Judging by the response to a recent wave of cyberattacks that hit two dozen important Web sites in the United States and South Korea, we are already in the Brave New World of cyberwarfare.
The theory that the attacks were launched from North Korea, advanced by some South Korean media and politicians, has not been confirmed. In fact, the amount of effort expended trying to establish a North Korean connection to the cyberattacks, only a few days after North Korea tested a real missile system, demonstrates how easy it is for the public to fall into a cybertrap and disregard more tangible threats.
We saw a similar effect in 2001. Though 3,000 people had died in the terrorist attack of 9/11, public attention was soon consumed by the death of 16 by anthrax sent through the mail. The lesson is that large body counts or spectacular displays of physical force are not necessarily required to capture public attention and cause terror. – post by TransTracker
Whether greater cybersecurity requires a greater sacrifice of our digital freedoms is an important debate that we should be having, preferably with all the facts in front of us.
There is a reason why open-source operating systems based on Linux are less likely to be infected by a virus than proprietary systems like MicrosoftÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Windows: As computer security experts like to say, Ã¢â‚¬Å“given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Point taken about secrecy. But that’s not why attackers don’t typically target Linux systems, it’s because there are so many more Windows systemss to target. – post by TransTracker
Above all, we need to start a broad international debate about cybersecurity. The reason why there is none is that in the absence of hard facts and a modicum of declassified information, such discussions quickly degenerate into a competition of emotional metaphors, meaningless historical parallels and irritating geopolitical blame games. A serious international debate about cybersecurity is impossible if our only reference points are Ã¢â‚¬Å“digital Pearl HarborsÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“e-Katrinas.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Agreed, good, informed decision-making by the public will require the availability of more and better information. One way to promote that might be to conduct an analysis of the “real” threat of cyberwar based on media sources. The question then becomes, “Based on a rigorous analysis of the kind of information currently most commonly available to the public–i.e. one that looks past ‘digital Pearl Harbor’ metaphors and that considers the biases and motivations of those cited by the media as ‘expert’ sources–what conclusions can we reasonably reach about the threat of cyberwar?” My hypothesis is that we would discover that there’s no “there there” to all the hype. BUT, that would NOT necessarily prove that there is no threat from cyberwar. What it would prove is that we can’t/shouldn’t reasonably reach that conclusion as private citizens based on the information available. We would remain open to the possibility of being convinced, but would also convey that we arean’t/can’t be convinced without further proof. – post by TransTracker