Influence Operations in the Cyber Space: Terrorism or Not?

"With the rise of social networks and the development of online communication, information dissemination has become easier and more accessible than ever. Technological and political developments around the world have given birth to a new and sophisticated form of attack influence operations" (ChatGPT).

"One of the prevalent approaches regarding the behavior of state and non-state actors in the cyber domain emphasizes the connection between technological attack patterns and the battle for public perception. This is achieved through content-based influence operations that may serve non-technological objectives. It is common to classify cyberattacks based on their goals:

• Attacks that cause damage and disrupt computer systems (CNA).
• Attacks aimed at stealing information and espionage (CNE).
• Influence operations in cyberspace (CNI) - operations that affect the logical layer in the cyber domain with the ultimate goal of changing attitudes or behaviors and influencing the decision-making of the target audience (Influence Operations in Cyber — Characteristics and Insights)."(INSS - The Institute for National Security Studies)

In this article, I will present my perspective on these types of attacks and why they can be classified as acts of terrorism. Dr. Boaz Ganor defines terrorism as "the deliberate use or threat of violence against civilians or civilian targets to achieve political goals such as changing government or policy" (Dr. Boaz Ganor). For years, terrorist attacks have been perceived as physical violence against civilians. A suicide bomber or a hijacked plane are actions that we would easily define as terrorist acts. Therefore, it makes sense that it would be difficult to see influence operations as terrorist attacks because they do not always include elements of physical violence or sabotage. However, both types of actions have the same objective - to influence decision-makers at the political level.

According to Dganit Peikovsky and Evyatar Matanya, the components of influence operations can be divided into five elements:

1. Dissemination of false information
2. Information leaks
3. Use of avatars("Highly credible fictitious identity on social networks, unlike a bot")
4. Incitement and encouragement of terrorism on the Internet
5. Spread of rumors and fear (Peikovsky & Matanya).

These components can be inherently violent. For example, "fake news" can be a violent act if the psychological damage causes harm to civilians, and leaking personal information constitutes a violation of privacy. Each of these components represents psychological violence directed at civilians in the cyber domain.

The 2016 U.S. presidential election is a good example of an influence operation. "U.S. intelligence determined that the Russian government intervened in the election" (The Washington Post). During that year, the Russian government conducted several cyber operations aimed at influencing the election results. Russia leaked information about the election candidates and used bots to promote biased information on social media, focusing on the American audience to deepen polarization within the American people and sway the election results according to their preferences. According to open intelligence, it is not possible to determine how successful Russia was in achieving its objectives in this operation. However, if they managed to influence voters to elect a Republican candidate (Donald Trump), it poses a threat to democracy. By using violent means on social media to engineer citizens' consciousness, Russia succeeded in undermining the democratic values of the United States.

In conclusion, I believe that influence operations in the cyber domain are acts of terrorism, as they involve violent actions explicitly and directly directed at civilians, with the primary goal of shaping and changing public opinion to achieve political goals.

I chose to ask ChatGPT a question to check how much our positions align:

Question: Can influence operations in the cyber domain be considered terrorist attacks?

ChatGPT Response: "Influence operations in the cyber domain are not directly terrorist attacks. They are conducted using advanced technologies to influence the desires and decisions of individuals or target groups unilaterally. These operations attempt to influence the awareness of the selected targets to achieve their goals, not through violent actions to spread fear and cause physical harm. Often, influence operations in the cyber domain are carried out by cyber groups and states to achieve geopolitical and strategic objectives. Additionally, they may indeed be direct cyber attacks against various units and organizations such as industries, electricity companies, water and public transportation, and therefore should be treated with the utmost seriousness. However, they can affect the information security and privacy of citizens and states, thereby putting the information and communication of citizens and states at risk. Influence operations in the cyber domain may cause significant damage to information systems and harm the computer security of networks and computerized systems, but this is not terrorism" (ChatGPT).

It seems that the chatbot and I disagree on the answer. If we compare our perspectives, it appears that my initial stance in the article argues that influence operations fall within the definition of terrorist attacks. I see the attempt to influence citizens' consciousness through cyber means as a violent act, while the chatbot thinks otherwise. The chatbot defines violence as physical violence only, like most of the world. "It is difficult to separate psychological violence from physical violence because the former leads through various stages to the latter... It hardly receives independent attention, not from the law nor from normative social oversight, and is usually addressed only after it has developed into physical violence or property damage" (Psychological Violence - Article). I believe there are two reasons for this gap. First, the chatbot reflects the amount of knowledge the world has on the subject, and it may be that we as humans have not developed enough to see terrorist attacks beyond the physical realm in which we live. In other words, cyber violence has not developed enough and has not occurred enough times for us to come and claim that such actions fall under the definition of violent actions. Additionally, the chatbot itself may not understand the implications of such psychological violence since it is a machine and not a human. These may be the reasons why the robot does not see the issue from my perspective.

However, I believe that with the joining of more people to social networks and the development and improvement of information transfer, influence operations will only intensify, and the battle for citizens' minds will become the next battlefield. Already, we can see democratic countries that are being affected or have been affected by such operations. Some might argue that Israel is currently in the midst of an influence operation. I firmly believe that such operations should be classified as terrorist attacks. The chatbot's disagreement with me on this topic shows the lack of information available on the internet and reflects the lack of awareness among people globally. As these attacks continue to fly under the radar of citizens or states under the guise of legitimate tools for controlling citizens, the fundamental principles of democracy may fade away.

References:

• ChatGPT
• INSS Israel - The Institute for National Security Studies (Article)
• Dr. Boaz Ganor (Article)
• Influence Operations in Cyber (Peikovsky & Matanya) — Characteristics and Insights (Article)
• Avatar – "Highly credible fictitious identity on social networks, unlike a bot" (The Marker)
• The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election (The Washington Post Article)
• Psychological Violence - (Article)
• Conversation with ChatGPT