Computer Crime Research Center

cybercrime/img2.jpg

State information-psychological warfare regulation

Date: June 03, 2004
Source: Computer Crime Research Center
By: Andrey Manoilo

... problem in this sphere is defined by contradictions between objective necessity in social protection from SIP operations and lack in effective mechanisms of protection implementation in the SIP system.
To our point of view, the inefficiency of existent state information policy in conditions of dynamic and sometimes low predictable affect of modern factors of geopolitical competition, globalization, and forms of acute information counteraction results in necessity of changing the whole concept of modern information policy aiming at its adaptation to modern conditions, under which information society is forming. Thus, there are some peculiarities in its realization and necessity in working out special methods and mechanisms of political influence, which are adequate to those revolutionary changes that occur in the system of social-political relations in the society.
The actuality of research of forms and methods of state regulation in conditions of psychological warfare is also confirmed: by a threat of appearance and wide distribution of new forms of political extremism based on using of modern means of information-psychological warfare; a threat of employing modern forms of political violence aiming at imposing of external political course that is harmful for Russia. Moreover, a threat of turning Russia into a raw appendix, a source of information and intellectual resources for highly-developed countries (information dominants), a threat of national mentality and Russian culture destruction, a system of values, psychical health damage, their affects on national gene pool.
At present we have sufficient experience of scientific research in the sphere of state information policy, information counteraction and information-psychological warfare. Information-psychological warfare as a factor of external policy is examined like diplomatic, economical, and armed struggle, but at the same time as an independent trend of research. The notion “information warfare” was taken into account after introduction of the term “information warfare” in the documents of US Department of Defense in 1990, and then it was widely spread in scientific works [4]. Researches of information warfare can be divided into three groups according to their attitudes towards it:
The first group of scientists (social-communicative attitude) regard the notion of information warfare as separate information measures, information means and methods of corporate competition, conduct of interstate counteraction, armed struggle, communication influence technologies on mass mentality [5].
The second group of scientists, practically representatives of military departments both foreign and Russian, assume that information warfare is a sphere of war counteraction and define it as complex joint use of means and forces of information and armed struggle (military-operational approach) [6]. However, a number of scientists are against this approach and point out the fact that the definition of “information warfare” in respect of modern information means of conducting a war is not appropriate, and it would be better to define this type of military activities as information struggle, regarding it as an information component of military operations [7].
The third group of researchers assume that information warfare is a notion of a false peaceful period of interstate counteraction aiming at solving foreign policy tasks by applying traditional non-forceful methods. It is within this group’s framework that a lot of Russian scientists refer information warfare to a sphere of geopolitical counteraction and regard it as a specific type of interstate relations, under which for solving modern counteraction methods, means, and forceful influence technologies on information sphere of these states are employed (geopolitical approach) [8]. Thus, they point out violent character of activities during information warfare, which is an obligatory feature of a war but which lack when there is no open armed conflict.
However, to our Point of view, none of the three above mentioned approaches reveals the essence of information-psychological warfare as a political conflict or as a social notion, that may be the main reason for inefficiency of selected modern means and methods of political regulation of this category of social relations.
In the first case the category of the war is unclear- this category includes practically all forms of communication both political and social one. There is no convincing ground for social danger of this notion and explanations of why these forms of social interaction were related to a war. As a result, for eliminating reasons of psychological warfare it is essential to remove from social relations (or put under tough control) any form of information exchange that influences mentality.
In the second case information-psychological warfare pursues narrow-directed goals of military counteraction, and its origin is referred to political reasons of war conflict. Nevertheless, information-psychological warfare is nowadays used alone in diplomatic struggle in peaceful time, which excludes application of traditional measures of armed counteraction. Thus, it defines inefficiency of state information policy, which regards information-psychological warfare as a part of traditional armed counteraction and which doesn’t take into consideration other non-military reasons for information-political conflicts. It is noteworthy to point out that English specialists assume that a military concept of information warfare is less dangerous in respect to a war, which is carried out by using influence of psychological and diplomatic technologies, mass media on mentality, points of view, and intentions of the adversary who can be both military-political leadership and the population at large [4].
In the third case information warfare is defined as a peculiar type of interstate relations. Well, to our point of view, the expressed danger of information warfare doesn’t give grounds for considering it beyond the category of political conflicts. Thus the social essence of information-psychological warfare is not defined, the first group of researchers gave its most comprehensible definition. Violence, a feature of information warfare, helps to define boundaries of this notion, but concentrates attention of state policy on search of counteraction methods to forceful influence (that is difficult to reveal). That is why leadership is not about to manage this social notion and regulate its social danger.
Research of principles and patterns of state information policy implementation in conditions of information-psychological warfare does not exist in contrast to worked out subject of information warfare.

Literature
1. Information Security Doctrine of the RF // Russian newspaper. 28.09.2000
2. Ground for Information Policy in the Sphere of Information-Psychological Security Implementation. Project. Worked out by request of Security Council of the RF. Moscow: Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences. 2000
3. “Threats and challenges in the Sphere of Information Security”. Materials of Parliamentary Hearings in State Duma FS RF, SD SF of Russia. 1996
4. Libicki M. C. What is Information Warfare? Washington, D. C. national Defense University Press, 1995; Stein
5. Brusnitsin N. A. Information Warfare and Security. Moscow: Vita-Press, 2001. p.9; Pocheptsov G. G. Information Warfare. Kiev: Vakler, 2000. p. 200; rastorguev S. P. Information Warfare. Moscow: Radio and Svyaz, 1998; Pirumov V. S., Rodionov M. A. Several Aspects of Information Struggle in War Conflicts// Voennaya Mysl. 1997. 5; Tsybmal V. I. About Information Warfare // Information collected stories “Security”. Moscow, 1995, 9, p.35; Prochozev A. A., Turko N. I. Ground of Information Warfare// System Analysis on the edge of XXI century: theory and praxis. Moscow, 1996. p. 252-253; Verentsov A. Non-forceful means: the USA improve methods of Information Warfare. EVNVO, 016 (139) from April 30, 1999.
6. Panarin I. N. Technology of Information Warfare. Moscow: KSP+, 2003, 320 p.; Information Warfare and Russia, “World of Security”, Moscow, 2001; Information Warfare and World. Moscow: Olma-Press, 2003, 384 p.; Information Warfare: Theory and Practice. Moscow: Manpower Policy, 2, 2002; Szafranski R. A. Theory of Information Warfare: Preparing for 2020//Airpower Journal. Spring 1995; Komov S. A. Information Struggle in Modern Warfare: Theory Questions// “Military Idea”, 1996, 3, p. 73.
7. Grinyaev S. N. Warfare in the fourth sphere: NVO. 2000, 42, p. 7; Modestov S. A. Warfare, to which America is preparing: Evolution of armed struggle in the informative age. EVNG, 048 dated from March 14, 1996; Pirumov V. S., Rodionov M. A. Several Aspects of Information Struggle in Military Conflicts// “Military Idea”, 1997, 3.
8. Streltsov A. A. Information Security Implementation in the RF. Theoretical and methodology grounds. – Moscow: MTsNMO, 2002; Principles concerning International Information Security. Project. Ministry of International Affairs of the RF, 2000.



Add comment  Email to a Friend

Discussion is closed - view comments archieve
2007-01-16 07:39:55 - Thank you!... Nancy
2007-01-16 07:39:54 - Great work! My homepage | Please visit Monica
2006-11-22 03:14:24 - wait till you see what Wendy does when she... Eric
2006-11-16 20:29:06 - Dream of spitting your cream onto the huge... Taylor
2006-11-08 02:09:04 - Thank you!... Robert
2006-11-08 02:08:56 - Thank you! My homepage | Please visit Otto
2006-11-06 08:25:15 - Well done!... Dennis
2006-11-06 08:25:11 - Well done! My homepage | Please visit Jared
2006-11-06 06:34:59 - Thank you!... Shawn
2006-11-06 06:34:55 - Great work! My homepage | Please visit Naomi
Total 87 comments
Copyright © 2001-2013 Computer Crime Research Center
CCRC logo