International Journal on Criminology Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Página 19

The Behavioral Intelligence Paradigm in Fighting Cyber-Crime
by the advancement of causative learning
techniques, or when inaccessible, by the
very large number of spontaneous hacking
groups sharing their recombination experiments.
In such a paradigm, focusing on expost
defense strategy based on known and
identified vulnerabilities is likely to fail.
Putting contemporary doctrines to
the test of technological shifts
By gathering data from public sources
on published Cyber-Defense doctrines,
we try in the second part of
this analysis to assess the soundness of
Cyber-Doctrines for the deterrence of behavioral
intelligence-driven threats. We
analyzed 38 national strategies to fight cyber-crime,
implement cyber-defense, and
promote resilient information infrastructures
and cyber-security.
We used the framework developed
earlier on the history of cyber-criminality to
categorize four categories of cyber-crimes,
based on their destination (“targeted and
long-reach” versus “immediate or non-directed”)
and their preparation (“spontaneous”
versus “prepared and sponsored”).
Hence, we identify four classes of cyber-crime:
“code warriors” (I), “cyber free
riders” (II), “autonomous collectives” (III),
and “sponsored attackers” (IV).
Different classes of attacks require
different responses. Immediate and spontaneous
attacks (Class I) can be handled with
robust information security, including causative
learning that can deter sophisticated
AI attacks. Most national doctrines have a
sound understanding and appropriate range
of responses for such attacks. Prepared and
sponsored immediate attacks (computer
theft by organized crime, free-riding,
phishing, and cracking—Class II) require a
coordinated range of technical and jurisdictional
responses. Signature-based detection
systems and knowledge-based defenses are
usually sufficient to deter most threats, as far
as regulation is judicially enforced. Socially
and society-rooted attacks (hactivist groups,
temporary or goal-driven groups with political,
societal, or economic motives—Class
III) involve perception warfare, information
warfare, and sense-making capabilities so as
to respond to rapid and emergent distributed
deployment. Finally, offensive campaigns
with embedded behavioral intelligence
(Class IV) require transversal responses that
encompass proactive deterrence “beyond
tech” and “beyond claim”. Class III and Class
IV threats call for real-time sense-making
on unprecedented scales, involving largescale
human cognitive learning on one side
(III) and large-scale behavioral learning on
the other side (IV).
Our analysis of the evolution of
national cyber-crime doctrines over the
period 1994–2013 brings mixed findings.
“Power-sovereign” doctrines (P-S, Class IV)
emphasize the development of large specialized
units, are often obsessed with critical
infrastructures protection, and develop
more or less publicly, offensive capabilities.
While they deliver sustainable deterrence
policies on State-sponsored cyber attacks,
they usually develop a threat-rigidity dominant
logic, which impedes their involvement
in emergent societal change. The risk for P-S
doctrines is therefore disconnecting with
emergent hacking movements, and a lack of
reactivity to distributed cognitive warfare.
“Societal Resilience” doctrines (Class III), on
the other hand, are more sensitive to opinion
movements, try to leverage the public space,
and focus their offensive capabilities on information
warfare. Motivation for such doctrines
is not always rooted in a democratic
and progressive view of the Internet. Yet, the
digitalization of society is clearly identified
as both the core threat and core opportunity
for cyber-defense and cyber-development.
17