Wiki Page: Difference between revisions
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
September 11th left us all crying for better surveillance against the "bad guys." In order to appease various civil liberties groups in the U.S. dealings in cyber espionage and warfare have been somewhat "under the table," until now. It will be interesting to see whether Americans will be willing to forego privacy in the interest of security. | September 11th left us all crying for better surveillance against the "bad guys." In order to appease various civil liberties groups in the U.S. dealings in cyber espionage and warfare have been somewhat "under the table," until now. It will be interesting to see whether Americans will be willing to forego privacy in the interest of security. | ||
=== Surveillance | === Surveillance, September 11th and Civil Liberties=== | ||
Is it ethical for the U.S. to spy on suspected terrorists? Should the U.S. have been able to reconstruct cellular phone calls from that fatal crash on September 11th? Are we glad that we had the ability to do this? Does this scare anyone? Many issues such as this will have to be resolved in order to move forward as a country in the coming months. | Is it ethical for the U.S. to spy on suspected terrorists? Should the U.S. have been able to reconstruct cellular phone calls from that fatal crash on September 11th? Are we glad that we had the ability to do this? Does this scare anyone? Many issues such as this will have to be resolved in order to move forward as a country in the coming months. | ||
Despite the lack of hard evidence on the nature or identities of cyber terrorists, however, the threat is deemed serious enough for the White House to allocate $6bn (£3bn) for strengthening its systems against attack. | |||
Those plans have been characterised by critics as a potential invasion of civil liberties. Bush administration officials say they are a necessary defensive measure. Homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff has called it "one area where we have significant work to do". | |||
Despite the lack of hard evidence on the nature or identities of cyber terrorists, however, the threat is deemed serious enough for the White House to allocate $6bn (£3bn) for strengthening its systems against attack. | |||
Those plans have been characterised by critics as a potential invasion of civil liberties. Bush administration officials say they are a necessary defensive measure. Homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff has called it "one area where we have significant work to do". | |||
=== U.S. Government policy and concerns === | === U.S. Government policy and concerns === | ||
Revision as of 02:47, 5 August 2008
Cyber Warfare
Cyber Terrorism is defined as “The premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threat thereof, against computers and/or networks, with the intention to cause harm or further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives. Or to intimidate any person in furtherance of such objectives.”This definition was created by Kevin G. Coleman of the Technolytics Institute
Study Guide
The new rules of war
Much comment has been made about the ethics of cyber warfare, or disabling an enemy's resources or information through malicious use of a computer. The United States Government is quickly adapting its policy and trying to become a cyber-warfare superpower while also making sure that they don't violate the civil liberties of both citizens and non-citizens. It seems that the definition of the enemy has become blurred. While it is generally accepted that the government is able to spy on any data transmitted over the net, much debate remains over whether this is ethical.
September 11th left us all crying for better surveillance against the "bad guys." In order to appease various civil liberties groups in the U.S. dealings in cyber espionage and warfare have been somewhat "under the table," until now. It will be interesting to see whether Americans will be willing to forego privacy in the interest of security.
Surveillance, September 11th and Civil Liberties
Is it ethical for the U.S. to spy on suspected terrorists? Should the U.S. have been able to reconstruct cellular phone calls from that fatal crash on September 11th? Are we glad that we had the ability to do this? Does this scare anyone? Many issues such as this will have to be resolved in order to move forward as a country in the coming months.
Despite the lack of hard evidence on the nature or identities of cyber terrorists, however, the threat is deemed serious enough for the White House to allocate $6bn (£3bn) for strengthening its systems against attack.
Those plans have been characterised by critics as a potential invasion of civil liberties. Bush administration officials say they are a necessary defensive measure. Homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff has called it "one area where we have significant work to do".
Despite the lack of hard evidence on the nature or identities of cyber terrorists, however, the threat is deemed serious enough for the White House to allocate $6bn (£3bn) for strengthening its systems against attack.
Those plans have been characterised by critics as a potential invasion of civil liberties. Bush administration officials say they are a necessary defensive measure. Homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff has called it "one area where we have significant work to do".
U.S. Government policy and concerns
National security is becoming progressively more dependent on and identified with assets related to the "information revolution." As part of this revolution, both defense and civilian activities are becoming more heavily dependent on computers and communications, and a variety of key information systems are becoming more densely and extensively interlinked. With the many benefits of the information revolution have also come vulnerabilities. Civilian data encryption and system protection are rudimentary. Talented computer hackers in distant countries may be able to gain access to large portions of the information infrastructure underlying both U.S. economic well-being and defense logistics and communications. Current or potential adversaries may also gain access through foreign suppliers to the software encoded in U.S. transportation and other infrastructure systems. We could thus one day see actions equivalent to strategic attack on targets of national value within the U.S. homeland and on essential national security components and capabilities. In short, there will exist the capability for strategic information warfare.
International policy and concerns
"Today’s weapon of choice for terrorists remains the AK-47, the car bomb, and the rocket. But terrorists looking for a bigger impact will increasingly turn to weapons of mass destruction and cyberterrorism." - Ambassador Michael Sheehan, US Coordinator for Counterterrorism
Just how much impact did the Internet have on foreign policy decisions relating the war? It clearly had a part in the political discoursetaking place, and it was exploited by activists seeking to alter foreign policy decisions. It also impacted military decisions. While NATO targeted Serb media outlets carrying Milosovic's propaganda, it intentionally did not bomb Internet service providers or shut down the satellite links bringing the Internet to Yugoslavia. Policy instead was to keep the Internet open. James P. Rubin, spokesman for the U.S. State Department, said "Full and open access to the Internet can only help the Serbian people know the ugly truth about the atrocities and crimes against humanity being perpetrated in Kosovo by the Milosevic regime."2 Indirectly, the Internet may have also affected public support for the war, which in turn might have affected policy decisions made during the course of the conflict.
Effects of Cyber-Terrorism
Cyberterrorism can have a serious large-scale influence on significant numbers of people. It can weaken countries' economy greatly, thereby stripping it of its resources and making it more vulnerable to military attack.
Cyberterror can also affect internet-based businesses. Like brick and mortar retailers and service providers, most websites that produce income (whether by advertising, monetary exchange for goods or paid services) could stand to lose money in the event of downtime created by cyber criminals.
As internet-businesses have increasing economic importance to countries, what is normally cybercrime becomes more political and therefore "terror" related.
Bibliography
Definitions
• Strategic Information Warfare: A New Face of War Rand Corporation: Roger C. Molander, Andrew S. Riddile, and Peter A. Wilson
• Strategic War...In Cyberspace (an abstract) Rand Corporation: Roger C. Molander, Andrew S. Riddile, and Peter A. Wilson
• Strategic Information Warfare and Defense The Commonwealth Institute
Ethical implications
• IASIW
• U.S. Military Grapples with Cyber Warfare Rules Reuters
U.S. Government policy and concerns
• National Infrastructure Protection Center
• Countering the New Terrorism RAND Corporation
• Clinton orders 'cyber-sabotage' to oust Serb leader Philip Sherwill, Sasa Nikolic, and Julius Strauss]
• The USA Patriot Act 107th Congress
Cyber espionage hits home
• Electronic Privacy Information Center
International policy and concerns
• IWS - The Information Warfare Site Wanja Eric Naef
Source Files
Title: Cyber Warfare