Weaponized malware, physical damage, zero casualties – what informal norms are emerging in targeted state sponsored cyber-attacks? : The dynamics beyond causation: an interpretivist-constructivist analysis of the US media discourse regarding offensive cyb

Abstract:  In 2010, the discovery of the malicious computer worm Stuxnet shocked the world by its sophistication and unpredictability. Stuxnet was deemed as the world’s first cyber weapon and started discussions concerning offensive cyber operations – often called “cyber warfare” – globally. Due to Stuxnet, rapid digitalisation and evolving technology, it became vital for decision makers in the US to consider formal norms such as laws, agreements, and policy decisions regarding cyber security. Yet, to obtain a holistic understanding of cyber security, this thesis uses constructivism as its theoretical framework to understand changing informal norms and social factors including the ideas and morals of the US society regarding offensive cyber operations. This thesis critically analyses the discourse of three of the largest US newspapers by circulation: the New York Times, the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. A significant shift was discovered in the US media’s publications and in informal norms regarding offensive cyber operations and the use of cyber weapons in just one decade, by comparing the discourses relating to Stuxnet in 2010 and the US presidential election in 2020. This thesis concludes that it is equally important to consider ideas and morals when researching a technical field such as cyber security by arguing that informal norms guide the choices actors make when developing formal norms at the international level. The findings of this thesis are intended to provoke a normative, urgent, and focused discussion about cyber security. The findings are also intended to shift attention to how language is used in discussions about the cyber sphere, offensive cyber operations and cyber weapons as components of the traditional battlefield.