They are activ with this topic since two years or so. First in questions of law of armed conflict (LOAC), autonomous weapon systems, man in the loop or not. And the general topic that you quoted. But be real, what a blabla. People have no voice in such questions that are decided by states. As in the Geneva conventions and the additional protocolls. You cant expect more than LOAC. NATO has allready wrtitten that paper. The usual stuff. Dont kill more civilians than necessary for your military purpose.
But ok, lets paint peace. Google does not want to participate in this run for better weapon systems. They dont want to kill. And the friends of those weapons say: Dont overlook the lifes of our soldiers that dont have to kill themselves. Here is something from todays Wapo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/darpa-head-on-ai-dangers-its-not-one-of-those-things-that-keeps-me-up-at-night/2018/12/06/6b6cb233-d840-46d1-931d-62153fda193d_story.html Best, H. Am 12/11/18 um 20:02 schrieb Geert Lovink: > > https://digitalpeace.microsoft.com/ > > "We are digital citizens—members of a thriving online global society. > We trust technology to help us do our jobs, create communities and > connect us. As digital citizens, we also share responsibility to > protect our interconnected space. > > We are more at risk than ever before from cyberwarfare. Governments > are using technology as a weapon, which can devastate people, > organizations, and entire countries. These attacks may start in the > digital space but can quickly spread to the physical world. We must > come together as digital citizens and call upon our world leaders to > create rules of the road that protect our digital society. > > We must demand Digital Peace Now." > > -- > > Dear nettimers, > > any comments on this? I find this pretty stunning. OK, 100 years after > World War I, that’s pretty significant. "Make love, not war." Today > there's conference in Paris. I am an anti-militarist, I am not on the > side of the corporate-governmental (cyber)warfare promotors. But in > general I am not against non-violent conflict. Should we demand > digital conflict? Or digital ‘struggle'? > > And what to make of the comments by US internet governance scholar > Milton Mueller? > > https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/11/09/the-paris-igf-convergence-on-norms-or-grand-illusion/ > > "The theory of international regimes identifies norm development as > the second step in a process of institutionalization. The first step > involves agreement on principles; that is, foundational facts about > the sector or domain to be governed. It is unfortunate, but true, to > say that all of the international calls for cyber norms have skipped > agreement on principles and are trying to promulgate norms despite a > huge, gaping chasm in the way states understand their role in > cyberspace. There will be no effective operationalization > of norms until there is agreement on the status of cyberspace as > a global commons, a non-sovereign space." > > Your messenger of peace, Geert > > > > > > > > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
