TedTest

From the Ted Talk by Daniel Garrie: Defining cyberwarfare... in hopes of preventing it

Unscramble the Blue Letters

Wars are a tragic part of our history and will almost certainly be a tirgac part of our future. Since the establishment of the uneitd notinas, wars of aggression have been outlawed and multilateral conventions refer to armed conflict instead of war. But the wars of the future won't be like the wars of our past. Alongside traditional warfare, our fuutre will include cyberwarfare, remotely fighting our enemies through the use of a new class of weapons, including computer viruses and programs to alter the enemy's ability to operate. And not only is cyberwarfare not covered by eisixtng legal frameworks, but the question of what exactly constitutes cyberwarfare is still highly dtebead. So, how can we deal with cfrayeabrwre if we can't even arege on what it means? One way forward is to envision situations where new international laws may be needed. Imagine a new kind of assaissn, one that could perpetrate a crime without firing a siglne shot or even being in the same country. For example, an iiiaduvndl working for the government uses a wreisels device to send a signal to another foreign leader's pmaecekar. This device directs the pacemaker to mlfniotacun, ultimately rntluiseg in the foreign leader's detah. Would this cyber assassination constitute an act of war? As a second example, imagine an allied group of nations cooperatively infiltrating the computer systems of an enemy nation's nuclear warship. This attack results in a nuclear-powered aicrafrt carrier almost melting down, which was stopped just short of kinllig thousands of soldiers and civilians. As a defensive measure, the enemy cutorny responds by unleashing a defensive cyberattack that rtelsus in the allied nations' power grids going down. Hospitals can no longer treat patients, entire regions without heat or clean water, all ultimately cisuang tens of tdohnusas civilian deaths. The ogirin of the power falurie was the counterattack, but the fragile infrastructure, feeble cybersecurity, and the antiquated state of the power grid all contributed to the deaths of the cnliiavis. Could the country fgiht back? Who would they fight? And would their retaliation be considered an act of war? Do they constitute war crimes against humanity? Who is to be held responsible? The computer programmers who wrote the code? The military project manager who oversaw the creation of the code? The commander who hit the button, setting off the event? The hardware eeegnnir who created the computers, kiwnong that they were intended to enable an actatk? Because war has been with us for so long, we have laws to deal with fgiunrig out who should be held accountable for their actions in combat. These legal fewramorks aim to contain and prevent atrocities from being more atrocious. Commandeering ciivialn penals and using them as weapons, dropping atomic bombs, the use of gas chambers or poisonous gas in conflict, all of these actions, if committed, constitute acts of war and war crimes under customary international law and the Hague cvinontones. Again, the current legal framework stays silent on hypothetical qotsuines and countless others because there are no easy answers, and there are only two ways to make progress on these questions: peace or new laws. So, what hypothetical but plausible scenarios can you imagine falling under the burgeoning definition of cyberwarfare, and how might you dgiesn an international lgael framework to deter these activities?

Open Cloze

Wars are a tragic part of our history and will almost certainly be a ______ part of our future. Since the establishment of the ______ _______, wars of aggression have been outlawed and multilateral conventions refer to armed conflict instead of war. But the wars of the future won't be like the wars of our past. Alongside traditional warfare, our ______ will include cyberwarfare, remotely fighting our enemies through the use of a new class of weapons, including computer viruses and programs to alter the enemy's ability to operate. And not only is cyberwarfare not covered by ________ legal frameworks, but the question of what exactly constitutes cyberwarfare is still highly _______. So, how can we deal with ____________ if we can't even _____ on what it means? One way forward is to envision situations where new international laws may be needed. Imagine a new kind of ________, one that could perpetrate a crime without firing a ______ shot or even being in the same country. For example, an __________ working for the government uses a ________ device to send a signal to another foreign leader's _________. This device directs the pacemaker to ___________, ultimately _________ in the foreign leader's _____. Would this cyber assassination constitute an act of war? As a second example, imagine an allied group of nations cooperatively infiltrating the computer systems of an enemy nation's nuclear warship. This attack results in a nuclear-powered ________ carrier almost melting down, which was stopped just short of _______ thousands of soldiers and civilians. As a defensive measure, the enemy _______ responds by unleashing a defensive cyberattack that _______ in the allied nations' power grids going down. Hospitals can no longer treat patients, entire regions without heat or clean water, all ultimately _______ tens of _________ civilian deaths. The ______ of the power _______ was the counterattack, but the fragile infrastructure, feeble cybersecurity, and the antiquated state of the power grid all contributed to the deaths of the _________. Could the country _____ back? Who would they fight? And would their retaliation be considered an act of war? Do they constitute war crimes against humanity? Who is to be held responsible? The computer programmers who wrote the code? The military project manager who oversaw the creation of the code? The commander who hit the button, setting off the event? The hardware ________ who created the computers, _______ that they were intended to enable an ______? Because war has been with us for so long, we have laws to deal with ________ out who should be held accountable for their actions in combat. These legal __________ aim to contain and prevent atrocities from being more atrocious. Commandeering ________ ______ and using them as weapons, dropping atomic bombs, the use of gas chambers or poisonous gas in conflict, all of these actions, if committed, constitute acts of war and war crimes under customary international law and the Hague ___________. Again, the current legal framework stays silent on hypothetical _________ and countless others because there are no easy answers, and there are only two ways to make progress on these questions: peace or new laws. So, what hypothetical but plausible scenarios can you imagine falling under the burgeoning definition of cyberwarfare, and how might you ______ an international _____ framework to deter these activities?

Solution

figuring
pacemaker
fight
assassin
cyberwarfare
civilian
thousands
united
future
nations
wireless
debated
results
death
causing
failure
legal
malfunction
knowing
killing
single
existing
frameworks
agree
resulting
design
civilians
conventions
questions
engineer
planes
origin
attack
tragic
individual
country
aircraft

Original Text

Wars are a tragic part of our history and will almost certainly be a tragic part of our future. Since the establishment of the United Nations, wars of aggression have been outlawed and multilateral conventions refer to armed conflict instead of war. But the wars of the future won't be like the wars of our past. Alongside traditional warfare, our future will include cyberwarfare, remotely fighting our enemies through the use of a new class of weapons, including computer viruses and programs to alter the enemy's ability to operate. And not only is cyberwarfare not covered by existing legal frameworks, but the question of what exactly constitutes cyberwarfare is still highly debated. So, how can we deal with cyberwarfare if we can't even agree on what it means? One way forward is to envision situations where new international laws may be needed. Imagine a new kind of assassin, one that could perpetrate a crime without firing a single shot or even being in the same country. For example, an individual working for the government uses a wireless device to send a signal to another foreign leader's pacemaker. This device directs the pacemaker to malfunction, ultimately resulting in the foreign leader's death. Would this cyber assassination constitute an act of war? As a second example, imagine an allied group of nations cooperatively infiltrating the computer systems of an enemy nation's nuclear warship. This attack results in a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier almost melting down, which was stopped just short of killing thousands of soldiers and civilians. As a defensive measure, the enemy country responds by unleashing a defensive cyberattack that results in the allied nations' power grids going down. Hospitals can no longer treat patients, entire regions without heat or clean water, all ultimately causing tens of thousands civilian deaths. The origin of the power failure was the counterattack, but the fragile infrastructure, feeble cybersecurity, and the antiquated state of the power grid all contributed to the deaths of the civilians. Could the country fight back? Who would they fight? And would their retaliation be considered an act of war? Do they constitute war crimes against humanity? Who is to be held responsible? The computer programmers who wrote the code? The military project manager who oversaw the creation of the code? The commander who hit the button, setting off the event? The hardware engineer who created the computers, knowing that they were intended to enable an attack? Because war has been with us for so long, we have laws to deal with figuring out who should be held accountable for their actions in combat. These legal frameworks aim to contain and prevent atrocities from being more atrocious. Commandeering civilian planes and using them as weapons, dropping atomic bombs, the use of gas chambers or poisonous gas in conflict, all of these actions, if committed, constitute acts of war and war crimes under customary international law and the Hague conventions. Again, the current legal framework stays silent on hypothetical questions and countless others because there are no easy answers, and there are only two ways to make progress on these questions: peace or new laws. So, what hypothetical but plausible scenarios can you imagine falling under the burgeoning definition of cyberwarfare, and how might you design an international legal framework to deter these activities?

Frequently Occurring Word Combinations

ngrams of length 2

collocation	frequency
tragic part	2
war crimes	2
legal framework	2

Important Words

ability
accountable
act
actions
activities
acts
aggression
agree
aim
aircraft
allied
alter
answers
antiquated
armed
assassin
assassination
atomic
atrocious
atrocities
attack
bombs
burgeoning
button
carrier
causing
chambers
civilian
civilians
class
clean
code
combat
commandeering
commander
committed
computer
computers
conflict
considered
constitute
constitutes
contributed
conventions
cooperatively
counterattack
countless
country
covered
created
creation
crime
crimes
current
customary
cyber
cyberattack
cybersecurity
cyberwarfare
deal
death
deaths
debated
defensive
definition
design
deter
device
directs
dropping
easy
enable
enemies
enemy
engineer
entire
envision
establishment
event
existing
failure
falling
feeble
fight
fighting
figuring
firing
foreign
fragile
framework
frameworks
future
gas
government
grid
grids
group
hague
hardware
heat
held
highly
history
hit
hospitals
humanity
hypothetical
imagine
include
including
individual
infiltrating
infrastructure
intended
international
killing
kind
knowing
law
laws
legal
long
longer
malfunction
manager
means
measure
melting
military
multilateral
nations
needed
nuclear
operate
origin
outlawed
oversaw
pacemaker
part
patients
peace
perpetrate
planes
plausible
poisonous
power
prevent
programmers
programs
progress
project
question
questions
refer
regions
remotely
responds
responsible
resulting
results
retaliation
scenarios
send
setting
short
shot
signal
silent
single
situations
soldiers
state
stays
stopped
systems
tens
thousands
traditional
tragic
treat
ultimately
united
unleashing
viruses
war
warfare
wars
warship
water
ways
weapons
wireless
working
wrote