The Future of Violence

1. Technologies of mass empowerment distribute both threats and vulnerabilities

"Today, each person needs to fear an exponentially higher number of people and entities than only a decade ago."

Democratization of power: Technologies like networked computers, biotechnology, and robotics are putting unprecedented capabilities in the hands of individuals and small groups. This allows more actors to potentially cause large-scale harm from anywhere in the world.

Increased vulnerability: The same technologies that empower also create new vulnerabilities. Critical infrastructure, financial systems, and even personal devices are increasingly connected and thus exposed to attack. Everyone from governments to corporations to individuals faces heightened risks.

Shifting threat landscape: The traditional focus on state-level threats is becoming outdated. Non-state actors, including lone individuals, can now pose strategic threats previously reserved for nation-states. This fundamentally alters how we must think about security and defense.

2. The social contract between states and citizens is shifting in the digital age

"We have not yet, as a society, figured out how to redesign the relationships between citizens and their governments, among governments internationally, or among people themselves for the provision of basic security and freedom in a technologically changing environment."

Rethinking state-citizen relations: The ability of individuals to both threaten and protect security challenges traditional notions of the state's role. Citizens may increasingly look to private entities or take personal action rather than relying solely on government protection.

Global interdependence: State security now depends heavily on what happens beyond borders. This creates pressure for both increased international cooperation and more assertive unilateral action by states to address threats originating in other countries.

New social bargains: Governments may demand more active participation from citizens and companies in security efforts. This could include expanded information sharing, technology design requirements, and new forms of public-private partnerships.

3. Privacy, liberty, and security exist in a complex symbiosis, not simple trade-offs

"In the hostile symbiosis between liberty and security, one does not maximize one partner at the other's expense. They are locked together—embracing, choking, supporting, and endangering each other."

Beyond balance: The common framing of liberty and security as opposing forces on a scale is overly simplistic. In many cases, enhancing security also increases meaningful liberty by creating safer spaces for free action.

Privacy reconsidered: Traditional notions of privacy struggle to capture the realities of a data-driven world. A more nuanced understanding is needed that accounts for both the benefits and risks of widespread data collection and use.

Contextual approach: Whether a security measure enhances or diminishes liberty depends heavily on specific circumstances. Factors like oversight, non-discrimination, and proportionality determine if surveillance of a platform is liberty-enhancing or oppressive.

4. Traditional notions of legal jurisdiction are challenged by borderless threats

"If anyone can attack anyone else from anywhere and our world is consequently becoming more Hobbesian, can the modern state keep us from the state of nature?"

Eroding boundaries: The ability to cause harm across borders with minimal physical presence challenges traditional ideas of state sovereignty and legal jurisdiction. This creates gaps in accountability and enforcement.

Blurred lines: The distinction between acts of crime and acts of war becomes less clear when individuals can launch attacks with strategic impact. This complicates how states respond to and classify threats.

Pressure for new frameworks: The limitations of current legal structures create pressure for new international agreements and norms. However, divergent state interests and the rapid pace of technological change make crafting effective global governance challenging.

5. Surveillance of platforms can enhance liberty when properly governed

"Platform surveillance only gets accepted when it is perceived to focus in a nondiscriminatory fashion on all platform users, not on specific categories of them—particularly not when those categories are suggestive of invidious discrimination or are not reasonably tailored to individuals who pose some high risk to the platform."

Security enables freedom: Just as policing public spaces can make them safer for use, some forms of digital surveillance can enhance the security and thus the freedom to use vital technological platforms.

Conditions for legitimacy:

• Non-discriminatory application
• Focus on platform integrity, not investigation
• Proportional to genuine threats
• Strong oversight mechanisms
• Public understanding of necessity

Beyond privacy: The debate must move beyond simplistic privacy concerns to consider how surveillance can both threaten and protect individual interests in the digital age.

6. Domestic governance requires a multi-faceted approach beyond surveillance

"In the world of many-to-many threats and defenses, we are going to have to learn to think about national security as an area not all that different from the many others in which government seeks to push all people toward a safer, healthier environment."

Regulatory toolkit:

• Direct regulation of individual conduct
• Regulation of intermediaries and platforms
• Risk allocation through liability rules
• Standard-setting and architectural requirements
• Incentives for security-enhancing innovation

Public-private collaboration: Government alone cannot secure critical infrastructure and platforms largely owned and operated by the private sector. New forms of partnership are essential.

Citizen engagement: An aware and motivated public is a powerful security asset. However, this also raises challenges in preventing vigilantism and maintaining the state's role in administering justice.

7. International cooperation and unilateralism will both increase to address global threats

"Both enhanced cooperation and increased unilateralism are already taking place alongside one another."

Push for global governance: The transnational nature of threats creates pressure for more robust international frameworks and institutions to coordinate responses and set common standards.

Limits of cooperation: Divergent state interests, enforcement challenges, and the need for rapid action in some cases will drive continued unilateral action by powerful states to address perceived threats.

Capacity building: Stronger states have incentives to help weaker ones improve governance and security capabilities, as vulnerabilities anywhere can threaten everyone in an interconnected world.

Evolving norms: New international norms and expectations around state responsibility for threats originating in their territory are likely to emerge, even in the absence of formal treaties.

Last updated: October 13, 2024