Submission + - Behind Cyberwar FUD (belowgotham.com) 1
Nicola Hahn writes: The inevitable occurred this week as The Economist broached the topic
of cyberwar with a couple of articles in its July 3rd issue. Note the dramatic
mushroom cloud
and the intimations of mass destruction. The first
article
concludes that
"countries should agree on more modest accords, or even just informal
'rules of the road' that would raise the political cost of cyber-attacks."
It also makes vague references to "greater co-operation between governments
and the private sector."
When attribution is a lost cause (and it is), international treaties are a meaningless because there’s no way to determine if a participant has broken them. The second recommendation is even more alarming because it’s using a loaded phrase that, in the past couple of years, has been wielded by those who advocate Orwellian solutions.
The following article is a morass of conflicting messages. It presumes to focus on cyberwar, yet the bulk of the material deals with cybercrime and run-of-the-mill espionage. Perhaps this is because the author is grasping for examples to impress the reader with. Then there’s also the standard ploy of hypothetical scenarios: depicting how we might be attacked and what the potential outcome of these attacks could be. The author shows his true colors in closing when he concludes with the ominous warning that terrorists "prefer the gory theatre of suicide-bombings to the anonymity of computer sabotage—for now."
What's truly disturbing is that The Economist never goes beyond a superficial analysis of the topic to examine what’s driving all of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Perhaps that would be dysfunctional, as it might lead the press to investigate itself. To help shed light on what’s taking place in the body politic, check out the following Lockdown 2010 white paper and slide deck. Read through this material and then go back and re-visit the articles in The Economist.
White Paper: Manufacturing Consent & Cyberwar
Slide Deck: Manufacturing Consent & Cyberwar
When attribution is a lost cause (and it is), international treaties are a meaningless because there’s no way to determine if a participant has broken them. The second recommendation is even more alarming because it’s using a loaded phrase that, in the past couple of years, has been wielded by those who advocate Orwellian solutions.
The following article is a morass of conflicting messages. It presumes to focus on cyberwar, yet the bulk of the material deals with cybercrime and run-of-the-mill espionage. Perhaps this is because the author is grasping for examples to impress the reader with. Then there’s also the standard ploy of hypothetical scenarios: depicting how we might be attacked and what the potential outcome of these attacks could be. The author shows his true colors in closing when he concludes with the ominous warning that terrorists "prefer the gory theatre of suicide-bombings to the anonymity of computer sabotage—for now."
What's truly disturbing is that The Economist never goes beyond a superficial analysis of the topic to examine what’s driving all of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Perhaps that would be dysfunctional, as it might lead the press to investigate itself. To help shed light on what’s taking place in the body politic, check out the following Lockdown 2010 white paper and slide deck. Read through this material and then go back and re-visit the articles in The Economist.
White Paper: Manufacturing Consent & Cyberwar
Slide Deck: Manufacturing Consent & Cyberwar