[PASSED] Digital Network Defense

[Araraukar]

"Such yes/no data can be expressed in numerical form, as you just did in your example by assigning yes and no the values of one and zero, and therefore is a digital device."

Can be. Does not mean it is. "Yesyesyesyesyes" is not the same as "enthusiastic 11111" or "fabulous 5". How would you digitally express "maybe yes" and "maybe not"?

"Quantum computers are digital. Quantum computers have only three possible values for each qubit: 1, 0, or a superposition of the two states. There is no continuously variable information, so numerical values can be assigned."

Actually, that's tridigital, not just digital. (OOC: And arguing about what quantum computers can and can't do is pretty much a moot point - what you're describing is what RL computer science is trying to do, not what an actual quantum computer might be able to do. We don't know, because we don't yet have one IRL. Heck, it might use flavours instead.)

"but as long as the data can be expressed in numerical form, then it is a digital device."

That's just cheating. Anything can be expressed in numerical form if you have specifically designed a system to do it. In fact, by your definition you and I, and all living beings are digital devices, since our parts, our data can be expressed in numerical form.

Also GAR #354 might conflict with your definition. You might want to make your definition read "non-sapient artificial equipment".

OOC: Not all the links are actually relevant, I'm just in a wacky mood due to lack of sleep and numbers seem silly.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Such yes/no data can be expressed in numerical form, as you just did in your example by assigning yes and no the values of one and zero, and therefore is a digital device."

Can be. Does not mean it is. "

"And what is one and zero? Please show me any device that literally stores a one, rather than information which is assigned the value of one. As I said before, one is an abstract concept that does not exist in the real world. It is a value assigned to things that exist in the real world. In electronic computers, usually the value one is assigned to circuits that are on and zero is assigned to those that are off. On and off are not literally one or zero, but they can be expressed that way. Yes and no are not literally one or zero, but they can be expressed that way."

How would you digitally express "maybe yes" and "maybe not"?

"With digits."

"Quantum computers are digital. Quantum computers have only three possible values for each qubit: 1, 0, or a superposition of the two states. There is no continuously variable information, so numerical values can be assigned."

Actually, that's tridigital, not just digital.

"They are digital. Any device which uses discrete values that can be expressed numerically is digital, regardless of how many discrete values there are."
(OOC: This is literally the definition of digital devices. I don't know why you are arguing this, but take a look at Merriam Webster, particularly definition 3, but also 4, 5, and 6. The Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary says digital is "recording or showing information in the form of numbers, esp. 0 and 1". Oxford Dictionaries specifies binary in the primary definition, but 1.1 say devices which use digital signals, which are most often IRL, but not always, binary. It is also important to note that Oxford's definition demonstrates why your 'what if the data uses flavors' argument is complete nonsense: the numbers are "typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization." Obviously voltage and magnetic polarization are not literally one or zero, they are only expressed that way. The digits could be represented by flavors, but if they can be expressed numerically, they are still digital.)

(OOC: And arguing about what quantum computers can and can't do is pretty much a moot point - what you're describing is what RL computer science is trying to do, not what an actual quantum computer might be able to do. We don't know, because we don't yet have one IRL. Heck, it might use flavours instead.)

OOC:
And now you betray your ignorance of the subject. We do know, because we do have quantum computers in real life.

2001, researchers demonstrated Shor's algorithm to factor 15 using a 7-qubit NMR computer.[42]

And that's just the start. The developments go on. There is even a commercially available quantum computer. Please, do some research before making ridiculous arguments.

"but as long as the data can be expressed in numerical form, then it is a digital device."

That's just cheating. Anything can be expressed in numerical form if you have specifically designed a system to do it.

"It isn't cheating, it is the definition of digital. Not everything can be expressed numerically. Any value that is continuously variable cannot be expressed numerically."

In fact, by your definition you and I, and all living beings are digital devices, since our parts, our data can be expressed in numerical form.

"Last time I checked, you and I and all living beings were not 'artificial equipment'. This line of argument is complete nonsense."

Also GAR #354 might conflict with your definition. You might want to make your definition read "non-sapient artificial equipment".

"First of all, GA#354 doesn't conflict at all. GA#354 defines artificial intelligence, not digital devices. In fact, neither digital nor devices are even mentioned in GA#354, so I don't see how any conflict could result.

"Second, I absolutely will not allow digital devices to be unlawfully hacked just because they are sapient. Sapient digital devices have just as much a right not to be hacked as non-sapient ones. Obviously, times of war against sapient digital combatants is an exception."

OOC: Not all the links are actually relevant, I'm just in a wacky mood due to lack of sleep and numbers seem silly.

OOC:
Well, that might explain the poor argumentation.

[Araraukar]

(OOC: And arguing about what quantum computers can and can't do is pretty much a moot point - what you're describing is what RL computer science is trying to do, not what an actual quantum computer might be able to do. We don't know, because we don't yet have one IRL. Heck, it might use flavours instead.)

OOC: And now you betray your ignorance of the subject. We do know, because we do have quantum computers in real life.

2001, researchers demonstrated Shor's algorithm to factor 15 using a 7-qubit NMR computer.[42]

And that's just the start. The developments go on. There is even a commercially available quantum computer. Please, do some research before making ridiculous arguments.

OOC: From your source (I cleaned the mobile site M from the address in the quote), italicizing mine:

The computers are not general purpose, but rather are designed for quantum annealing. Specifically, the computers are designed to use quantum annealing to solve a single type of problem known as quadratic unconstrained binary optimization. As of 2015, it is still heavily debated whether large scale entanglement takes place in D-Wave Two, and whether current or future generations of D-Wave computers will have any advantage over classical computers.

I think I'll stand by my statement, thankyouverymuch.

"Any value that is continuously variable cannot be expressed numerically."

By whatever system you are using, you mean?

In fact, by your definition you and I, and all living beings are digital devices, since our parts, our data can be expressed in numerical form.

"Last time I checked, you and I and all living beings were not 'artificial equipment'. This line of argument is complete nonsense."

Not your proposal's definition, but from your statement "You could have a device that keeps track of its information using a penguin named Steve, but as long as the data can be expressed in numerical form, then it is a digital device." Organic brain keeps track of information (though probably not by using a penguin named Steve), and that data can be expressed in numerical form (OOC: since essentially brain cells either send a signal (1) or not (0)).

"First of all, GA#354 doesn't conflict at all. GA#354 defines artificial intelligence, not digital devices. In fact, neither digital nor devices are even mentioned in GA#354, so I don't see how any conflict could result.

The artificial intelligences themselves usually exist within the "artificial digital devices".

"Second, I absolutely will not allow digital devices to be unlawfully hacked just because they are sapient. Sapient digital devices have just as much a right not to be hacked as non-sapient ones."

I never argued they didn't. I'm arguing that you're legalizing it for member nations to go meddle with their physical bodies, and possibly their very minds, at will, without needing their permission, all in the name of "making the network safe". Thus asking for the sapience exception.

OOC: Well, that might explain the poor argumentation.

OOC: I wrote a scathing reply to this, detailing how "poor argumentation" cuts both ways, but then I realized that I 1) like you too much to want to take it to that level of vitriol OOCly and 2) I'd rather tangle with this in IC. I'll get PPU or WAKK on this instead.

[Dooom35796821595]

Yes. Increasing the ability for nations to be able to effectively estimate the balance of power increases the amount of information available to all parties. This increases the stability of the international system.

"It also allows nations to steal sensitive information from nations they are not enemies with, even from allies, and they could do so in compliance with WA law." Schultz replies. "I'd rather not allow nations to hack into our systems unless they are at war with us."

Yes.

If you don't spy on a hostile nation, how can you determine if they are planning hostilities? Being able to spy during war isn't much help if the enemy starts the war with crippling attacks against a nations defensive and manufacturing infrastructure.

"Then use traditional methods of spying, like infiltration or observation. Not everything needs to be done by hacking."

Yeah, because seven foot tall aliens would be totally inconspicuous in a nation of xenophobic dwarfs. And there is no stealth in space or way to observe underground activity, so observation dosen't always work. And space is big, lots of places to build an attack fleet in secret.

[Tinfect]

Yeah, because seven foot tall aliens would be totally inconspicuous in a nation of xenophobic dwarfs. And there is no stealth in space or way to observe underground activity, so observation dosen't always work. And space is big, lots of places to build an attack fleet in secret.

"If the Imperium has found ways to infiltrate vastly different species, doubtless your government can do the same. And in any case, observation is unnecessary with sufficient infiltration."

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: And now you betray your ignorance of the subject. We do know, because we do have quantum computers in real life.

And that's just the start. The developments go on. There is even a commercially available quantum computer. Please, do some research before making ridiculous arguments.

OOC: From your source (I cleaned the mobile site M from the address in the quote), italicizing mine:

The computers are not general purpose, but rather are designed for quantum annealing. Specifically, the computers are designed to use quantum annealing to solve a single type of problem known as quadratic unconstrained binary optimization. As of 2015, it is still heavily debated whether large scale entanglement takes place in D-Wave Two, and whether current or future generations of D-Wave computers will have any advantage over classical computers.

I think I'll stand by my statement, thankyouverymuch.

So, you are just going to ignore my quote from Wikipedia regarding use of university quantum computers as early as 2001? That was from the Wikipedia page for Quantum Computing, under "development". The timeline goes on from 2001, with literally dozens of quantum computers developed from 2001 on. The D-Wave Two is only one of the commercially available ones, and regardless of whether entanglement is debated or not, it is listed as a quantum computer in that article. And again, it isn't the only one.

Don't stand by your statement in ignorance. At least, if making a false claim like that, provide some evidence that there are no quantum computers on Earth. Otherwise, it is me showing evidence that dozens of such devices exist, and you stubbornly saying "nuh-uh".

"Any value that is continuously variable cannot be expressed numerically."

By whatever system you are using, you mean?

"No, I mean it can't be expressed numerically by any system of numbers if it is continuously variable. Do they not teach these things in Araraukar?"

"Last time I checked, you and I and all living beings were not 'artificial equipment'. This line of argument is complete nonsense."

Not your proposal's definition, but from your statement "You could have a device that keeps track of its information using a penguin named Steve, but as long as the data can be expressed in numerical form, then it is a digital device." Organic brain keeps track of information (though probably not by using a penguin named Steve), and that data can be expressed in numerical form (OOC: since essentially brain cells either send a signal (1) or not (0)).

"I'm not sure how your brain works, but Terran human brains don't store information in a way that can be expressed numerically."
(OOC: And now we get to neurobiology. That's not how the brain works. Neurons do send electrical and chemical signals, yes, but individual neurons do not store information by being in either "on" or "off" states. In fact, memory is actually distributed across whole groups of neurons, and individual neurons can be associated with multiple memories. A simple google search for "how does the brain store memory" gives you this answer. For more information, read here.)

"First of all, GA#354 doesn't conflict at all. GA#354 defines artificial intelligence, not digital devices. In fact, neither digital nor devices are even mentioned in GA#354, so I don't see how any conflict could result.

The artificial intelligences themselves usually exist within the "artificial digital devices".

"So?"

"Second, I absolutely will not allow digital devices to be unlawfully hacked just because they are sapient. Sapient digital devices have just as much a right not to be hacked as non-sapient ones."

I never argued they didn't. I'm arguing that you're legalizing it for member nations to go meddle with their physical bodies, and possibly their very minds, at will, without needing their permission, all in the name of "making the network safe". Thus asking for the sapience exception.

"This proposal doesn't allow nations to do anything they aren't already allowed to do to sapient AI citizens. Furthermore, it merely requires nations to make a reasonable effort to secure digital devices against cyberattacks. If your nation believes screwing with citizens' minds without their permission is a reasonable effort, it isn't my fault.

"Now, I believe that nations should make reasonable efforts to protect their citizens from attack. AI citizens face the unique vulnerability of being subject to cyberattack, and nations should take action to protect their sapient AIs from cyberattack. That is what this resolution requires: a reasonable effort to secure networks from attack. If you believe nations should not make a reasonable effort to protect their citizens from unlawful attacks, then that is your opinion, but I will not change my proposal because of it."

OOC: Well, that might explain the poor argumentation.

OOC: I wrote a scathing reply to this, detailing how "poor argumentation" cuts both ways, but then I realized that I 1) like you too much to want to take it to that level of vitriol OOCly and 2) I'd rather tangle with this in IC. I'll get PPU or WAKK on this instead.

Thanks?

[Dooom35796821595]

Yeah, because seven foot tall aliens would be totally inconspicuous in a nation of xenophobic dwarfs. And there is no stealth in space or way to observe underground activity, so observation dosen't always work. And space is big, lots of places to build an attack fleet in secret.

"If the Imperium has found ways to infiltrate vastly different species, doubtless your government can do the same. And in any case, observation is unnecessary with sufficient infiltration."

And why should we be restricted in the number of ways we observe potential threats? And what's stopping the WA from outlawing physical spies, or stealing physical files?

The only change required would be to allow digital espionage outside of wartime, or just not forbid it.

[Excidium Planetis]

"If the Imperium has found ways to infiltrate vastly different species, doubtless your government can do the same. And in any case, observation is unnecessary with sufficient infiltration."

And why should we be restricted in the number of ways we observe potential threats?

"Because hacking people who aren't enemies or criminals is wrong."

And what's stopping the WA from outlawing physical spies, or stealing physical files?

"NOTHING! Mwahahahaha!"

Schultz stops laughing evilly and regains her composure. "Theoretically, the voters stop such laws."

The only change required would be to allow digital espionage outside of wartime, or just not forbid it.

"But that would allow governments to spy on allies. Do you really want your allies spying on you? Destroying your information? Causing massive damage by misdirecting your trains, satellites, etc? And it would all be perfectly legal, and you couldn't even go to war with them unless they wanted to, because of GA#2."

[Dooom35796821595]

And why should we be restricted in the number of ways we observe potential threats?

"Because hacking people who aren't enemies or criminals is wrong."

And what's stopping the WA from outlawing physical spies, or stealing physical files?

"NOTHING! Mwahahahaha!"

Schultz stops laughing evilly and regains her composure. "Theoretically, the voters stop such laws."

The only change required would be to allow digital espionage outside of wartime, or just not forbid it.

"But that would allow governments to spy on allies. Do you really want your allies spying on you? Destroying your information? Causing massive damage by misdirecting your trains, satellites, etc? And it would all be perfectly legal, and you couldn't even go to war with them unless they wanted to, because of GA#2."

It's part of the game, allies spy on each other.
I said spy, not sabotage. You could restrict that stuff if you want, so long as we can still spy on digital networks. And it wouldn't outlaw digital defence, if you want something secure you should depend upon more then a WA resolution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

And why should we be restricted in the number of ways we observe potential threats?

"Because hacking people who aren't enemies or criminals is wrong."

You can have enemies and also not be at war...

[Excidium Planetis]

"Because hacking people who aren't enemies or criminals is wrong."

You can have enemies and also not be at war...

"Of course. But where do you draw the line? If you aren't at war, how does law distinguish between hacking an enemy you just aren't at war with and hacking a non-enemy you also aren't at war with?"

It's part of the game, allies spy on each other.

"Maybe you and your allies, but not us, and maybe not our allies. At any rate, the simple fact that you do it doesn't make it right."

I said spy, not sabotage. You could restrict that stuff if you want, so long as we can still spy on digital networks.

"But digital espionage requires compromising security measures. It is the same as sabotage, as you must, in order to effectively access data, infiltrate the digital security of networks and render the security measures effectively useless against cyberattack."

And it wouldn't outlaw digital defence, if you want something secure you should depend upon more then a WA resolution.

"Yes, more than a WA resolution, but not less than one. A WA resolution combined with our own security measures provides maximum defence against cyberattacks. Relying on our own measures alone leaves us vulnerable to compliant WA members that are determined to hack our systems."

[Dooom35796821595]

You can have enemies and also not be at war...

"Of course. But where do you draw the line? If you aren't at war, how does law distinguish between hacking an enemy you just aren't at war with and hacking a non-enemy you also aren't at war with?"

It's part of the game, allies spy on each other.

"Maybe you and your allies, but not us, and maybe not our allies. At any rate, the simple fact that you do it doesn't make it right."

You have a different opinion of right, yet you are attempting to force your version on others at their own risk. Not to mention this would prevent WA members from digitally spying on non-WA nations who would have no such restrictions.

I said spy, not sabotage. You could restrict that stuff if you want, so long as we can still spy on digital networks.

"But digital espionage requires compromising security measures. It is the same as sabotage, as you must, in order to effectively access data, infiltrate the digital security of networks and render the security measures effectively useless against cyberattack."

If security measures are ineffective then that is a weakness for the vulnerable nation to attempt to address, not for capable nations to simply ignore. You mentioned physical sabotage, like derailing trains and brining down aircraft, something that requires different priorities then accessing Intel.

And it wouldn't outlaw digital defence, if you want something secure you should depend upon more then a WA resolution.

"Yes, more than a WA resolution, but not less than one. A WA resolution combined with our own security measures provides maximum defence against cyberattacks. Relying on our own measures alone leaves us vulnerable to compliant WA members that are determined to hack our systems."

Wouldn't you preffer your WA allies to test your defences and show you how to improve, rather then a non-WA nation ripping through untested defences? After all, WA legislation does nothing to stop non WA nations.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Of course. But where do you draw the line? If you aren't at war, how does law distinguish between hacking an enemy you just aren't at war with and hacking a non-enemy you also aren't at war with?"


"Maybe you and your allies, but not us, and maybe not our allies. At any rate, the simple fact that you do it doesn't make it right."

You have a different opinion of right, yet you are attempting to force your version on others at their own risk.

"Such is the way the WA works. It has done so since GA#2."

Not to mention this would prevent WA members from digitally spying on non-WA nations who would have no such restrictions.

"Why don't you just 'depend upon more then a WA resolution', huh?" Schultz smirks. "Or have you abandoned that idea?

"It isn't like we can stop non-members from attacking our systems through WA law. Excidium Planetis retaliates against cyberattacks, sometimes with nuclear force."

"But digital espionage requires compromising security measures. It is the same as sabotage, as you must, in order to effectively access data, infiltrate the digital security of networks and render the security measures effectively useless against cyberattack."

If security measures are ineffective then that is a weakness for the vulnerable nation to attempt to address, not for capable nations to simply ignore.

"I never said any nation would ignore that. But since any WA nation under your rules could legally launch cyberattacks around the clock, how could you constantly ensure that your systems have not already been compromised? Either one of two situations must be true: One, that because spying occurs, most nations will be vulnerable to cyberattack as a result of security breaches, or Two, that every nation is secure, and therefore a WA resolution allowing spying is unnecessary because no spying happens."

You mentioned physical sabotage, like derailing trains and brining down aircraft, something that requires different priorities then accessing Intel.

"No, they require the same priority: bypassing security systems."

"Yes, more than a WA resolution, but not less than one. A WA resolution combined with our own security measures provides maximum defence against cyberattacks. Relying on our own measures alone leaves us vulnerable to compliant WA members that are determined to hack our systems."

Wouldn't you preffer your WA allies to test your defences and show you how to improve, rather then a non-WA nation ripping through untested defences? After all, WA legislation does nothing to stop non WA nations.

"Why yes, I would prefer that. That's why we legally hire nations, organizations, or individuals to test our defenses. Nothing prohibits nations from attacking you if you ask them to do so."

[Louisistan]

"I'm a bit pressed for time right now, so I haven't had the time to study the debate transcript. If these points have been brought up already, I apologise:"

[*]"network" as any group of digital devices in which connections allow the transmission and receiving of numerical information.

Arguably, this definition includes two unconnected computers. They form a group of digital devices and internally numerical information is transmitted and received (e.g. between CPU and RAM). Maybe you want to make clear that the transmission is supposed to take place between the devices?

I would also like to point out that your definition could include, for example, an automobile, since it includes sensors which are connected to a cpu by some sort of bus. I'm not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing, just pointing it out so it isn't missed.

Requires nations to make a reasonable effort to secure networks against the threat of cyberattacks;

In my understanding this would only apply to networks which are under government control, not private networks used by citizens and companies, correct?

[Excidium Planetis]

"I'm a bit pressed for time right now, so I haven't had the time to study the debate transcript. If these points have been brought up already, I apologise:"

[*]"network" as any group of digital devices in which connections allow the transmission and receiving of numerical information.

Arguably, this definition includes two unconnected computers. They form a group of digital devices and internally numerical information is transmitted and received (e.g. between CPU and RAM). Maybe you want to make clear that the transmission is supposed to take place between the devices?

"An excellent point, I can see how that interpretation could arise. I'll see if I can fix it."

I would also like to point out that your definition could include, for example, an automobile, since it includes sensors which are connected to a cpu by some sort of bus. I'm not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing, just pointing it out so it isn't missed.

"Well, that could only occur if you treated the automobile as a group of digital devices rather than just one. But even if you did, wouldn't it be good to try and protect automobiles from being attacked? After all, a hacker who could hijack or sabotage an automobile could cause a good deal of damage. And in nations which use self-driving automobiles, the threat is great."

Requires nations to make a reasonable effort to secure networks against the threat of cyberattacks;

In my understanding this would only apply to networks which are under government control, not private networks used by citizens and companies, correct?

"No. This includes all networks, public and private. Note however, that nations are only required to make a reasonable effort, there is no nonsense here about 'all means necessary'. As I explained earlier in the debate:

"Networks as used here includes all networks, not just government ones. I may be wrong, but not all nations make reasonable efforts to ensure that private civilian networks are secured. I left it up to nations to decide what exactly they will do as a reasonable effort, but presumably this could include mandating minimum security standards for private companies that produce network-capable devices, monitoring of public networks, or some other solution that shows a reasonable effort to ensure that networks are secure."

[Excidium Planetis]

"I have clarified the definition of 'network' and added a spying exception."

[Louisistan]

I would also like to point out that your definition could include, for example, an automobile, since it includes sensors which are connected to a cpu by some sort of bus. I'm not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing, just pointing it out so it isn't missed.

"Well, that could only occur if you treated the automobile as a group of digital devices rather than just one. But even if you did, wouldn't it be good to try and protect automobiles from being attacked? After all, a hacker who could hijack or sabotage an automobile could cause a good deal of damage. And in nations which use self-driving automobiles, the threat is great."

"As I said, not necessarily a bad thing. I simply pointed it out to make sure you were aware of it."

"No. This includes all networks, public and private. Note however, that nations are only required to make a reasonable effort, there is no nonsense here about 'all means necessary'. As I explained earlier in the debate:

"Networks as used here includes all networks, not just government ones. I may be wrong, but not all nations make reasonable efforts to ensure that private civilian networks are secured. I left it up to nations to decide what exactly they will do as a reasonable effort, but presumably this could include mandating minimum security standards for private companies that produce network-capable devices, monitoring of public networks, or some other solution that shows a reasonable effort to ensure that networks are secure."

"Fair enough, Madam Ambassador."

[Dooom35796821595]

"I have clarified the definition of 'network' and added a spying exception."

These changes make it much more acceptable and orientated towards its original intent, we approve.

[Excidium Planetis]

Since nothing is going on in the WA right now (no at vote or good proposals), I'm bumping this to get ready for submission.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Easy. We'll have Telemachia do it or Cyril Parsons do it. Then, we can just cooperate with their intelligence agencies.

[Excidium Planetis]

Easy. We'll have Telemachia do it or Cyril Parsons do it. Then, we can just cooperate with their intelligence agencies.

What?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Easy. We'll have Telemachia do it or Cyril Parsons do it. Then, we can just cooperate with their intelligence agencies.

What?

Get your protectorates out, have them do the spying, then just cooperate (well, and fund) with their intelligence agencies.

[Excidium Planetis]

What?

Get your protectorates out, have them do the spying, then just cooperate (well, and fund) with their intelligence agencies.

I've already implemented a spying exemption, haven't I?

[Excidium Planetis]

I plan to submit this after IA's repeal succeeds/fails.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Get your protectorates out, have them do the spying, then just cooperate (well, and fund) with their intelligence agencies.

I've already implemented a spying exemption, haven't I?

Oh, whoops. Entirely ignore all that then.