The Multiple Origins of Cyberspace
From conventional transmissions to the emergence of the telegram, the speed of information exchange has never ceased to be the challenge of power and strategic preeminence in conflict.[1], and it is in this perspective that man has continued to invent innovative systems and networks of interception and exchange of secret and strategic information [2]. The idea reaffirms that technological innovation and scientific investment in communication infrastructures are synonymous with victory and strategic and political superiority. But, also generating questions and problems especially in conceptual and notional ignored during the process of reformulation of the infrastructure.
a- Academic and scientific origins
In 1955, a group of experts and professors and an academic network chaired by N. Wiener began work on a project to develop interactive computer studies for the regulation of computer communications systems. Finally, they managed to create the core of the network that we currently know, its main objective is to share information and scientific research between California research entities and organizations in the framework of a purely scientific collaboration[3].
This group of researchers has begun to develop further partnerships with the U.S. military to create programs attached to American anti-aircraft excellence. Despite the strong and sensitive partnership situation with the army, the academic status and professional responsibility of the teachers and project managers have never prevented them fromining their positions on the debate on the origins of the network, and its central purpose is to be a space of interaction and social participation rather than one-way and central dissemination or appropriation by the State and the armed forces[4].
According to them, the appropriation of a work of social accumulation is ethically prohibited and the network in this case will undoubtedly change of nature and mission, to note that the strengthening of this position has transformed the debate since the seventies running of philosophical values and literature to the present day, which tries to remove the cyber space from security and military operations and keep the libertarian origin at the forefront of definitions[5].
b- Military and government origins
The starting point of this creature was a very orderly research project, funded by the U.S. Department of Defence’s Office of Information Processing Techniques and Advanced Project Research Administration, ARPANET created the core of an Internet technical community that did not exceed a maximum of about 200 in the first place.[6]. And thanks to generous funding and precise modalities of scientific cooperation, ARPANET has succeeded in bringing out the primary project of support for national security and strategic preeminence against the Russians[7].
A communication network, according to the demands of decision makers and the requirements of US presidents above all, uncentric and closed and away from external dangers and dangers, aims to guarantee the security of transmissions and avoid the technological and strategic surprise of enemies, and to ensure more resilience in case of attacks or surprises or nuclear war[8].
c- Social origins
The historical framework of the emergence of the Internet has been surrounded by the social, ideological and philosophical upheavals of the 1960s, which marks that the battle of creation was at the same time a conceptual battle for framework and confrontation between multiple visions. This battle for the definition and determination of the network and for naming the material and physical component of the infrastructure, has historically taken several forms and dimensions of which the effort of States was never unique[9].
The willingness to impose liberal demands against custody and efforts of infrastructure appropriation by the military and intelligence agencies produced us the first generation of hackers anti-centralization of the network, and anti-ARPANET, determined the nature of several characters and concepts of the infrastructure[10].
These first demonstrations illustrate the first claims for the free flow of information against custody and supervision, and the first attempt to get computers out of the supervision of major bureaucratic organizations. The social and communist contribution of the 1960s changed the way the Internet existed and the cyber space of today, whose idea was never to leave computers in the hands of authoritarianism and the monopoly of the military-industrial complex[11].
d- Contribution from the private sector
In addition to public investment, private investment has flowed into the field by introducing the spread of these tools to civilian areas and helping to create domain names and the world wide web in 1989[12]. And it is with the help of the potential of globalization in openness and free movement of capital and investment that the network has experienced an unprecedented spread and has given access to a wide range of institutions and organizations of a different nature, public and private, military and civilian[13].
This global expansion, with the help of private funding, has contributed to key developments that help the cyber space evolve according to a specific global paradigm that encompasses public/private efforts and contributions and that weighs for the segment of total public centralization of cybersecurity[14].
Also opened a political debate around the strategic importance of these infrastructures in terms of security and stability of States and its affiliated agencies, this recent technology has succeeded in introducing important changes[15]. Considered as the nervous system of the nation and as a very important functional sphere [16], With $7.15 billion to improve and upgrade this area, Americans have well understood what this infrastructure represents for the survival and continuity of the state [17]. And in order to catch this race and bridge the lag, some states have decided to invest in the field to gain in power and development of their national operators[18].
These countries have launched strategic operations and digital infrastructure projects coupled with less effort in terms of their contributions to law and international governance of cyberspace, and following this deadline are added other problems, especially in territorialization, fragmentation and governance interactions in this space[19].
The situation leads to the belief that the debate on conceptualization and delimitation including the determination of cyberspace is a debate that will have to dig deeper, not only in terms of the originality and history of the infrastructure, unlike the reports of social interactions and collaboration in all areas, also play their roles in an environment that continues to universalize and share challenges[20].
This means that we are faced with issues as technical and material as a purely epistemological or notional or even historical debate, because the fact that cyberspace is based on material infrastructures and on universal interconnection and on a global network, forces us to go deep into its behavioral and universal component to find the material and geographical arguments and better clarify its rise in power.
[1] ALEXIA (C.), Cyberware the threat from internet, Éd, Economist, London, 2014, p. 16.
[2] GRISET (P.), “L’émergence d’Internet Entre imaginaire universel et réalités américaines’’, Éd, Gallimard, n° 160, 2010, p. 132.
[3] CASTELLES (M.), The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business, and society, Ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 42.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] MUELER (M.), Ruling the root internet governance and the taming of cyberspace, Éd, The MIT Press Cambridge, London, 2002, p. 85.
[7] VOIR LES ANNEXES, LA CARTE N° 1, «l’ARPANER en 1971», p. 261.
[8] GASANÇON (C.), «Le cyberespace, nouvel espace de souveraineté à conquérir», Géostratégia, 2018, in: https://www. geostr ategia.fr/le-cyberespace-espace-de-souverainete-a-conquerir/ (Consulté le 10 Septembre 2023).
[9] TURNER (F.), Aux sources de l’utopie numérique, De la contre-culture à la cyberculture, Stewart Brand un homme d’influence, Ed, C & F, Paris, 2012, p. 79.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] LE BERCEAU DU WEB, in: https://home.cern/fr/science/computing/birth–web/shorthistory–web (Consulté le 10 Septembre 2023).
[13] DOMANSKI (J. R.), Who governs the internet? The emerging policies, institutions, and governance of cyberspace, Ed, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, 2013, p. 47.
[14] GIBSON, The neuromancer, in, VAN (D,) & BRANTLY (F. A.), Cybersecurity politics, governance and conflict in cyberspace, Ed, polity Press Edition, Cambridge, 2019, p. 25.
[15] DEREKS (R.), Cyberspace and national security, threats, opportunities, and power in a virtual world, Ed, Georgetown University Press, Washington DC, 2012, p. 5.
[16] LE SECRETAIRE À LA DÉFENSE, CHUCK HAGEL, a déclaré que l’armée américaine dépense des milliards de dollars pour intégrer la cyberguerre dans la guerre militaire et prévoit de former une force de 6 000 cyberguerriers d’ici la fin de l’année 2015. Ceci indique que le Pentagone se prépare pleinement à la cyberguerre.
[17] DEMCHAK (CH.) & DOMBROWSKI (P.), “Rise of a cybered westphalian Age’’, Éd, Stralegic Studies Quarterly, Vol, 5, Issue 1, 2011, p. 35.
[18] DEREKS (R.), op. cit., p. 174.
[19] JORDAN (T.), Cyberpower the culture and politics of cyberspace and the internet, Éd, Routledge Taylor & Fancis, New York, 1999, p. 55.
[20] MUELER (M.) & THOMANN (E.), “Sovereignty and cyberspace: Institutions and internet governance”, Colloque International en ligne sous theme, “Internet Governance Project”, [35 min 42 s.], 2018, in: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?vsjD98DDfpe (Consulté le 10 Septembre 2023).