their own (who to make a bomb, how to assemble a machine gun, etc). The antidote is information, understanding ethics, feeling that one is being listened to and have a pulpit.

192

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Fig. A4.30 Classification of use of censorship as counter-terrorism strategy

393. 394.

395.

396.

397.

Those issues are common problems for young people and many minorities, and it is easy to see why they react against it. But censoring would add fuel to the fire. Yes, but with the due respect to the free expression and opinion, so to ban the publications it is necessary to have the authorization of a special judge. One must keep in mind that even a specialized chemistry book can be considered a terrorist instruction to build certain harmful substances. I would not consider them to be banned, but rather keep under observation and control those who access this type of information. This somehow depends on the pressure the state feels on its security: the higher the pressure, the stronger the measures to forbid/censor these kind of papers. There is a trade of with the freedom of speech. This may be dependent on whether the forum provides both direction and an organization. It is probably germane whether the forum is openly accessible or carefully concealed. In a crisis situation—such as immediately following an attack—such publications could exacerbate tensions and fuel more violence, so governments should work with social media companies to try to regulate their spread and curb social contagion, although complete take-downs are likely technically very difficult to achieve. Even in a non-crisis situation, having such information such as manifestos, essays and DIY instructions easily accessible is not a good idea as it may—in conjunction with other factors—influence impressionable young or mentally unstable individuals to eventually act. Such information should be seen as akin to certain types of pornography which are banned in most jurisdictions. Reports of mass shootings on the other hand I would argue are part of the regular news cycle.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

193

By 2040: 398. 399. 400.

Attitudes and increased fear may push the governments to resort to banning, etc., even at the cost to individual freedoms. Yes, with the authorization of a special judge. Maybe not banned because of freedom of speech/expression, but pointed out with a terrorist label, conversely in a way products and services that are eco-friendly get an eco-label.

Classification 401. 402.

403.

404.

405.

406.

407.

Apparently the explanation of the questions has not been fully understood by me. Unable to answer. Banning the bible, hmmm. No, I think the question refers to essays, manifestos,and how-to build weapons and viruses- both biologic and digitaldesigned to encourage terrorism. Would publishers or authors of such material be criminals themselves, guilty of encouraging attacks? It’s a narrow line between such concerns and freedom of expression. This is an intensifying problem for the next decade because of social media amplification. It’s the same issue as publishing pornography but with a slightly different focus. In the case of pornography the threshold has been what is socially acceptable? Is it the same for counter-terror? Not sure I follow the structure of this question. Publication and/or redaction of documents are in themselves not crimes, let alone terrorist acts. By this reasoning, the bible, which has a couple dozen references to wholesale eradication and genocide, would be banned. In a way relates to the first example. Cannot ban specialized info from being pass on, however must be kept under observation, normal observation, not paranoid one. One form of counter-terrorism will be introducing education against antisocial behavior to all levels at schools and universities. Counter-terrorism could also become a discipline. A more likely possibility is the manipulation of the weight that such messages will have in the media channels—so that their reach and significance will be diminished. In Singapore, there exists legislation that criminalizes any kind of material that could be deemed as posing a demonstrable imminent threat to public order such as terrorist manifestos and bomb-making manuals.

Question 16: No Privacy: Would abuse in data collection qualify as terrorism? Counterterrorism: New generations of Internet (e.g. 5G) may increase capabilities for state-sponsored surveillance and data collection about individuals. Would abuse in data collection and its use qualify as terrorism and hence, new regulations enacted to control ownership, access, and algorithms, as part of counterterrorism efforts?

194

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Fig. A4.31 Loss of privacy as part of counter-terrorism strategies today and by 2040

Fig. A4.32 Abuse of data collection and use as part of counter-terrorism strategies

Ratings There was a rather acceptance of loss of privacy as part of counter-terrorism efforts today and slightly more so in the future, as showed in Fig. A4.31. Nevertheless, over 50% of the respondents considered that abuse of data collection and use might become crime in the future, as illustrated in Fig. A4.32.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

195

Comments Today: 408.

409.

410.

411.

412.

413.

414.

Abuse of collected data should be forbidden—certainly if the information is taken and used by groups for political goals—but if (in the eyes of the individuals) the state abuses the data, then it is a more serious problem and a threat to personal freedoms. New technologies make all of these issues more difficult to handle, so it is important to stay focused on the underlying philosophy. Collecting data on individuals is an important factor in protecting citizens (and governments) against harmful action of individuals. There is a deterrent effect of, say, face recognition (like cameras against shop lifting), and it is a crime solving tool (like the Boston bomber case). In the cases where surveillance is used as crowd and mind control (China is a good example) of the population, it is akin to terrorism. And so is ANY abuse of data, incl. altering data for a specific purpose (does not yet seem to be the case). We need to come to terms with what privacy is in a modern society. We are NOT private in the public room (on the streets, in a stadium, in a store, etc). We need to accept that we are being watched. It is not any different from being watched by a person—technology just makes it easier and more effective. In and of itself, Internet-enabled state-sponsored surveillance and data collection about individuals is not terrorism per se. However such techniques could be employed by certain governments as part of a wider policy of structural oppression of minorities, including violence against them. So-called big data is pervasive. Much of the data is collected overtly as people willingly provide personal information in return for greater convenience. It can be and is sometimes used illegally and could be a tool used by terrorists, but not terrorism itself. A crude parallel might be the early use of cell phones by drug dealers. They were quick to see advantages that only became more gradually apparent to the general population, but the use of cell phones is not an act of terrorism. 412 The crime might be in modifying data that indicates propensity to terrorism, or past histories. The question then is whether laws that prohibit data tampering are adequate. Abuse of 5 G would be classified as cyber attacks, hacking, cracking, etc. The data can be used in criminal way; however, never heard that data can be used in terrorist way. It depends if the abuse in data collection and its use is a way to provoke social alterations or go against state structures.

By 2040: 415.

Even in 2040, in and of itself, Internet-enabled state-sponsored surveillance and data collection about individuals is not terrorism per se. However such techniques could be employed by certain governments as part of a wider policy of structural oppression of minorities, including violence against them.

196

416.

417. 418.

419.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

There are other technologies that are more concerning from an intrusion perspective, such as BMI (brain machine interface) that potentially might reveal patterns of thinking (theoretically: reveal specific thoughts). Risks of abuse are definitely as high as the benefits of understanding how the brain works. Those technologies are dependent on enormously powerful computers (quebit based) more than 5G (which by 2050 will be 6G or 7G) and will definitely increase surveillance capabilities at many levels. Abuses in gathering, using and disseminating data is a huge emerging societal issue, but its focus is on privacy. If artificial intelligence (AI) and artificial reality (AR) are principle tools in a very large terrorist attack there use may be legislated to be terrorism in some instances. 5G is thought to be very powerful. Misused, it can definitely generate panic. A matter if cyber attacks will be related to terrorism in the future, and if terrorists manage do to anything with data. Think about your example from Row 4.

Classification 420.

421.

422. 423.

Abuse in data collection most likely falls into the category of a crime where there are privacy laws being violated, but simply collecting it is not terrorism. In the US, if the data collection involves hacking, then computer fraud laws are broken. What is done with the data may also trigger prosecution under other laws, such as extortion, etc. The only likely way data collection would be connected to terrorism is if the data were used to enable terrorist acts. No. We will gradually become accustomed to this technology and get used to the consequences . . . particularly if we educate the young generation about it. It falls outside what we would think of as terrorism. In Singapore personal data protection legislation has been enacted that criminalizes abuse and misuse of private individual data Abuse in data collection is a crime, not terrorism.

Question 17: Potential new terrorist entities or forms of terrorism Given your views on the evolving definitions of terrorism, who (persons or groups) might become classed as a terrorist or terrorist organization? (e.g., corporations, international agencies, on-line chat rooms, etc.) Responses 424.

425.

Hackers designing or posting deep fakes online, recruiters for terrorist causes and organizations, any social medium that republishes false news or takes input from known terrorist sources or sources otherwise designated by antiterrorist officials or organizations. States that sponsor activities that undermine the living standard of people from other countries for attaining their own goals.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

426. 427.

428.

429.

430. 431. 432.

433. 434.

435.

436.

437.

197

States or religious groups and other organizations whose objectives require aggressive actions to attain their goals. Any political and/or religious organization that uses one or more science and technology tools to kill or endanger the lives of several people, in order to achieve their goals. Any person or organization that commits or plans an act designed to produce fear, chaos, uncertainty, and/or distrust in institutions, and possibly includes personal gain and enhanced notoriety. What were called nihilists in the old days could be seen as terrorists if they cause terror regarding the solidity of critical infrastructure and services Recruiters, whether or not on-line. All criminals involved in any of the transnational organized crime 25 activities, as well as those national activities linked to them. Publication of manifestos, essays, and do it yourself instructions inspire and help potential terrorists. Any person or organization that commits or plans a criminal act designed to produce fear, chaos, uncertainty, and/or distrust in (governmental) institutions. Theoretically all kinds of non-state actors, be it individuals or organizations. Any ENTITY at any level (from individual to the state/government) would be considered a terrorist IF the intent of their actions is to harm or to cause fear of such harm of an individual or a group of individual through persistent (i.e. more than one time) actions—that will therefore include any one of those mentioned. Planning and facilitating such actions are not terrorism by themselves but would be considered complicit actions. Definition of terrorism may evolve by the multiply of means. From the “lonely wolfs” to organization or states, to define an action as terrorist is more and more difficult. The role of states increase not only to define terrorist acts, but to educate the people and to take the most appropriate measures to prevent terrorist acts. It is a high responsibility for every citizen. It must define not only the terrorist acts but all the paths that can conduct to terrorism. Laws are not enough to stop this plague. Any actor with harmful intentions of spreading terror and death in society attached to some ideology. Sponsors, media outlets, even fundamentalist governments… Besides the importance of identifying terrorists and preventing possible terrorist acts, more efforts should be given to preventing individuals becoming terrorists in the first place. More focus on social and educational factors to level with technological solutions. There might be a confluence to be considered terrorism both from the upper level, i.e., what today is considered organized crime, but with enough potential as to disrupt entire countries, and lower level, i.e., individuals embracing antisocial acts but with the potential of causing great harm (due to the use of technology). This is also fabricated by consistent news escalating what formerly were considered small incidents to the category of serious crimes. Whether

198

438. 439. 440.

441.

442.

443.

444.

445. 446.

447.

448.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

the real effecting costs or lives are not comparable with actual terrorist attacks, it creates a feeling of lack of protection. Any company, international organization, even some state/countries/ governments that commit terrorist activities Groups seeking to change your rule or regime. Arson or large-scale pollution might evolve to be considered as more than a crime. The planet temperature will increase to levels where water stress will dramatically increase and agricultural yields will severely drop. This may mean that terrorists could use e.g., disruption of water distribution as the ultimate weapon to reach their goal. Any entity—individual, group, corporate, government—who act in defiance of privacy; causes injury or death; or otherwise short of ultimate good faith (acting with an evil intent). Given that societies are likely to evolve in the direction of resilience—traditional disruption techniques will play a lesser role, individuals with political or ideological motivations will play a lesser role. Particularly disruptive would be human-cloud meaningless terrorism—thousands of people performing small actions that together would have a big effect to disrupt elements of society. There is so much hacking of the net by college students ….just for the fun of it that it is hard to get to your definition of terrorism. The whole net is still so wide open that …motivation—which is the most important ingredient of terrorism—is so hard to find and define. Non-state actors or lone wolves engaged in knifings, bombings, shootings and other widely acknowledged acts of terror, driven by relatively coherent political-ideological worldviews Super-empowered individuals—driven by relatively coherent political-ideological worldviews—and able to harness bio-weapons or technology to wreak mass-scale disruption, destruction and loss of life within societies. What some may call fifth-generation warfare. Rogue governments—driven by extremist religious, ethnic or political ideologies—employing a range of means from legislative and economic to kinetic, against parts of their own population, resulting in structural violence against the latter. Structural violence includes other types of deliberate out-group harm and deprivation apart from outright physical violence. This would be state oppression or state terrorism. Who knows anything can be given the right environment. Any political and/or religious organization that uses one or more science and technology tools to kill or endanger the lives of several people, in order to achieve their goals. On-line recruiters for terrorist causes and organizations Any political and/or religious organization that uses one or more science and technology tools to kill or endanger the lives of several people, in order to achieve their goals. None.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

449.

450.

199

Individuals or organized groups of individuals intent on causing terror/fear/intimidation in other humans by whatever means—regardless of race/ethnicity/religion/geographical location. Persons, groups or states which declares openly their terrorist objectives and/or act as terrorists in concrete activities.

Some other comments Several persons wrote emails before participating or during the study to express their views about this topic, comment on the design, or extend their comments. Following are those comments. Participant 1: Since 9/11 what has proven useful, the only approach I know of that really works: Collect everything, really big data, then use AI to determine intent at the granularity of the individual worldwide, and preempt, aka the minority report approach. Short of that, the accuracy and efficacy are increasingly poor. The techs, IT, BIO, NANO now enable individuals to create massive destruction, loss of life etc., literally armies of one. And per my learnings, working all this the now too rapid tech, societal changes are much upping the psychosomatic illness rates, causing massive depression, killing many due to road rage, creating more sociopaths and psychopaths, who as you know are very difficult to detect. Overall, it’s a very non-linear problem. Many of the school rage folks were not detectable using the types of approaches you are driving towards with this survey….. Participant 2: The definition used does not mention violence to noncombatants (that common threat might be expanded to include indirect violence or indirect damage such as by starvation or cutting off of water. The discussion does not distinguish between terrorism as generally defined and terrorism understood to include state-supported terrorism. It neither rejects nor endorses the broader meaning. Some of the questions can’t be answered without more information. A mass killing, for example, may be due to simple insanity with no particular political motives; or it may be motivated by anti-immigrant, anti-minority, anti-white, anti-religious views. The answers would be crisp depending on the facts of the case. Participant 3: I had mentioned that there is a UN definition in my previous feedback, you can still do the study without saying “…there is no shared definition of what actions or contemplated actions make a person a terrorist.” UN Security Council Resolution 1566 defined terrorism: “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.” Adopted 8 October 2004 with 15 voted for, none voted against, none abstained. In September 2002, the U.S. national security strategy defined terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents.” Participant 4: I look forward to participating. I am intrigued by this initiative given the political problems noted in, say, the Wikipedia article related to this topic

200

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

of defining terrorism. It seems to me that, at least in part, any definition will run afoul of some party that needs its behavior justified that would be covered by the definition and so would want it changed. Will Bunch is an opinion writer in the Inquirer. He wrote a piece asserting that the well-armed individuals in Richmond on Monday were, in fact, perpetrating terrorism. I have not read any particular definition that would cover their assembly as such but I get his point. They were perceived as a threat by many in that city and that perception was designed to influence government policy. Yet it has ‘holes’ in it. First off, is perception sufficient? I might be armed in public and that might frighten some people but does that mean my intent was to frighten and is my intent required? I am reminded of some of the debate about ‘trauma’ and that it is ‘trauma’ if the ’traumatized’ says it is. Harassment is not an act but the perception of an act? Second, it is not clear that it is through the intimidation that the political end was expected to be achieved. Marches are a demonstration of unity in opinion. There is no threat other than to with-hold votes or to continue to speak out in politically persuasive ways, etc. The Anti-Vax movement comes to mind. These Richmond people had guns because gun ownership was the issue. (I could imagine the same would be true if it were head scarves, but no one would be threatened by head scarves.) And yet the very fact that it was guns, real guns, made it physically intimidating. Participant 5: Fascinating approach and a highly valuable study. You already hit one of the most misunderstood (in the U.S. in particular) aspects of being a terrorist or a freedom fighter. USA considered Osama bin Laden a freedom fighter when he fought against Russia in Afghanistan—to throw them out (and the U.S. helped him). When he fought the U.S. in Afghanistan for the very same reason, he was a terrorist. Likewise, the Danes called the participants in the Danish resistance movement against Germany during WWII freedom fighters. Has the word terrorist been in the vocabulary then, the Germans would undoubtedly have called them terrorists.

A5 Conclusions and Uncertainties There was a low level of consensus among respondents on what should be considered a terror act or not and who is or not a terrorist. There is a wide agreement that in any case a terror act is a crime. However, there seems to be a relatively high consensus among the experts participating in this study that the perception about terrorism will change over the future towards more vigilance. Some acts that presently are not judged as terrorism might be considered so by 2040. Even acts like distribution of fake news or manipulation of elections were judged as being regarded as a terrorism activity in the future. However, the act of peaceful protest is strongly believed to be a non-terror activity at present and will likely remain so in the future, even if illegal in some places. Non-aggressive acts would likely not be considered terrorism nor will the participants in such acts be considered terrorists.

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

201

The perception about terrorism differs between nations and between societies and cultures. However, some acts were perceived as terrorism by the majority of the participants in this study; these include: • • • •

Arson—intentional fires in cities GMO insects—the release of a super bug into the wild Genocide—genocide or ethnic cleansing by governments Hacking—hacker or group of hackers or a nation controlling them breaking into international funds • Shooters—shooters killing a large number of people. Other acts are clearly perceived by a majority of experts as being non-terror acts; these include: • Peaceful protests (99%!) • Fake news—creation or distribution of false news • Election chaos—means of disinformation and manipulation of elections. Considering the views emerging from this study, an encompassing definition of terrorism would be: Terrorism is an aggressive act with the objective to create chaos among societies, invoke fear among people or cause instability and uncertainty in nations and social institutions. It can occur in physical space as well as in cyber space. Terrorism is motivated by ideology, religion, or politics and can be carried out by individuals and groups, as well as terrorist nations who would commit it directly or act through specialized cooperative groups.

This definition aligns well with many of the existing definitions of terrorism. However, the novelty of this study consists in identifying emerging elements and potential trajectories in the perception of terrorism. The study further assessed several counterterrorism acts that might be integrated into defense policies in order to reduce terror activity and help identify potential terrorists. The tendency of respondents was to prevent aggressive steps. Respondents are not supporting applying tougher laws in the fight against terrorism neither are they supporting aggressive interrogation techniques to try and identify suspects and targets. Penetration into peoples’ privacy is not preferred either, in this effort. However, lighter new acts, like censorship on publications to avoid leak of information to terrorists are accepted. An interesting additional finding is that certain acts are perceived by a significant number of respondents neither terror nor crime, but should be a new class of antisocial behavior. This included two groups of acts: “chaos through social media” and the use of “fake news”, and the phenomenon of “skinheads” and other far right or left violent groups. The study produced some important qualitative results, moral and ethical, which should be taken into consideration in dealing with terrorism and when taking decisions on how to address it. Amongst them: • There are many ethical challenges like the importance of privacy versus the importance of security. This challenge will grow even more in the future with the

202

• • • • • • •

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

emergence of new technologies and new threats; as, for example, proved by the coronavirus crisis. There is a blurry line between freedom of expression and concerns over certain acts which might be perceived as a kind of crime and terrorism, like certain publications which might help terrorists. Deterrence of terrorism does not always justify the application of extreme acts like torture or penalty of death. Not every crime is a terror act, but about any terror act is a crime. A proven motive and intent are needed for calling a crime terrorism. Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are categorized as independent crimes and they are not terrorism offences. Peaceful activities that don’t threat and harm anyone should not be considered terrorism. Threats from advances in biotechnology should be codified in international treaties. An act of a state against another state is an act of war. If a state uses a non-state actor to realize that threat, then the act would be a state-sponsored terror act.

To sum up, this study intended to identify and elaborate the various, sometimes opposing, opinions and views about terrorism—what it is and how to cope with it— in view of helping understand the evolution of potential definition of terrorism and strategies to address it. Various mini-scenarios were presented to express different situations and ways in which terrorism might emerge. The fuzzy border between crime, terror and other kind of offenses has been assessed. Thus, the study helped identify challenges and uncertainties related to the complex issue of terrorism and yielded some new practical, as well as ethical findings. The outcomes helped identify the elements for formulating a definition of terrorism as well as potential strategies for addressing the terror threat. These findings will be helpful in further research and analysis of this complex phenomenon.

A6 List of Participants and Demographics Asang Abeyagoonasekera, Sri Lanka Ameen Ali, Kuwait Aharon Allachyani, Israel Monika Antal, UK Thomas Auerbach, Brazil Mohsen Bahrami, Iran Jeffrey Bale, USA Roberta Belli, Israel Heiko Borchert, Switzerland Gregory Brown, USA Magdalena Carral, Mexico

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Hector Casanueva, Chile Puruesh Chaudhary, Pakistan Günter Clar, Germany Jose Cordeiro, Venezuela Paul Davis, USA Rony Dayan, Israel Simone Di Zio, Italy Juan Eibenschutz, Mexico Paul Epping, UAE Avshalom Falk, Israel Elizabeth Florescu, Canada Octavian Florescu, Canada Hanno Focken, Germany Nadezhda Gaponenko, Russia Ulrich Gensch, Germany Jessika Giraldi, Belgium Jerome Glenn, USA Blaz Golob, Slovenia Ted Gordon, USA David Greenspan, USA David Harries, Canada Sirkka Heinonen, Finland F. Javier Herrera, Spain Brock Hinzmann, USA Razvan Hoinaru, Romania Reyhan Huseynova, Azerbaijan Said Sabir Ibrahimi, Afghanistan Asif Iftikhar, Pakistan Itzchac Inbar, Israel Robert Jarrett, USA Ruwanthi Jayasekara, Sri Lanka ZhouyingJin, China Tim Jones, UK JanneKanerva, Finland Nikolaos Kastrinos, Belgium Jeffrey W. Knopf, USA Hayato Kobayashi, Japan Maciej Krzystofowicz, Belgium Gerhold Lars, Germany Naeem Lodhi, Pakistan Sohail Mahmood, Pakistan Sami Makelainen, Australia Milan Maric, Montenegro Ivana Milojevi´c, Australia Arthur Muliro, Italy

203

204

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Leo Mureithi, Kenya Tom Murphy, USA Lukasz Nazarko, Poland Jean Negreanu, Israel Pavel Novacek, Czech Republic Concepcion Olavarrieta, Mexico Meir Oren, Israel Charles Perrottet, USA Doru Pogoreanu, Romania Adrian Pop, Romania Kumar Ramakrishna, Singapore Helen von Reibnitz, France Aaron Richman, Israel Thomas Ries, Sweden Torben Riise, USA Shlomo Rosenberg, Israel Sami Ryhänen, Finland Peter Rzeszotarski, USA Martin Schloßbauer, Germany Leopold Schmertzing, Austria Shmuel Shapira, Israel Kamal Aly Shaeer, Egypt Yair Sharan, Israel Richard Silberglitt, USA Karlheinz Steinmüller, Germany Eckhard Störmer, Germany William Tafoya, USA Abraham Tal, Israel Olaf Theiler, Germany Björn Theis, Germany Agneta Toda, Canada Sorin Toda, Canada VesaValtonen, Finland Amit Varma, Canada Asher Vaturi, Israel Jesús AlbertoVelas, Mexico Nathalie Vercruysse, Belgium Libby Weiss, Israel Jutta Wilking, Germany Gregor Wolbring, Canada Alexander Yehuda, Israel Zheng Zhao, China Ibon Zugasti, Spain

Appendix: Evolution of the Definitions of Terrorism; Results of a Real-Time Delphi

Percentage of Participants by Country Afghanistan = 1.27% Australia = 1.27% Austria = 1.27% Belgium = 5.06% Brazil = 1.27% Canada = 5.06% China = 1.27% Egypt = 1.27% Finland = 3.80% France = 1.27% Germany = 11.39% Israel = 18.99% Italy = 2.53% Kenya = 1.27% Kuwait = 1.27% Mexico = 2.53% Pakistan = 5.06% Poland = 1.27% Romania = 3.80% Singapore = 1.27 % Spain = 2.53% Sri Lanka = 2.53% Sweden = 1.27% Switzerland = 1.27% United States = 15.19% United Arab Emirates = 1.27% United Kingdom = 2.53% Venezuela = 1.27% Total countries = 100.00%

205