Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cyber Warfare and Organised Crime. A Regulatory Model and Meta-Model for Open Source Intelligence (OSINT)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ethics and Policies for Cyber Operations

Part of the book series: Philosophical Studies Series ((PSSP,volume 124))

Abstract

OSINT stands for Open Source Intelligence, (O)SI for (Open) Social Intelligence, and PbD for Privacy by Design. The CAPER EU project has built an OSINT solution oriented to the prevention of organized crime. How to balance freedom and security? This chapter describes a way to embed the legal and ethical issues raised by the General Data Reform Package (GDRP) in Europe into security and surveillance platforms. It focuses on the indirect strategy to flesh out ethical principles through Semantic Web Regulatory Models (SWRM), and discusses the possibility to extend them to Cyber Warfare. Institutional design and the possibility to build up a Meta-rule of law are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This chapter is partially based on my work at the EU Network on Social Intelligence (SINTELNET) http://www.sintelnet.eu/. I revised some of my previous positions on OSINT (Casanovas <CitationRef CitationID="CR19" >2014</Citation Ref>).

  2. 2.

    Cfr. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) COM/2012/011 final – 2012/0011 (COD). After 4 years, the final draft of April 6th was finally approved by the EU Parliement on April 14th 2016. See http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5419-2016-INIT/en/pdf. For a useful and short summary of its content, see Albrecht (December, Albrecht <CitationRef CitationID="CR1" >2015</Citation Ref>) and de Hert and Papakonstantinou (<CitationRef CitationID="CR321" >2016</Citation Ref>).

  3. 3.

    This Opinion must be completed with the WP29 Opinion on the legal grounds of surveillance of electronic communications for intelligence and national security purposes that was adopted on April 10th 2014. The origins of the statement are clearly expressed: “The focus of this Opinion lies with the follow up that is needed after the Snowden revelations.” A major part of the Working Document discusses the applicability of the transfer regime of Directive 95/46/EC.

  4. 4.

    Quoting Marju Lauristin (Raporteur) at the recent Debate on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data for the purposes of crime prevention (Strasbourg, Wednesday, 13 April 2016): “In this framework, the very important thing is that the general principles of proportionality, legitimacy and purpose-limitation are included in police work. That means that no form of mass surveillance is possible. The collection of data is not possible. Retention for an unlimited or unclear period is not possible. Another important point is that we foresee the inclusion of data protection professionals in the police institutional setting: specifically, in police work.” http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20160413+ITEM-015+DOC+XML+V0//EN&amp;amp;amp;language=en&amp;amp;amp;query=INTERV&amp;amp;amp;detail=3-515-000

  5. 5.

    Directive on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (05418/1/2016 – C8-0139/2016 – 2012/0010(COD)){SEC(2012) 72 final}. See the text of the draft adopted on March 14th 2014 at the first reading at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0126, and at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P7-TA-2014-0219+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN. It is now at the second reading now.

  6. 6.

    Recital 19 states that GDPR does not apply to “the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security and the free movement of such data”.

  7. 7.

    Collaborative Information, Acquisition, Processing and Reporting for the Prevention of Organized Crime (CAPER) http://www.fp7-caper.eu/

  8. 8.

    Phythian (2009: 68–69) graphically quotes a former CIA operative about this, down to earth:

    The CIA probably doesn’t have a single truly qualified Arabic-speaking officer of Middle Eastern background who can play a believable Muslim fundamentalist who would volunteer to spend years of his life with shitty food and no women in the mountains of Afghanistan. For Christ’s sake, most case officers live in the suburbs of Virginia. We don’t do that kind of thing.

  9. 9.

    This is the official definition (US Army FM 2-0 Intelligence March 2010), based on National Defence Autorization Act for FY 2006, & 931: 1. Open-source intelligence is the discipline that pertains to intelligence produced from publicly available information that is collected, exploited, and disseminated in a timely manner to an appropriate audience for the purpose of addressing a specific intelligence requirement. Open-source intelligence (OSINT) is derived from the systematic collection, processing, and analysis of publicly available, relevant information in response to intelligence requirements.

  10. 10.

    Cfr. http://www.sintelnet.eu/

  11. 11.

    Most Deliverables were confidential. I am offering here a standard synthetic description, as in Casanovas et al. (<CitationRef CitationID="CR24" >2014b</Citation Ref>).

  12. 12.

    1. Openess and Transparency, 2. Individual Participation. 3. Collection Limitation, 4. Data Quality, 5. Use Limitation, 6. Reasonable Security. 7. Accountability.

  13. 13.

    These historical origins must still be retraced and reconstructed carefully. I am grateful to Graham Greenleaf for this observation.

  14. 14.

    VIRTUOSO (Versatile InfoRmation Toolkit for end-Users oriented Open-Sources explOitations), http://www.virtuoso.eu/.

  15. 15.

    A Private Impact Assessment (PIA) was carried out all along the Project with LEA’s analysts. Antoni Roig set the risks and rules in some non-public Deliverables (D7.2, D73. D7.5, and D7.6) and J. González-Conejero plotted them on the information workflow (Fig. <InternalRef RefID="Fig2" >9.2</Internal Ref>). The CAPER Ethical Committee was composed by Ugo Pagallo, Giovanni Sartor, Danièle Bourcier, John Zeleznikow, and Josep Monserrat.

  16. 16.

    “The deciding factor in whether our current infrastructure can endure will be the sum of the perceptions and actions of its users. There are roles for traditional state sovereigns, pan-state organizations, and formal multistakeholder regimes to play. They can help reinforce the conditions necessary for generative blossoming, and they can also step in—with all the confusion and difficulty that notoriously attends regulation of a generative space—when mere generosity of spirit among people of goodwill cannot resolve conflict. But such generosity of spirit is a society’s powerful first line of moderation.” (Zittrain <CitationRef CitationID="CR87" >2008</Citation Ref>, 246)

  17. 17.

    Cfr. https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/

  18. 18.

    (…) as cyber activities become ever more central to the functioning of modern societies, the law is likely to adapt by affording them greater protection. It will impose obligations on states to act as responsible inhabitants of cyberspace, lower the point at which cyber operations violate the prohibition on the use of force, allow states to respond forcefully to some nondestructive cyber operations, and enhance the protection of cyber infrastructure, data, and activities during armed conflicts. These shifts will not be cost-free. They may, inter alia, prove expensive, affect privacy interests, extend to kinetic operations, and deprive battlefield commanders of options previously available to them. Ultimately, though, law reflects national interests. States will inescapably eventually find it in their interests to take such measures to protect their access to cyberspace and the goods it bestows. (Schmitt <CitationRef CitationID="CR74" >2014</Citation Ref>: 299)

  19. 19.

    “Privacy by design is a system designed not to work […]. The market for consumer privacy has yet to be tested because “privacy by design” policies shift all of the transaction costs of privacy onto consumers. To discover what consumers make of privacy online, the transaction costs of privacy should be shifted from consumers to the owners of internet technology” (Faioddt 2012, 104-5).

  20. 20.

    “The secondary privacy law , contained, for example, in statutes and regulations, is for the most part only applicable where no valid privacy contracts exist. This supremacy of privacy contracts over statutory and other secondary privacy law enables individualized privacy protection levels and commercial use of privacy rights according to the contracting parties’ individual wish” (Zimmeck <CitationRef CitationID="CR86" >2012</Citation Ref>, 451).

  21. 21.

    “Swarming” means “simultaneous attack from many directions”. See about the military development of cyberwarfare and the two competing paradigms of “strategic information warfare as launching ‘bolts from the blue’ and cyberwar as doing better in battle strategic warfare”, Arquilla (<CitationRef CitationID="CR5" >2011</Citation Ref>, 60).

  22. 22.

    “(…) it seems that a kind of ethical ‘bottom line’ assessment might be discernible about cyberwar, in two parts. First, jus ad bellum comes under great pressure in the key areas of right purpose, duly constituted authority, and last resort. However, the apparent benefits of waging preventive or pre-emptive war, concepts with a lineage dating from Thucydides and Francis Bacon,10 are largely illusory. Second, it seems that jus in bello considerations come off rather better in the areas of proportionality and non-combatant immunity although there is a bit of complexity in the parsing of notions of acceptable” (Arquilla <CitationRef CitationID="CR6" >2013</Citation Ref>, 85).

  23. 23.

    https://www.europol.europa.eu/ec3

  24. 24.

    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-216_en.htm

  25. 25.

    Cfr. the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party Opinion 01/2016 on the EU – U.S. Privacy Shield draft adequacy decision, adopted on 13 April 2016: “The check and controls of the adequacy requirements must be strictly performed, taking into account the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection and the number of individuals potentially affected by transfers. The Privacy Shield needs to be viewed in the current international context, such as the emergence of big data and the growing security needs”.

References

  • Albrecht, P. 2015. EU general data protection regulation: The outcome of the negotiations (“trilogues”) and 10 key points. Lead European Parliament Committee: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). 17 December. http://www.janalbrecht.eu/fileadmin/material/Dokumente/20151217_Data_protection_10_key_points_EN.pdf Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Aldrich, J.H. 2010. Elinor Ostrom and the “just right” solution. Public Choice 143: 269–273. doi:10.1007/s11127-010-9630-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aligica, P.D., and P. Boettke. 2011. The two social philosophies of Ostroms’ institutionalism. The Policy Studies Journal 39(1): 29–49. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.0000395.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aliprandi, C., J.A. Irujo, M. Cuadros, S. Maier, F. Melero, and M. Raffaelli. 2014. CAPER: Collaborative information, acquisition, processing, exploitation and reporting for the prevention of organised crime. HCI 26: 147–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arquilla, J. 2011. From blitzkrieg to bitskrieg: The military encounter with computers. Communications of the ACM 54(10): 58–65. doi:10.1145/2001269.2001287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arquilla, J. 2013. Twenty years of cyberwar. Journal of Military Ethics 12(1): 80–87. doi:10.1080/15027570.2013.782632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arquilla, J., and D. Ronfeldt. 1993. Cyberwar is coming! Comparative Strategy 12(2): 141–165. Rand Corporation. http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP223.html. Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Arquilla, J., and R. Nomura. 2015. Three wars of ideas about the idea of war. Comparative Strategy 34(2): 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Article 29 Working Party. 2014a. Joint statement of the European data protection authorities assembled in the Article 29 working party, November 25th (adopted on 26th). http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp227_en.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Article 29 Working Party. 2014b. Working document on surveillance of electronic communications for intelligence and national security purposes, adopted on December 4th, 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp228_en.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Article 29 Working Party. 2016. Article 29 Data protection working party, Opinion 01/2016 on the EU – U.S. Privacy Shield draft adequacy decision, adopted on 13 April 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2016/wp238_en.pdf Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Backfried, G., C. Schmidt, M. Pfeiffer, G. Quirchmayr, M. Markus Glanzer, and K. Rainer. 2012. Open source intelligence in disaster management. 2012 European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference, EISIC. IEEE Computer Society 254–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, C. 2008. Open source intelligence. In Mining massive data sets for security: advances in data mining, search, social networks and text mining, and their applications to security, ed. F. Fogelmann-Soulié et al. 19: 331–344. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, R., and A. Cumming. 2008. Open Source Intelligence (OSINT): Issues for Congress, CRS Report for Congress, Order Code RL34270, Updated January 28 2008. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34270.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Bradbury, D. 2011. In plain view: Open source intelligence. Computer Fraud & Security 4: 5–9. Elsevier https://www.cse.msu.edu/~enbody/CFS_2011-04_Apr.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Burdon, M. 2010. Privacy Invasive Geo-mashups. Privacy 2.0 and the Limits of First Generation Privacy Law. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology and Policy 1: 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, C. 2007. Freeing knowledge, telling secrets: Open source intelligence and development. CEWCES Research Papers. Paper 11. http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cewces_papers/11. Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Cameron, K. 2005. The laws of identity …as of 5/11/2005. Microsoft Corporation, http://www.identityblog.com/stories/2005/05/13/TheLawsOfIdentity.pdf Accessed 21 May 2015.

  • Casanovas, P. 2013. Agreement and relational justice: A perspective from philosophy and sociology of law. In Agreement Technologies, ed. Sascha Ossowski, LGTS 8, Springer Verlag, 19–42, Dordrecht/Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3.

  • Casanovas, P. 2014. Open source intelligence, Open social intelligence, and privacy by design. European conference on social intelligence. Proceedings of the European Conference on Social Intelligence (ECSI-2014), eds. Andreas Herzig and Emiliano Lorini, 174–185. Barcelona, Spain, November 35, 2014, CEUR http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1283/ Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Casanovas, P. 2015a. Semantic web regulatory models: Why ethics matter, special issue on information society and ethical inquiries. Philosophy & Technology 28(1): 33–55. doi:10.1007/s13347-014-0170-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casanovas, P. 2015b. Conceptualisation of rights and meta-rule of law for the web of data. Democracia Digital e Governo Eletrônico 1(12): 18–41. http://buscalegis.ufsc.br/revistas/index.php/observatoriodoegov/article/view/34399. Accessed 21 May 2016. Reprinted in Journal of Governance and Regulation 4(4): 118–129.

  • Casanovas, P., Casellas, N., Tempich, C. et al. 2007.Artificial Intelligence and Law 15: 171. doi:10.1007/s10506-007-9036-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Casanovas, P., and J. Zeleznikow. 2014. Online dispute resolution and models of relational law and justice: A table of ethical principles. In AI approaches to the complexity of legal systems IV. social intelligence, models and applications for law and justice systems in the semantic web and legal reasoning, ed. P. Casanovas et al., LNAI 8929, 55–69. Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casanovas, P., E. Teodoro, R. Varela, J. González-Conejero, and A. Roig, et al. 2014a. D 7.8 EAG ethical report code. Final ethical audit on system development and deployment, EU F7 CAPER, FP7-SECURITY-2010-1.2-1, 24/10/2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casanovas, P., J. Arraiza, F. Melero, J. González-Conejero, G. Molcho, and M. Cuadros. 2014b. Fighting organized crime through open source intelligence: Regulatory strategies of the CAPER project. In Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2014: The twenty-seventh annual conference, Foundations on artificial intelligence, 271, ed. Rinke Hoekstra, 189–199, Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casanovas, P., M. Palmirani, S. Peroni, T. van Engers, and F. Vitali. 2016. Special issue on the semantic web for the legal domain guest editors’ editorial: The next step. Semantic Web Journal 7(3): 213–227. IOS Press. http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj1344.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Casellas, N., M. Blázquez, A. Kiryakov, P. Casanovas, M. Poblet, R. Benjamins. 2005. OPJK into PROTON: Legal domain ontology integration into an upper-level ontology. On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2005: OTM 2005 Workshops, ed. R. Meersman et al., LNCS 3762, 846–855. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelfranchi, C. 2014. Minds as social institutions. Phenomenology and Cognitive Science 13(1): 121–143. doi:10.1007/s11097-013-9324-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavoukian, A. 2010. Privacy by design. The 7 foundational principles. Implementation and mapping of fair information practices. Information and privacy commissioner. Ontario, Canada. http://www.privacybydesign.ca/index.php/about-pbd/7-foundational-principles/. Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Cavoukian, A. 2012. Privacy by design. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 4: 18–19. doi:10.1109/MTS.2012.2225459. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6387956. Accessed 21 May 2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciambra, A., and P. Casanovas. 2014. Drafting a composite indicator of validity for regulatory models and legal systems. In AI approaches to the complexity of legal systems IV. Social intelligence, models and applications for law and justice systems in the semantic web and legal reasoning, ed. P. Casanovas et al., 70–82. LNAI 8929, Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colesky, M., Hoepman, J. H., Hillen, C. A. 2016. Critical Analysis of Privacy Design Strategies. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops, 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Hert, P. and Papakonstantinou, V., 2016. The new General Data Protection Regulation: Still a sound system for the protection of individuals?. Computer Law & Security Review, 32 (2): 179–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donohue, L.K. 2005-2006. Anglo-American Privacy and Surveillance. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology93 (3): 1059–1208.

    Google Scholar 

  • EGE. 2014a. Ethics of security and surveillance technologies, Opinion no. 28 of the European Group on Ethics in Science and new Technologies, Brussels, 20 May 2014, http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/publications/ege_opinion_28_ethics_security_surveillance_technologies.pdf Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • EGE. 2014b. Press release on the EGE opinion 28, of 20 May 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/publications/press_release_ege_opinion_28_.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • EU Commission. 2014. Progress on EU data protection reform now irreversible following European Parliament vote European Commission – MEMO/14/186 12/03/2014, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-186_en.htm. Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Faioddt, J.T. 2012. Mixed reality: How the laws of virtual worlds govern everyday life. Berckeley Technology Law Journal 27 1/3: 55–116. doi:10.15779/Z38ST2W.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleisher, C. 2008. OSINT: Its implications for business/CompetitiveIntelligence analysis and analysts, OSINT: Its implications for business/competitive intelligence analysis and analysts. Inteligencia y Seguridad 4: 115–141. http://www.phibetaiota.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2008-Fleisher-on-OSINT-English-and-Spanish.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, L., and M. Taddeo (eds.). 2014. The ethics of information warfare, LGTS 14. Heidelberg/Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glassman, M., and M.J. Kang. 2012. Intelligence in the internet age: The emergence and evolution of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT). Computers in Human Behavior 28: 673–682. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Conejero, J., R. Varela-Figueroa, J. Muñoz-Gómez, and E. Teodoro. 2014. Organized crime structure modelling for European law enforcement agencies interoperability through ontologies. In AI approaches to the complexity of legal systems. AICOL IV-V, ed. P. Casanovas, U. Pagallo, M. Palmirani, and G. Sartor, 217–231. LNAI 8929. Heidelberg, Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-45960-7_16.

  • Gottschalck, P. 2009. Information sources in police intelligence. The Police Journal 82: 149–170. doi:10.1350/pojo.2009.82.2.463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutwirth, S., R. Leenes, P. de Hert (eds.). 2015. Reforming European data protection law, LGTS, Dordrecht/Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9385-8.

  • Hoepman, J.H. 2014. Privacy design strategies (extended abstract). In ICT systems security and privacy protection. 29th IFIP TC 11 International Conference, SEC 2014, Marrakech, Morocco, June 2-4, Proceedings. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, ed. N. Cuppens-Boulahia et al., 446–459. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jardines, E.A. 2015. Open source intelligence. In The five disciplines of intelligence collection, ed. Mark M. Lowenthal and Robert M. Clark, chapt.2, L.A., Washington: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keane, J., and P. Bell. 2013. Confidence in the police: Balancing public image with community safety. A comparative review of the literature, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 41: 233–246. doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2013.06.003.

  • Kilovaty, I. 2014. Cyber warfare and the Jus Ad Bellum challenges: Evaluation in the light of the Tallinn manual on the international law applicable to cyber warfare. National Security Law Brief 5(1): 91–124. http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=nslb. Accessed 21 May 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., M. Glassman, M. Bartholomew, and E.H. Hur. 2013. Creating an educational context for open source intelligence: The development of internet self-efficacy through a blogcentric course. Computers & Education 69: 332–342. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.034.

  • Koops, B.-J., J.H. Hoepman, and R. Leenes. 2013. Open-source intelligence and privacy by design. Computer Law & Security Review 29: 676–688. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2013.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koops, B-J., and R. Leenes. 2014. Privacy regulation cannot be hardcoded. A critical comment on the ‘privacy by design’ provision in data-protection law. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 28(2): 159–171. doi:10.1080/13600869.2013.801589.

  • Kornmaier, A., and F. Jaouën. 2014. Beyond technical data -a more comprehensive situational awareness fed by available intelligence information. 2014 6th International Conference on Cyber Conflict, ed. P. Brangetto, M. Maybaum, and J. Stinissen, 139–156, NATO CCD COE Publications. https://ccdcoe.org/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdf/d0r0s2_kornmeier.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Kshetri, N. 2010. The global cybercrime industry. Economic, institutional and strategic perspectives. Heidelberg/Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. 2006. Code and other laws of cyberspace (2001), Code 2.0 (2006). Crowdourced version. http://codev2.cc/ Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Lin, P., P. Allhoff, and K. Abney. 2015. Is warfare the right frame for the cyber debate? In The ethics of information warfare, ed. L. Floridi and R. Taddeo, 39–57. LGTS, Dordrecht/Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-04135-3.

  • McCary, M. 2013. Sun Tzu’s battle for our footnotes: the emergent role of libraries in juridical warfare. University of Miami National Security & Armed Conflict Law Review 3(Fall): 46–103. http://www.m2lawpc.com/index_htm_files/McCary-Sun%20Tzu%20Footnotes-UM-NSAC%20L%20Rev-Vol-III-2013.pdf Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Moshirnia, A.V. 2012. Valuing speech and open source intelligence in the face of judicial deference. Harvard National Security Journal 4(2012-3): 385–454. http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Vo.4-Moshirnia-Final.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murkens, J.E.M. 2007. The future of Staatsrecht: Dominance, demise or demystification? The Modern Law Review 70(5): 731–758. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73810-7_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noriega, P., and M. d’Inverno. 2014. Crowd-based socio-cognitive systems. In Crowd intelligence: Foundations, methods and practices. European network for social intelligence, ed. M. Poblet, P. Noriega, and E. Plaza, Barcelona, January 2014, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1148/CROWD2014 Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Noriega, P., J. Padget, H. Verhagen, and M. d’Inverno. 2014. The challenge of artificial socio-cognitive systems. In AMMAS 14’ Proceedings. http://aamas2014.lip6.fr/proceedings/workshops/AAMAS2014-W22/p12.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • O’Connor, T.R. 2006. Intelligence-led policing and transnational justice. Journal of the Institute of Justice & International Studies 6: 233–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orend, B. 2014. Fog in the fifth dimension: The ethics of cyber-war. In The ethics of information warfare, ed. L. Floridi and R. Taddeo, 1–23. Dordrecht/Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-04135-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. 2010. Institutional analysis and development. Micro workshop in political theory and political analysis. Proceedings of the policy studies organization, New series 9, 851–878 http://www.ipsonet.org/proceedings/category/volumes/2010/no-9/ Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Palombella, G. 2009. The rule of law beyond the state: Failures, promises, and theory. International Journal of Constitutional Law 7(3): 442–467. doi:10.1093/icon/mop012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palombella, G. 2010. The rule of law as institutional ideal. Comparative Sociology 9: 4–39. doi:10.1163/156913210X12535202814315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phythian, M. 2009. Intelligence analysis today and tomorrow. Security Challenges 5(1): 69–85. doi:10.1080/13619462.2014.987530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poblet, M. (ed.). 2011. Mobile technologies for conflict management. Online dispute resolution, governance, participation. LGTS, Dordrecht/Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1384-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poblet, M. 2013. Visualizing the law: Crisis mapping as an open tool for legal practice. Journal of Open Access to Law 1. Ithaca, Cornell: https://ojs.law.cornell.edu/index.php/joal/article/viewFile/12/13 Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Poblet, M., E. García-Cuesta, and P. Casanovas. 2014. Crowdsourcing tools for disaster management: A review of platforms and methods. In AI approaches to the complexity of legal systems IV. Social intelligence, models and applications for law and justice systems in the semantic web and legal reasoning, ed. P. Casanovas et al., 262–276. LNAI 8929, Dordrecht, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-45960-7_19.

  • Ratcliffe, J.H. 2003. Intelligence-Led policing. Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, 248. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, J.H. 2008. Intelligence-led policing. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risch, J.M. 2009. Virtual rule of law. West Virginia Law Review 112(1): 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson, T.A. 2009. A burning need to know: the use of open source intelligence in the Fire Service. Thesis. Monterrey: Naval School. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.387.6834&rep=rep1&type=pdf Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Rodriguez-Doncel, V., C. Santos, P. Casanovas, and A. Gómez-Pérez. 2016. Legal aspects of linked data – The Europeanframework, Computer Law & Security Review: The International Journal of Technology Law and Practice (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2016.07.005

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugge, F. 2012. The case for NATO-EU cooperation in the protection of cyberspace. In Cybersecurity Summit (WCS), 2012 Third Worldwide, 1–10. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M.N. (ed.). 2013. Tallinn manual on international law applied to cyber warfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M.N. 2014. The law of cyber warfare: Quo Vadis. Stanford Law and Policy Review 25: 269–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M.N., and S. Watts. 2014. The decline of international humanitarian Law Opinio Juris and the law of cyber warfare. Texas International Law Journal 50: 189–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreier, F. 2015. On cyberwarfare. DKAF Horizon 2015, WP 7. http://docplayer.net/4159538-Dcaf-horizon-2015-working-paper-no-7-on-cyberwarfare-fred-schreier.html Acessed 21 May 2016.

  • Solis, G. 2014. Cyberwarfare. Military law review, 219(Spring): 1–52. http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/219-spring-2014.pdf Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Steele, R.D. 2007. Open source intelligence. In Handbook of intelligence studies, ed. Loch Johnson, 129–147, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taddeo, M. 2012. Information warfare: a philosophical perspective. Philosophy & Technology 25.1(2012): 105–120. doi: 10.1007/s13347-011-0040-9.

  • Tamanaha, B. 2011. The rule of law and legal pluralism in development. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3: 1–17. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511100019.

  • Tene, O. 2014. A new Harm Matrix for cybersecurity surveillance. Colorado Technology Law Journal 12(2): 391–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trottier, D. 2014. Police and user-led investigations on social media. Journal of Law, Information and Science 23: 75–96. AustLII: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/2014/4.html Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Usmani, Z-ul-H. 2014. Predictive modeling to counter terrorist attacks. Go-FigSolutions An Interview with Max Ernst, Pranav Sharma, and Neil Singh, Providence, RI, 9 February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verfaille, K., and T.V.d. Beken. 2008. Proactive policing and the assessment of organised crime. Policing. An International Journal of Police Strategy and Management 31(4): 534–552. doi: 10.1108/13639510810910553.

  • Zeadally, S., and A. Flowers. 2014. Cyberwar: The what, when, why, and how [commentary]. Technology and Society Magazine, IEEE 33(3): 14–21. doi:10.1109/MTS.2014.2345196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmeck, S. 2012. The information privacy Law of Web applications and cloud computing. Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal 29: 451–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zittrain, J.L. 2008. The future of the internet – And how to stop It. New Haven/London: Yale University Press & Penguin UK. Harvard University’s DASH Repository. http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4455262/Zittrain_Future%20of%20the%20Internet.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 21 May 2016.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been funded by the F7 EU Project Collaborative information, Acquisition, Processing, Exploitation and Reporting for the prevention of organised crime (CAPER) —Grant Agreement 261712—; and by the National Project Crowdsourcing, DER2012-39492-C02-01 and the Australian project D2D CRC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Law and Technology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Pompeu Casanovas

  2. Faculty of Business and Law, Data to Decisions Cooperative Research Centre, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia

    Pompeu Casanovas

Authors
  1. Pompeu Casanovas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pompeu Casanovas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Oxford Internet Institute , Oxford, United Kingdom

    Mariarosaria Taddeo

  2. NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, Tallinn, Estonia

    Ludovica Glorioso

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Casanovas, P. (2017). Cyber Warfare and Organised Crime. A Regulatory Model and Meta-Model for Open Source Intelligence (OSINT). In: Taddeo, M., Glorioso, L. (eds) Ethics and Policies for Cyber Operations. Philosophical Studies Series, vol 124. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45300-2_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation