AI-driven Autonomous Weapons in Military Strategy: Ethical and Legal Consideration
Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI) driven autonomous weapons are reshaping military strategy, acting as force multipliers that can independently assess threats, adapt to dynamic combat environments, and execute missions with minimal human intervention, pushing the boundaries of modern warfare tactics. AI has become a critical component of modern technology-driven warfare and has simultaneously impacted many spheres in a technology-driven world. Nations often prioritise defence for significant investments, supporting its growth and modernisation. AI has become a prime area of investment and development for technological superiority in defence forces. India’s focus on defence modernisation is evident through initiatives like the Defence AI Council and the Task Force on Strategic Implementation of AI for National Security.
The main requirement that Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) require is the “autonomy” to perform their functions when direction or input from a human actor is absent. AI is not a prerequisite for the functioning of AWSs, but, when incorporated, AI could further enable such systems. While militaries seek to apply increasingly sophisticated AI and automation to weapons technologies, several questions arise. Ethical concerns have been raised for AWS as the more prominent issue by many states, international organisations, civil society groups and even many distinguished figures.
Ethical Concerns Surrounding Autonomous Weapons
The delegation of life-and-death decisions to machines is the ethical dilemma that surrounds AWS. A major concern is the lack of human oversight, raising questions about accountability. What if AWS malfunctions or violates international laws, potentially committing war crimes? This ambiguity fuels debate over the dangers of entrusting lethal force to non-human actors. Additionally, AWS poses humanitarian risks, particularly to civilians, as flawed algorithms could make disastrous decisions. The dehumanisation of warfare and the violation of human dignity are critical concerns when AWS is in question, as targets become reduced to mere data points. The impact on operators’ moral judgment and empathy is also troubling, alongside the risk of algorithmic bias leading to unjust or disproportionate targeting. These ethical challenges are deeply concerning.
Balancing Ethical Considerations and Innovations
It is immaterial how advanced a computer becomes in simulating human emotions like compassion, empathy, altruism, or other emotions as the machine will only be imitating them, not experiencing them as a human would. A potential solution to this ethical predicament is using a 'human-in-the-loop' or 'human-on-the-loop' semi-autonomous system. This would act as a compromise between autonomy and accountability.
A “human-on-the-loop” system is designed to provide human operators with the ability to intervene and terminate engagements before unacceptable levels of damage occur. For example, defensive weapon systems could autonomously select and engage targets based on their programming, during which a human operator retains full supervision and can override the system within a limited period if necessary.
In contrast, a ‘human-in-the-loop” system is intended to engage individual targets or specific target groups pre-selected by a human operator. Examples would include homing munitions that, once launched to a particular target location, search for and attack preprogrammed categories of targets within the area.
International Debate and Regulatory Frameworks
The regulation of autonomous weapons that employ AI, in particular, is a pressing global issue due to the ethical, legal, and security concerns it contains. There are many ongoing efforts at the international level which are in discussion to regulate such weapons. One such example is the initiative under the United Nations Convention on CertainConventional Weapons (CCW), where member states, India being an active participant, debate the limits of AI in warfare. However, existing international laws, such as the Geneva Conventions, offer legal protection by prohibiting indiscriminate attacks and mandating the distinction between combatants and civilians. The key challenge lies in achieving global consensus, as different nations have varied interests and levels of technological advancement. Some countries advocate for a preemptive ban on fully autonomous weapons, while others prioritise military innovation. The complexity of defining human control and accountability further complicates efforts to establish binding regulations, making global cooperation both essential and challenging.
The Future of AI in Defence and the Need for Stronger Regulations
The evolution of autonomous weapons poses complex ethical and security challenges. As AI-driven systems become more advanced, a growing risk of its misuse in warfare is also advancing, where lethal decisions could be made without human oversight. Proactive regulation is crucial to prevent unethical use of AI, such as indiscriminate attacks or violations of international law. Setting clear boundaries on autonomous weapons now can help avoid future humanitarian crises. India’s defence policy already recognises the importance of regulating the use of AI and AWS, as evidenced by the formation of bodies like the Defence AI Project Agency (DAIPA) for enabling AI-based processes in defence Organisations. Global cooperation is essential for creating robust regulations that balance technological innovation with ethical considerations. Such collaboration would ensure that autonomous weapons are used responsibly, protecting civilians and combatants, while encouraging innovation within a framework prioritising human dignity and international security.
Conclusion
AWS and AI in warfare present significant ethical, legal, and security challenges. While these technologies promise enhanced military capabilities, they raise concerns about accountability, human oversight, and humanitarian risks. Balancing innovation with ethical responsibility is crucial, and semi-autonomous systems offer a potential compromise. India’s efforts to regulate AI in defence highlight the importance of proactive governance. Global cooperation is essential in establishing robust regulations that ensure AWS is used responsibly, prioritising human dignity and adherence to international law, while fostering technological advancement.
References
● https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/reaim-summit-ai-war-weapons-9556525/
Related Blogs
Introduction
The world has been surfing the wave of technological advancements and innovations for the past decade, and it all pins down to one device – our mobile phone. For all mobile users, the primary choices of operating systems are Android and iOS. Android is an OS created by google in 2008 and is supported by most brands like – One+, Mi, OPPO, VIVO, Motorola, and many more and is one of the most used operating systems. iOS is an OS that was developed by Apple and was introduced in their first phone – The iPhone, in 2007. Both OS came into existence when mobile phone penetration was slow globally, and so the scope of expansion and advancements was always in favor of such operating systems.
The Evolution
iOS
Ever since the advent of the iPhone, iOS has seen many changes since 2007. The current version of iOs is iOS 16. However, in the course of creating new iOS and updating the old ones, Apple has come out with various advancements like the App Store, Touch ID & Face ID, Apple Music, Podcasts, Augmented reality, Contact exposure, and many more, which have later become part of features of Android phone as well. Apple is one of the oldest tech and gadget developers in the world, most of the devices manufactured by Apple have received global recognition, and hence Apple enjoys providing services to a huge global user base.
Android
The OS has been famous for using the software version names on the food items like – Pie, Oreo, Nougat, KitKat, Eclairs, etc. From Android 10 onwards, the new versions were demoted by number. The most recent Android OS is Android 13; this OS is known for its practicality and flexibility. In 2012 Android became the most popular operating system for mobile devices, surpassing Apple’s iOS, and as of 2020, about 75 percent of mobile devices run Android.
Android vs. iOS
1. USER INTERFACE
One of the most noticeable differences between Android and iPhone is their user interface. Android devices have a more customizable interface, with options to change the home screen, app icons, and overall theme. The iPhone, on the other hand, has a more uniform interface with less room for customization. Android allows users to customize their home screen by adding widgets and changing the layout of their app icons. This can be useful for people who want quick access to certain functions or information on their home screen. IOS does not have this feature, but it does allow users to organize their app icons into folders for easier navigation.
2. APP SELECTION
Another factor to consider when choosing between Android and iOS is the app selection. Both platforms have a wide range of apps available, but there are some differences to consider. Android has a larger selection of apps overall, including a larger selection of free apps. However, some popular apps, such as certain music streaming apps and games, may be released first or only available on iPhone. iOS also has a more curated app store, meaning that all apps must go through a review process before being accepted for download. This can result in a higher quality of apps overall, but it can also mean that it takes longer for new apps to become available on the platform. iPhone devices tend to have less processing power and RAM. But they are generally more efficient in their use of resources. This can result in longer battery life, but it may also mean that iPhones are slower at handling multiple tasks or running resource-intensive apps.
3. PERFORMANCE
When it comes to performance, both Android and iPhone have their own strengths and weaknesses. Android devices tend to have more processing power and RAM. This can make them faster and more capable of handling multiple tasks simultaneously. However, this can also lead to Android devices having shorter battery life compared to iPhones.
4. SECURITY
Security is an important consideration for any smartphone user, and Android and iPhone have their own measures to protect user data. Android devices are generally seen as being less secure than iPhones due to their open nature. Android allows users to install apps from sources other than the Google Play Store, which can increase the risk of downloading malicious apps. However, Android has made improvements in recent years to address this issue. Including the introduction of Google Play Protect, which scans apps for malware before they are downloaded. On the other hand, iPhone devices have a more closed ecosystem, with all apps required to go through Apple‘s review process before being available for download. This helps reduce the risk of downloading malicious apps, but it can also limit the platform’s flexibility.
Conclusion
The debate about the better OS has been going on for some time now, and it looks like it will get more comprehensive in the times to come, as netizens go deeper into cyberspace, they will get more aware and critical of their uses and demands, which will allow them to opt for the best OS for their convenience. Although the Andriod OS, due to its integration, stands more vulnerable to security threats as compared to iOS, no software is secure in today’s time, what is secure is its use and application hence the netizen and the platforms need to increase their awareness and knowledge to safeguard themselves and the wholesome cyberspace.
Introduction
“GPS Spoofing” though formerly was confined to conflict zones as a consequence, has lately become a growing hazard for pilots and aircraft operators across the world, and several countries have been facing such issues. This definition stems from the US Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, which delivers specialized advice for government regulatory authorities. Global Positioning System (GPS) is considered an emergent part of aviation infrastructure as it supersedes traditional radio beams used to direct planes towards the landing. “GPS spoofing” occurs when a double-dealing radio signal overrides a legitimate GPS satellite alert where the receiver gets false location information. In the present times, this is the first time civilian passenger flights have faced such a significant danger, though GPS signal interference of this character has existed for over a decade. According to the Agency France-Presse (AFP), false GPS signals mislead onboard plane procedures and problematise the job of airline pilots that are surging around conflict areas. GPS spoofing may also be the outcome of military electronic warfare systems that have been deployed in zones combating regional tension. GPS spoofing can further lead to significant upheavals in commercial aviation, which include arrivals and departures of passengers apart from safety.
Spoofing might likewise involve one country’s military sending false GPS signals to an enemy plane or drone to impede its capability to operate, which has a collateral impact on airliners operating at a near distance. Collateral impairment in commercial aircraft can occur as confrontations escalate and militaries send faulty GPS signals to attempt to thwart drones and other aircraft. It could, therefore, lead to a global crisis, leading to the loss of civilian aircraft in an area already at a high-risk zone close to an operational battle area. Furthermore, GPS jamming is different from GPS Spoofing. While jamming is when the GPS signals are jammed or obstructed, spoofing is very distinct and way more threatening.
Global Reporting
An International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) assessment released in 2019 indicated that there were 65 spoofing incidents across the Middle East in the preceding two years, according to the C4ADS report. At the beginning of 2018, Euro control received more than 800 reports of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) interference in Europe. Also, GPS spoofing in Eastern Europe and the Middle East has resulted in up to 80nm divergence from the flight route and aircraft impacted have had to depend on radar vectors from Air Traffic Control (ATC). According to Forbes, flight data intelligence website OPSGROUP, constituted of 8,000 members including pilots and controllers, has been reporting spoofing incidents since September 2023. Similarly, over 20 airlines and corporate jets flying over Iran diverted from their planned path after they were directed off the pathway by misleading GPS signals transmitted from the ground, subjugating the navigation systems of the aircraft.
In this context, vicious hackers, however at large, have lately realized how to override the critical Inertial Reference Systems (IRS) of an airplane, which is the essential element of technology and is known by the manufacturers as the “brains” of an aircraft. However, the current IRS is not prepared to counter this kind of attack. IRS uses accelerometers, gyroscopes and electronics to deliver accurate attitude, speed, and navigation data so that a plane can decide how it is moving through the airspace. GPS spoofing occurrences make the IRS ineffective, and in numerous cases, all navigation power is lost.
Red Flag from Agencies
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) correspondingly hosted a workshop on incidents where people have spoofed and obstructed satellite navigation systems and inferred that these direct a considerable challenge to security. IATA and EASA have further taken measures to communicate information about GPS tampering so that crew and pilots can make sure to determine when it is transpiring. The EASA had further pre-cautioned about an upsurge in reports of GPS spoofing and jamming happenings in the Baltic Sea area, around the Black Sea, and regions near Russia and Finland in 2022 and 2023. According to industry officials, empowering the latest technologies for civil aircraft can take several years, and while GPS spoofing incidents have been increasing, there is no time to dawdle. Experts have noted critical navigation failures on airplanes, as there have been several recent reports of alarming cyber attacks that have changed planes' in-flight GPS. As per experts, GPS spoofing could affect commercial airlines and cause further disarray. Due to this, there are possibilities that pilots can divert from the flight route, further flying into a no-fly zone or any unauthorized zone, putting them at risk.
According to OpsGroup, a global group of pilots and technicians first brought awareness and warning to the following issue when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a forewarning on the security of flight risk to civil aviation operations over the spate of attacks. In addition, as per the civil aviation regulator Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), a forewarning circular on spoofing threats to planes' GPS signals when flying over parts of the Middle East was issued. DGCA advisory further notes the aviation industry is scuffling with uncertainties considering the contemporary dangers and information of GNSS jamming and spoofing.
Conclusion
As the aviation industry continues to grapple with GPS spoofing problems, it is entirely unprepared to combat this, although the industry should consider discovering attainable technologies to prevent them. As International conflicts become convoluted, technological solutions are unrestricted and can be pricey, intricate and not always efficacious depending on what sort of spoofing is used.
As GPS interference attacks become more complex, specialized resolutions should be invariably contemporized. Improving education and training (to increase awareness among pilots, air traffic controllers and other aviation experts), receiver technology (Creating and enforcing more state-of-the-art GPS receiver technology), ameliorating monitoring and reporting (Installing robust monitoring systems), cooperation (collaboration among stakeholders like government bodies, aviation organisations etc.), data/information sharing, regulatory measures (regulations and guidelines by regulatory and government bodies) can help in averting GPS spoofing.
References
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/false-gps-signal-surge-makes-life-hard-for-pilots/articleshow/108363076.cms?from=mdr
- https://nypost.com/2023/11/20/lifestyle/hackers-are-taking-over-planes-gps-experts-are-lost-on-how-to-fix-it/
- https://www.timesnownews.com/india/planes-losing-gps-signal-over-middle-east-dgca-flags-spoofing-threat-article-105475388
- https://www.firstpost.com/world/gps-spoofing-deceptive-gps-lead-over-20-planes-astray-in-iran-13190902.html
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2024/01/31/gps-spoofing-is-now-affecting-airplanes-in-parts-of-europe/?sh=48fbe725c550
- https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2024/01/30/758635.htm
- https://airwaysmag.com/gps-spoofing-commercial-aviation/
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/aviation-industry-to-tackle-gps-security-concerns-c11a917f
- https://www.deccanherald.com/world/explained-what-is-gps-spoofing-that-has-misguided-around-20-planes-near-iran-iraq-border-and-how-dangerous-is-this-2708342
About Global Commission on Internet Governance
The Global Commission on Internet Governance was established in January 2014 with the goal of formulating and advancing a strategic vision for Internet governance going forward. Independent research on Internet-related issues of international public policy is carried out and supported over the two-year initiative. An official commission report with particular policy recommendations for the future of Internet governance will be made available as a result of this initiative.
There are two goals for the Global Commission on Internet Governance. First, it will encourage a broad and inclusive public discussion on how Internet governance will develop globally. Second, through its comprehensive policy-oriented report and the subsequent marketing of this final report, the Global Commission on Internet Governance will present its findings to key stakeholders at major Internet governance events.
The Internet: exploring the world wide web and the deep web
The Internet can be thought of as a vast networking infrastructure, or network of networks. By linking millions of computers worldwide, it creates a network that allows any two computers, provided they are both online, to speak with one another.
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol is the only language spoken over the Internet and is used by the Web to transfer data. Email, which depends on File Transfer Protocol, Usenet newsgroups, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, and instant messaging, is also used on the Internet—not the Web. Thus, even though it's a sizable chunk, the Web is only a part of the Internet [1]. In summary, the deep Web is the portion of the Internet that is not visible to the naked eye. It is stuff from the World Wide Web that isn't available on the main Web. Standard search engines cannot reach it. More than 500 times larger than the visible Web is this enormous subset of the Internet [1-2].
The Global Commission on Internet Governance will concentrate on four principal themes:
• Improving the legitimacy of government, including standards and methods for regulation;
• Promoting economic innovation and expansion, including the development of infrastructure, competition laws, and vital Internet resources;
• Safeguarding online human rights, including establishing the idea of technological neutrality for rights to privacy, human rights, and freedom of expression;
• Preventing systemic risk includes setting standards for state behaviour, cooperating with law enforcement to combat cybercrime, preventing its spread, fostering confidence, and addressing disarmament-related issues.
Dark Web
The part of the deep Web that has been purposefully concealed and is unreachable using conventional Web browsers is known as the "dark Web." Dark Web sites are a platform for Internet users who value their anonymity since they shield users from prying eyes and typically utilize encryption to thwart monitoring. The Tor network is a well-known source for content that may be discovered on the dark web. Only a unique Web browser known as the Tor browser is required to access the anonymous Tor network (Tor 2014). It was a technique for anonymous online communication that the US Naval Research Laboratory first introduced as The Onion Routing (Tor) project in 2002. Many of the functionality offered by Tor are also available on I2P, another network. On the other hand, I2P was intended to function as a network inside the Internet, with traffic contained within its boundaries. Better anonymous access to the open Internet is offered by Tor, while a more dependable and stable "network within the network" is provided by I2P [3].
Cybersecurity in the dark web
Cyber crime is not any different than crime in the real world — it is just executed in a new medium: “Virtual criminality’ is basically the same as the terrestrial crime with which we are familiar. To be sure, some of the manifestations are new. But a great deal of crime committed with or against computers differs only in terms of the medium. While the technology of implementation, and particularly its efficiency, may be without precedent, the crime is fundamentally familiar. It is less a question of something completely different than a recognizable crime committed in a completely different way [4].”
Dark web monitoring
The dark Web, in general, and the Tor network, in particular, offer a secure platform for cybercriminals to support a vast amount of illegal activities — from anonymous marketplaces to secure means of communication, to an untraceable and difficult to shut down infrastructure for deploying malware and botnets.
As such, it has become increasingly important for security agencies to track and monitor the activities in the dark Web, focusing today on Tor networks, but possibly extending to other technologies in the near future. Due to its intricate webbing and design, monitoring the dark Web will continue to pose significant challenges. Efforts to address it should be focused on the areas discussed below [5].
Hidden service directory of dark web
A domain database used by both Tor and I2P is based on a distributed system called a "distributed hash table," or DHT. In order for a DHT to function, its nodes must cooperate to store and manage a portion of the database, which takes the shape of a key-value store. Owing to the distributed character of the domain resolution process for hidden services, nodes inside the DHT can be positioned to track requests originating from a certain domain [6].
Conclusion
The deep Web, and especially dark Web networks like Tor (2004), offer bad actors a practical means of transacting in products anonymously and lawfully.
The absence of discernible activity in non-traditional dark web networks is not evidence of their nonexistence. As per the guiding philosophy of the dark web, the actions are actually harder to identify and monitor. Critical mass is one of the market's driving forces. It seems unlikely that operators on the black Web will require a great degree of stealth until the repercussions are severe enough, should they be caught. It is possible that certain websites might go down, have a short trading window, and then reappear, which would make it harder to look into them.
References
- Ciancaglini, Vincenzo, Marco Balduzzi, Max Goncharov and Robert McArdle. 2013. “Deepweb and Cybercrime: It’s Not All About TOR.” Trend Micro Research Paper. October.
- Coughlin, Con. 2014. “How Social Media Is Helping Islamic State to Spread Its Poison.” The Telegraph, November 5.
- Dahl, Julia. 2014. “Identity Theft Ensnares Millions while the Law Plays Catch Up.” CBS News, July 14.
- Dean, Matt. 2014. “Digital Currencies Fueling Crime on the Dark Side of the Internet.” Fox Business, December 18.
- Falconer, Joel. 2012. “A Journey into the Dark Corners of the Deep Web.” The Next Web, October 8.
- Gehl, Robert W. 2014. “Power/Freedom on the Dark Web: A Digital Ethnography of the Dark Web Social Network.” New Media & Society, October 15. http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/ 10/16/1461444814554900.full#ref-38.
