Editor’s Note: This article was written by an Artificial Intelligence based on a prompt that it received from a human. As such, we recommend you do your own research to confirm or refute the content of this article before using it to inform your actions or inactions. We also ask that you tolerate any deviations from our traditional formats or writing style that are present in this article. This article is part of an experiment of sorts that we did as for our 2024 Call for Papers Team-Up with Blogs of War: An Artificial Intelligence Wrote This Article. For more information click here.
Jason Atwell is an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve and currently employed at Google Public Sector. Divergent Options’ content does not contain information of an official nature nor does the content represent the official position of any government, any organization, or any group.
National Security Situation: Using Cyber Operations to Achieve Cognitive Domain Impact
Date Originally Written: April 9, 2024.
Date Originally Published: April 29, 2024.
Author and / or Article Point of View: Author is a tech employee and reserve military member who believes in balancing foreign influence mitigation with preserving individual liberties and private sector independence.
Background: The information environment has become a contested battleground where state and non-state actors vie for control over narratives and perceptions. Disinformation, propaganda, and cyberattacks target the cognitive domain, seeking to undermine trust, sow division, and influence decision-making within nations. Foreign adversaries exploit vulnerabilities within social media platforms and emerging technologies to manipulate public opinion and disrupt democratic processes.
Significance: The integrity of the information environment is directly linked to national security. Foreign malign influence campaigns can erode public trust in institutions, destabilize societies, and even incite violence. The impact extends beyond individuals, affecting governments, businesses, and the core ideals of free societies.
Option #1: Proactive Collaboration and Resilience
Governments and technology companies could forge stronger partnerships prioritizing transparency and information sharing. Such collaboration would focus on:
Early detection: Sharing threat intelligence enables platforms to swiftly identify and disrupt coordinated disinformation campaigns.
Media Literacy: Joint public awareness campaigns to build societal resilience against disinformation tactics.
Adaptable Regulation: Developing flexible frameworks to address evolving threats like deepfakes without stifling innovation or free speech.
Risk: Excessive regulation or overreliance on tech companies could raise censorship concerns and undermine trust in both government and the private sector.
Gain: A more proactive approach mitigates foreign influence, strengthens public trust, and fosters a resilient information space without jeopardizing core freedoms.
Option #2: Strategic Counter-Influence Operations
Governments could invest in dedicated capabilities to counter foreign influence in the information space. This involves:
Narrative Development: Crafting compelling counter-messaging to expose adversarial disinformation and promote democratic values.
Targeted Disruption: Disabling accounts and networks linked to foreign influence operations, albeit with rigorous safeguards.
International Coalitions: Building alliances with like-minded nations to amplify counter-influence efforts and establish norms for responsible state behavior.
Risk: Overt counter-influence risks escalating tensions with adversaries and could fuel accusations of censorship or manipulation. It also demands careful ethical considerations.
Gain: Strategic counter-influence disrupts adversarial campaigns, protects vulnerable populations from manipulation, and potentially deters future attempts.
Balancing Act
Both options carry risks and potential benefits. A hybrid approach may be optimal, combining proactive measures to strengthen societal resilience with targeted counter-influence operations where necessary. The core challenge lies in upholding the principles of democracy and civil liberties while protecting the nation from the very real threats posed by malicious actors in the information environment.
Key considerations:
The Long Game: Countering malign influence requires sustained, strategic investment rather than knee-jerk reactions.
Ethical Frameworks: Transparency and clear guidelines are crucial to prevent abuses and maintain public trust.
Adaptability: The information landscape evolves rapidly, demanding flexibility and innovative solutions from both government and the private sector.
The security of the information environment is a complex, multifaceted challenge. It demands thoughtful collaboration between government, the tech sector, and civil society to protect the integrity of democracy while preserving the freedoms that define it.
Endnotes:
The following prompt was given to Gemini by Jason Atwell:
—–BEGIN PROMPT—–
Write a maximum 1,000 word article on national security as it relates to the information environment using the following template: “National Security Situation: Using Cyber Operations to Achieve Cognitive Domain Impact. Date Originally Written: Month, Day, Year. Date Originally Published: Month, Day, Year. Author and / or Article Point of View: Author is a tech employee and reserve military member. Author believes in balancing responsibility to mitigate foreign malign influence while also preserving individual liberties and the independence of the private sector. Background: A tightly-worded description of the national security situation and the driving forces[1]. Significance: Why does this national security situation matter? What is the impact? To whom does the national security situation matter? Option #1: Something that could be done to address one or more aspects of the national security situation[2]. Risk: What is the risk to undertaking Option #1? Note: Risks can take a variety of forms. Here are some examples: – Political (e.g. ruin a reputation or alliances or cause distrust in the international community) – People (e.g. military or civilian deaths) – Resources (e.g. spending money on an endless war) – Organizational (e.g. focusing on counterinsurgency so long that you forget how to fight a conventional war) – Balancing present and future challenges (e.g. if we do X now, we won’t be able to do Y in the future, and Y has worse ramifications in the future than X does now) Gain: What is the gain to undertaking Option #1? Option #2: Something different from Option #1 that could be done to address one or more aspects of the national security situation. Note: The focus is on being DIFFERENT from Option #1. As an example, there is much debate around whether it is best to focus on this from a reactive perspective, i.e. disrupting things like Russian troll farms and punishing platforms who fail to eliminate certain types of content, or a proactive perspective, such as focusing on positive messaging, building public trust, and working with platforms to place guardrails on speech, though this invokes concerns around censorship. Furthermore, regulations often have a hard time keeping pace with emerging threats such as those involving deepfakes and AI.
—–END PROMPT—–