State Autonomy and Encryption: An Examination of Technology's Ability to Impact State Autonomy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dialogue surrounding the impact of technology upon the state is frequently framed as a conflict between technology and sovereignty. Traditionally these discussions have been placed within the context of the larger debate surrounding globalization. This has typically limited the discussion of technology and its impact upon sovereignty to advances in telecommunications and the resulting impact these have had on the global financial community. This framing is understandable and perhaps justified due to the supra-geographic nature of communications technology which appears to challenge the territorial nature of state sovereignty. However, technology can be used in a variety of ways. It may challenge the state and its roles, but it also has the potential to strengthen the state. In actuality it is not sovereignty itself that is being challenged, but state autonomy. Sovereignty is an absolute concept and certainly autonomy is a component of sovereignty. However, discussion surrounding sovereignty is theoretical and quickly degenerates into a comparison of definitions rather than an assessment of impact. This paper will examine the impact of technology upon state autonomy, and more specifically how technology threatens state autonomy. Under close examination here is the policy debate surrounding a single technology, encryption. Due to the complexity of the issues presented within this paper, it is important that the fundamental concepts are well understood. This paper begins by developing a framework of analysis by examining state autonomy and sovereignty which will be employed to determine the impact technology may have upon state autonomy. Once the framework has been introduced, the paper will turn to an introduction of encryption. Cryptography, the study of encryption, is a complex field. This author has made a sincere effort to make this discussion accessible. This will result in oversimplification for individuals well-versed in the field, but increase accessibility for those who are not. The discussion will focus on the role of encryption within national security and its impact on the information gathering process. The paper will introduce the challenges surrounding cryptanalysis and pursue a case study of two encryption policy options, key escrow and export controls, explored by the United States. The conclusion will integrate the case study into the theoretical framework and answer the question of whether or not encryption challenges state autonomy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».