Is Cyberspace Friend or Foe?

What is Cyberspace?

Cyberspace is a new world where the virtual and physical worlds are intertwined. In the literature, cyberspace is defined within the concepts of domain, space or global commons. 

By its very nature, cyberspace challenges existing political science and international relations arguments. It evolves much faster than theoretical debates and norms and encompasses the practices of everyday life. The state actor in cyberspace, like other actors, is trying to define this new formation and understand its dynamics. But what is most important is how cyberspace affects the state and how states respond to these effects to regulate cyberspace.

Cyberspace may first be considered as a virtual alternative universe, but this is a big misconception. Although cyberspace contains virtual components, it has physical layers and affects the physical world. The concept of cyberspace was first defined in William Gibson's science fiction novel Neuromancer. According to Gibson, "Cyberspace is the involuntary consensual hallucination that goes along with the consciousness and emotion that millions of legitimate users from every nation, children learning mathematical concepts, experience every day."(1)

In 1984, the concept of cyberspace, which appeared in science fiction novels with people's imagination, will turn into a major phenomenon that will transform the real world with the development of computers in the 1950s. In his novel, Gibson likens cyberspace to a virtual collective mind. Apart from the overemphasis on virtuality, the collective ecosystem feature is an indication of Gibson's farsightedness.

One of the most comprehensive definitions of cyberspace was made by Kuehl. "Cyberspace is a global space with a special and unique character within the information framework, shaped by the use of electronic and electromagnetic spectrum to create, store, modify, manipulate, and disseminate information into independent and online networks using information communication technologies."(2) 

The most prominent feature of cyberspace is its close relationship with information and communication technologies. Therefore, technology is the driving force in shaping cyberspace. The data created in cyberspace and the information obtained by processing this data open the doors to new sources of power for the actors in cyberspace.

Development of Cyberspace

Cyberspace has a dynamic structure shaped by the development of technology. Therefore, the arguments used to interpret cyberspace and the norms produced to regulate cyberspace should be flexible enough to keep up with this pace. As an umbrella concept, cyberspace includes areas such as internet, web, dark web and deep web. The concepts of web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 are a good example for us to observe the development of cyberspace. 

Web 0.1 is used to describe the first phases of cyberspace that started in the 1980s when the internet became widely used. In this period, we can talk about an internet that we can only connect to with floppy disks, 56k modems, one-way communication, and we can only browse and get content and information. The most frequently used feature in this period is HTML-based static web pages. 

Web 0.2 offered a more collaborative platform with more and more interactive options, involving users in the process. This period is also referred to as the social web. There was a transition from static websites to dynamic ones. Social platforms, which started with forums and blog pages, evolved into social media channels such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram. 

Web 3.0 is defined as the semantic web. It can be defined by the emergence of big data, the use of artificial intelligence algorithms and the involvement of machines and data processing systems as actors in communication other than humans. Lessig defines Web 2.0 as the internet era and Web 3.0 as cyberspace. While people were operating on the internet before, they now live their lives with the internet. According to Lessig, cyberspace constitutes the social fabric of the internet. 

Web 4.0 is characterized by cloud technologies and blockchain. This period is also defined as the symbiotic web. In the literature, web 3.0 and web 4.0 are sometimes considered together under web 3.0. Some authors, on the other hand, separate the two concepts. With Web 4.0, although the ability of cyberspace to affect the physical world has increased, its dependence on the physical world and regulatory institutions has decreased. It offers an independent system with the ecosystem it creates within itself. At this stage, the crypto-anarchy manifesto provides an important example.(3) 

It argues that with cryptographic technologies, the social life of individuals can be sustained without regulatory institutions such as the state. The cyberspace ecosystem is still under development. The biggest criticism of the cyberspace ecosystem is that it is volatile, but technically, as the cyberspace ecosystem expands, it is predicted to turn into a more stable structure. 

What is Metaverse?

Metaverse is the new form of cyberspace, starting with web 3.0 and including web 4.0. The Metaverse contains elements of virtual reality and altered reality. It offers a vast ecosystem based on decentralized autonomous organizations that affect and encompass the physical world. The revolutionary dynamics of this ecosystem challenge our real-life social contracts. At this point, actors are obliged to create a new social contract or a new Vestfelian treaty for states. At the breaking point, we will witness together whether these new social contracts of cyberspace will result in a more cosmopolitan structure or a garrison state.

States' Perception of Cyberspace

States are the most studied dominant actor in international relations and political science. They are often the main determinant of international politics. International relations arguments are also usually state-centered. Although there are systemic theories in international relations, the state comes to the fore as the unit of analysis. Critical theories and the social constructionist approach have included social dynamics and the effects of non-state actors in addition to the state. Similarly, systemic theories have evaluated the effects of the system on the state. However, even neorealist theories consider the positions taken by states against each other according to the distribution of power as the determining factor in creating the system.

The opportunities offered by cyberspace allow non-state actors to access similar power resources as states and to act in the cyberspace ecosystem without the need for regulatory institutions such as states. 

Another type of actor in cyberspace is the companies that develop data processing technologies. These companies shape the shaping of cyberspace by shaping technology. Even in the field of military, where the presence of states is most felt, we see private companies challenging states. Technology companies, which developed under the leadership of states and the war industry, especially during the Cold War, have become the structures from which the military recruits technology with the privatization of the military. Cyberspace actors are not limited to these categories. 

The veil of anonymity offered by cyberspace hides the identities and motivations of real actors. Moreover, the increasing volume of machine-to-machine information flows and the rapid development of deep learning technologies may require the identification of artificial intelligence as an actor in the future. 

Although cyberspace offers great opportunities to non-state actors, the increasing flow of data and the increasing integration of our daily lives into cyberspace have enabled states to use data processing technologies to increase their power over other actors. According to Choucri, the anarchic nature of cyberspace may evolve into two different scenarios in the future. According to the first scenario, states using information communication technologies will become garrison states in cyberspace by increasing their surveillance over individuals. Cyberspace will become an apparatus of the state. In the second scenario, a Hobbesian anarchy will emerge not only between states but also between actors at all levels.(4) 

Here Choucri associates cyber anarchy with Hobbes. However, he also suggests that anarchy that will emerge in trends such as crypto-anarchy may offer a liberal cosmopolitan opportunity. 

Today, states view cyberspace as a theater of operations. The United States and the European Union envision an open and secure cyberspace. On the other hand, China and Russia aim to extend their territorial sovereignty into cyberspace. The US and the EU recognize the opportunities and vulnerabilities of cyberspace and its increasing integration. The five most used terms in the US National Cyber Strategy are cybersecurity, security, US, cyber and government. Nevertheless, the role of advocating for an open and trusted internet is being assumed. The U.S. Department of Defense defines cyberspace as a global space of independent information technology infrastructures and processed data in the nature of information, including internet telecommunications networks, computer systems, embedded processors and control units.(5) 

There is a similar emphasis in the US reports. Open and secure cyberspace is expected to make the data ecosystem more stable and sustainable. At the same time, it is aimed to achieve an optimal balance for both the state and the individual by linking the information that states can obtain through data to certain procedures. It is undesirable that the traditional sovereignty of the state disrupts the unique fabric of cyberspace and prevents the manipulation of data. 

At first, it may be assumed that states with data processing technology will defend open and reliable cyberspace in order to increase the data source. However, this assumption does not reflect reality. Although China and Russia have quite advanced capabilities in information communication technologies, they have preferred to be garrison states. In fact, this is a preference that is in line with the way these states view the concept of sovereignty and their governing ideologies. China has embarked on the path of creating a national cyberspace. 

Conclusion

While defining cyberspace, it cannot be said that states have internalized all the dynamics of cyberspace in a holistic manner. However, today, states are trying to shape cyberspace from the perspective they understand with the cyber strategies they have created. 

Cyberspace should be considered as a global commons independent of states. The point that distinguishes cyberspace from other global commons is that it is unlimited and has a structure that affects human beings and human relations at the same time. States have difficulty in accepting this relational structure. Because this acceptance offers the potential to transform the state. 

If the cyberspace ecosystem continues to exist with its own dynamics, the spread of power from states to other actors is inevitable. For this reason, while trying to benefit from the blessings of cyberspace, states are also resisting the erosion of the state's role as the dominant actor. 

Footnotes

(1) William Gibson, Neuromancer, Gündüz Yayınevi, İstanbul, 1984, s.77.

(2) Daniel T. Kuehl, “From Cyberspace to Cyberpower: Defining the Problem” Cyberpower and National Security, (Ed. Franklin D. Kramer, Stuart, S. Star, Larry, K. Wentz) National Defence University Press, Washington, 2009, s. 28.

(3) https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/crypto/cypherpunks/may-crypto-manifesto.html

(4) Nazli Choucri, Cyberpolitics in International Relations, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2012, s.234.

(5) Congressional Research Service [CRS], “Defense Primer: Cyberspace Operations”, 15.12.2020, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10537.pdf (15.01.2021).