Category: Uncategorized

For a passionate newspaper reader (for me, newspapers are still paper and reading is when there is a bit of printing ink left on the fingers), you don’t even have to bother to form an opinion these days: it is served ready. From digital media, TV, news portals, government releases, and many more. And several versions, so that you can believe whatever you want. The very first time for me I thought I was a victim of fake-news was these days, just 19 years ago, sitting not far from my office in Pozsony (Bratislava, Slovakia) and seeing the Twin Towers collapse. They weren’t fake news…

As a news consumer, it is very “practical”, because depending on which political direction you feel closer you get text, pictures, and also a film that matches the version of the truth you want to believe. Very aptly described in a Chesney et al piece:

Thanks to the rise of deep fakes—highly realistic and difficult-to-detect digital manipulations of audio or video—it is becoming easier than ever to portray someone saying or doing something he or she never said or did.[1]

And if the truth should seem too unpleasant, you can always resort to good old-world methods: switch off the news source. Interestingly, not only the trolls of the would-be superpower Russia deal with disinformation but also high-ranking officials of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) enjoy it. This is what happened to Brian Murphy.[2] Murphy who is the former head of DHS’s intelligence division happened to say that his bosses were

Warping the agency around President Trump’s political interests.

Without wanting to go on length, his „failure“ was to produce reports on the violent white supremacy and Russian election interference. More exactly he should not report on the deep-fakes from Russia and concentrate among others more on left-wing anarchos. According to the New York Times, and unfortunately for Murphy´s career, he did not think to do so, that is why he has been removed from his position, like many other specialists of the so-called Deep State. But is the specification of guidelines in a security agency or exchanging staff something special? I do not think so. After each election, posts are discussed and new priorities are set. The special thing about Murphy is that the DHS, which was intended to guard the sovereignty of the USA, as the anti-terrorist organization, was converted into a tool for immigration policies and made into an election vehicle.

According to international law[3]

sovereign states having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state.

The last condition seems very important to me: neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state. Because the Americans will vote on this too, away from all the campaign noise in 51 days: that the USA, a powerful country and for many still the guarantor of western democracy, remains a sovereign state. So God will.

[1]Chesney, Robert, and Danielle Citron. “Deepfakes and the New Disinformation War: The Coming Age of Post-Truth Geopolitics.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 147–155. EBSCOhost.

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/us/politics/homeland-security-russia-trump.html

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state

We live in a rapidly evolving political climate where “fake news”, misinformation, and downright lies seem to be more prevalent each day. The most terrifying version of this newscycle has been created by artificial intelligence, called Deepfakes. Citizens seem to be trusting the “news” less and less and we now live in an age where we don’t rely on reporting as much, as we have the ability to hear information straight from our elected officials. But what if the person we are seeing speak isn’t that person at all? What if after hours and hours of studying video recording of a person we can now create artificial versions of that person barely indistinguishable from reality. 

In this smartphone era we live in, the amount of audio and video recording we do of ourselves and our friends has reached an asinine level and Gen Z’ers are only going to expound on that amount. Popular phone applications such as Instagram and TikTok have come under scrutiny for collecting our data in order to use target marketing to attack our consumerist tendencies. What if the target isn’t just our tendencies, but our voices and mannerisms. I’m sure most of us have had unflattering photos or videos posted on the internet, but the generation that is constantly being recorded also has the technology to manipulate the recordings- we are heading to a terrifying future. As Chesney and Citron put it in Deepfakes and the New Disinformation War: The Coming Age of Post-Truth Geopolitics, “These dynamics will make social media fertile ground for circulating deepfakes, with potentially explosive implications for politics.”1

A deepfake video can appear of a senator claiming to admit to a crime, a sitting president declaring war, or a prominent scientist claiming climate change isn’t real and that may be the only spark needed to lead to disaster. We are not far from that reality. We currently have real videos of our president and politicians saying horrible things, and their supporters will deny they’ve been said even though I can watch it with my two eyes. The point is, the narrative will be whatever an individual wants it to be and deepfakes have an ungodly amount of power to shift a narrative. In a January New York Times article Facebook said it would remove videos altered by artificial intelligence in ways meant to mislead viewers2, but it may be impossible to regulate and once information is disseminated it can never be put back in its holster.

 

1. Chesney, Robert, and Danielle Citron. “Deepfakes and the New Disinformation War: The Coming Age of Post-Truth Geopolitics.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 147–155. EBSCOhost.
2. McCabe, D. (2020, January 8). Facebook Says It Will Ban ‘Deepfakes.’ Https://Www.Nytimes.Com/#publisher. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/technology/facebook-says-it-will-ban-deepfakes.html?referringSource=articleShare

Deepfakes are a relatively new development that has improved drastically, starting around 2018 and getting progressively better (Baker & Capestany, 2018). Deepfakes, in general, are fake but realistic videos that can mimic both real and non-existent people, especially in its uncanny resemblance to realistic motions and voices. There are many interesting and funny videos on one hand, but there are other videos that show how scary this technology can be. For one thing, deepfakes can allow anyone to imitate famous people or politicians. In addition, this can have far-reaching consequences, especially in terms of credibility as well as the ability to figure out what is truly occurring.

Besides this, the damage to reputation and other harm due to people believing in these images or videos are another issue. However, there has been some work done, such as with the U.S. Defense Department’s forensic tool to detect AI and fake news (Knight, 2018).  This seems to be leading to a security-related arms race, as the AI and cybersecurity fields are rapidly developing recently, and their applications to not just industry but to defense and security are becoming explored.

 

References:

Baker, H., & Capestany, C. (2018, September 27). It’s Getting Harder to Spot a Deep Fake Video. Retrieved September 13, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLoI9hAX9dw

Knight, W. (2018, August 7). The Defense Department has produced the first tools for catching deepfakes. Retrieved September 13, 2020, from http://technologyreview.com/2018/08/07/66640/the-defense-department-has-produced-the-first-tools-for-catching-deepfakes/

In The New Revolution in Military Affairs, the author Christian Brose predicts the arrival of several new disruptive technologies onto the battlefields of the future and that the United States military risks losing its current dominance not because of a lack of resources or technological know how, but because political of a lack of imagination and foresight on the part of the US’s military planners.  Brose specifically points out that he does not believe that ethical debates surrounding the use of new weapons systems will contribute to the US losing its technological edge. This is something that I disagree with, I can see the debate surrounding the ethical concerns of using new weapons technology becoming very prominent and politicized which would harm the US’s ability to honestly discuss whether or not new weapons systems should be used.

As we discussed last class, the United States has faced intense criticism at home and abroad for not renouncing the use of weapons such as land mines and napalm. We also discussed how strategic rivals like China and Russia have also not yet committed to not using these types of weapons. As we move into the future, there will no doubt be calls to ban new weapons technologies even before they are used. As we are currently seeing with the coronavirus outbreak, issues surrounding science and technology have the potential  to become a battleground for the ongoing culture war, with people taking sides not based on the actual merits of the new technology but in order to signal their allegiance to a particular side of the political divide. This would only serve to further fracture our already divided country and harm our ability to stay competitive with our military technology.

As we discuss technology, A.I, and apps in relation to national security, I wanted to talk about TikTok. The app is famous for its entertaining 15 – 60-second videos and has boomed globally during the pandemic causing much distress in Washington. Though concerns around the app have always existed one being that it is “a potential spying threat” so much so that Chuck Schumer and Tom Cotton called for an assessment of the app last year. In their statement, they cite the ByteDance owned, Beijing-based app’s threats listed in the terms of service “it collects data from its users and their devices, including user content and communications, IP address, location-related data, device identifiers, cookies, metadata, and other sensitive personal information”. With the app’s US downloads peaking in March, the Trump administration is looking to ban more Chinese apps as the TikTok sale is currently stalled. The greatest fear, it seems, is that the app will collect data from Americans then turn it over to the Chinese Communist Party and then push propaganda onto its users through the algorithm the app creates for each user. Senator Josh Hawley cites another concern: TikTok’s desire to influence. Hawley warns that TikTok may follow Google and Facebook and “try to influence the Capitol and exert influence here, and Google and Facebook have done that to great effect”.

TikTok has stated that they store all US user’s data in the United States with a backup in Singapore and that their data centers are not subject to Chinese law as their data centers are located outside of China.

Meanwhile, opposition has grown against this administration’s efforts to ban the app. The ACLU tweeted their disagreement saying banning the app “is a danger to free expression and technologically impractical.” They rebutted the administration’s argument over the collection of American data saying “To truly address privacy concerns with companies like TikTok, Congress must ensure that ANY company that services US consumers cannot hand over our data to any government without a warrant or equivalent. Letting the president selectively ban platforms isn’t the solution.” An article from the Atlantic Council echoes the ACLU tweets citing the sudden US National headlines TikTok made as it’s popularity grew sharing political activism (and dance videos of course). The article argues that the Trump administration has “not presented any substantive evidence why TikTok is a national security threat to the average American consumer” and that banning the app would be a lot like China’s censoring of internet usage.

TikTok made headlines again after its influence in the small turnout during Trump’s Juneteenth rally in Tulsa. Teen users of the app created videos explaining how to “tank” the rally and they succeeded in making the rally organizers believe there would be a much larger turnout than there actually was. Supporters of the app cite this event as a possible reason for Trump’s demand to ban it completely. Though on surface level it may seem like the app is to “blame” the reality is that the rally took place in the middle of a pandemic and the organizers did not do an adequate job of pulling in reservations.

I agree with the ACLU’s statement that though privacy and data issues must be addressed for any app, not just TikTok, banning this app altogether is an infringement of freedom of expression. Is it a national security threat in of itself? I don’t think it could be any more or less of a threat than Facebook which played a role in the 2016 election and Brexit. If one app or social media site is a threat, then I am sure all of them are also a threat to an extent as they all have access to the same user information.

9/11 attacks tear apart the national security of the United States and indubitably split its  national security’s history in two eras; in post 9/11 homeland moved forward swiftly in order to restructure security affairs, law enforcement and intelligent services, during this period the U.S. has been shifting their fear for strength. Nowadays the U.S. has demonstrated capability to curb terrorist attacks as a result of enormous investments and improvements in intelligence, spent billions of dollars in security measures and offensive actions, military financial, cyber and other against terrorist attacks, those actions are really necessary from the government to offer safe and peace in some way for people, who remained 9/11 attacks with sorrow and outrage.

Despite of terrorist groups such as Isis and Al-Qaeda have lost their territory and have struggled during these years to bring back their warfare, new ways of terrorist attacks have been developing thus new concerns came up for homeland, and once again the U.S. must reinvent itself in how to fight against cyber-attacks, nuclear and biological weapons also devastating technologies that anyone can access so easy, unfortunately greatest advance in technology have seen how insane minds are using this valuable tool hurting international security around the world, maybe is a good moment to analyze which is the best way to take away this unfair warfare.

Currently the world has advance technological weapons, air drones, even there are already artificial intelligence, always creating new ways of destroy and keeping in wars that just bring poverty, deaths, starving and broken economies for major countries, what is coming up after that?  why mankind since its creation only matter how to destroy others? when this preposterous warfare is going to go to the end?

Depending on how you see it, having oil crude in a territory may be a blessing or a curse for a country. Needless to say why it is a blessing, but it may also be a curse because of the foreign interest in having something to do with its production, distribution, management, and even the profits this crude produces. This may certainly pose an international security threat for the country, its neighbors, and allies as well. Having oil crude for Venezuela has meant a long period of prosperity, “petrodollars” and power in the region. But like the song says: those days are long gone!  This is despite Maduro’s wishes, as he thinks he still is what he once was and that the country is at the peak of its glory, and therefore that the world -particularly “el imperialista Estados Unidos”- are after the already exhausted Venezuelan oil. Just like a scared kid at night sees the bogeyman everywhere, Maduro thinks that the U.S. and Trump are trying to get him and his oil at any cost.

According to the article from aljazeera.com – Venezuela’s Maduro says U.S. spy captured near oil refineries – a former American marine was caught in the area with specialized weapons, tons of cash, and other items. Maduro’s affirms that this man was on a mission to detonate the refinery or attempt to it somehow. He said in public TV that thanks to this spy’s detention, a brutal attack on the Venezuelan production of oil was dismantled last Wednesday. 

So a single armed, with tons of cash, former marine posed a threat to the Venezuelan oil production and the country as a whole. Right! Then, how about the Russian ships and troops of soldiers that were seen on the Venezuelan coasts? Are they bringing cultural exchange to the country? I don’t think so. The one posing a threat to Venezuela, to the people, the region, and beyond is Maduro himself and his plans to perpetuate his endless power. He is the major international security threat and now he is getting “a little help from his friends” to continue with his macabre plans. 

Thank you for your time! 

Maria. 

Link to article: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/200912062436674.html 

Brose hand waved away ethical concerns in his article, devoting one sentence to addressing it and seemed to suggest that technological advances won’t fail to be adopted because of ethics but a “failure of imagination.” Failure of imagination is not often the problem when it comes to technological advances; failure to predict implications or harms caused occurs far more frequently. What his article did illuminate, however, are some of the types of morally questionable technology that may come out of the fourth industrial revolution.

Miller, in contrast, offered a thorough analysis of autonomy and morality in his discussion of new technologies. In the United States and Europe, these concerns are being taken at least somewhat seriously. Miller mentioned how US companies have refused to provide technology to the Department of Defense. More recently, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and IBM have paused or eliminated contracts with law enforcement agencies following the massive protests of racial injustice and police brutality. In February, the District Court of The Hague ruled an algorithm-based program designed to identify and monitor people likely to commit benefits fraud was a violation of European treaty on human rights and privacy legislation. The Pasco County Sheriff’s Office in Florida is under scrutiny after the Tampa Bay Times published an investigative report on their “Intelligence Led Policing” initiative described by criminologists as “morally repugnant.”

The shift towards greater responsibility and the ethical use of technology is important, but as Scharre points out, treating AI as a new arms race increases incentives to launch untested technologies without thorough understanding of their risks and limits the opportunity for oversight. While there are some safeguards in liberal democracies such as civilian oversight of the military and freedom of speech and press that allows dissent and scrutiny of new programs, adversaries such as China are not similarly restrained. As liberal democracies adopt stronger privacy laws and protection for citizens, authoritarian regimes are free to test AI and other technology on their own citizens that can be deployed into the international arena. Scharre’s suggestion that the US try to work with Russia and China to develop safety protocols is a good one, but the lack of trust between these nations makes an arms race still likely. The US and its allies, assuming it still has any, should come together to hold each other accountable to shared principles of privacy and human rights and pool resources to help detect and counter adversaries’ attacks in this new frontier.

Two days ago, America commemorated the 9/11 attack, the worst incident on the U.S. soil and its people since the Pearl Harbor disaster. The 9/11 marked the beginning of a new era, a new era whereby entire nations, whether weak or strong are no more safe, that is to say terrorism has become more and more frequent and has gained international momentum.

ISIS, Al-Qaida are spread throughout Africa, the Middle East and South Asia; and in recent years, they have claimed more lives because their increasing scope of operation, and also because of the proliferation of weapons after NATO destabilized Libya. In this article, the author is trying to draw the attention of the U.S. to the current successor of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri who took over in 2011.

He’s saying that America has been relatively indifferent to Zawahiri succession in power and that “al Qaida’s current leader is just as dangerous to the United States as its old one.”He pointed out the fact that ISIS surged out with more notoriety and violence because Zawahiri was criticized for his failure to consolidate the global jihad. But while people see an apparent weakness or failure of Zawahiri, this has actually advanced the cause of al-Qaida. Why? because “the Islamic State became a more immediate target of U.S counterterrorism efforts. As U.S. strikes against the Islamic State intensified, the cohesion of al Qaida’s affiliates and its allies improved.”

So, we can clearly note that what people could see a failure and weakening of al-Qaida, it is actually a blessing in disguise, and we must all watch out for it because the organization is still a major threat to U.S. national security and  international security. That’s the bottom line!

I have provided the link for whoever will like to read the full article.

Thank you!

https://www.rand.org/blog/2020/09/is-ayman-al-zawahiri-really-the-future-of-al-qaida.html

The readings for this week describe the development of artificially intelligent systems by the CCP. James Johnson’s article, in particular, stands out as the author highlights how the CCP is connecting AI technology with autonomous weapon systems, such as UAVs. This strategy is not unique. The military powers in many developed nations are pursuing these capabilities in some form.

What is unique, in the case of the CCP, is the fusion of military and civil sectors to support geopolitical ambitions. For example, the digital arm of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which extends far outside of China’s borders—across Africa, South America, and Europe—benefits the CCP  militarily and economically.

Written in July of this year, a Democratic staff report for the Committee on Foreign Relations illustrates CCP military-civil-fusion and the scope of their AI surveillance systems internationally. What is concerning here is the authoritarian nature of the CCP regime. Can we rationally deduce the AI system capabilities that China employs domestically will have different outcomes when similar AI systems are sold internationally?
This question extends far beyond telecommunication technologies, such as 5G.

As the line separating China’s military and economic ambition becomes increasingly blurred, How should U.S. executive leadership respond?  It appears that contentious rhetoric is a favored answer. Whatever opinions you have about Donald Trump, it pays to listen to the official statements from the President of the United States.

During two recent White House press conferences, the first on Labor Day  (listen from 10:40 to 11:13) and the other on September 10th,  (listen from  18:23 to 18:44), the President mentioned  U.S. nuclear weapons capabilities. Additionally, during a series of interviews with Bob Woodward, between December and July 2020, Trump spoke of  U.S. secretive nuclear weapon systems. This is unusual for Trump’s rhetoric.

Why is President Trump mentioning U.S. nuclear weapons capabilities in recent White House Press press conferences and elsewhere?

Is Trump’s touting of U.S. nuclear weapons a response to the PLA’s increasing naval power, which now outpaces U.S. naval fleets in absolute numbers; or is he simply attempting to rally support from his base as we approach November 3rd?