Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Terrorism without Borders
The chief of homeland security said this week that serious threats to cyberspace are on "a par with what this country tragically experienced on 9/11". This was at a technology conference in California with some of the leading professionals. This presents a interesting problem terror without borders ? It is usually very difficult to determine the source of cyber terrorist so as a result we end up with no physical targets to attack, conspirators or the people who where carrying out the terror. So in short this obviously creates some big problems for counter terrorism so ... what do we do? Do we train Internet counter terrorism teams ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
after reading this article, it seems that todays lecture was particularly helpful in understand how we can deal with threats like these. as discussed in lecture, every different kind of terrorism has a different prescription that will work the most effectively against it. though cyber terror does not have the same definitive origin as a terrorist group might, it also does not hold the same tragic implications for society that attacks like 9/11 has. even now, technologies are being created that prevent terrorists from infiltrating government sites and that assist in the tracking of ip addresses. it seems to me that the best way to protect ourselves against the threat of cyber terror is to continue fortifying ourselves through technology. after all, it is a much more distinct and physical border at times when our borders are much too easy to cross.
At least one of the authors we have read earlier in the semester, whose name escapes me, mentioned cyberterrorism and dismissed it as presenting annoyances and disruptions, but not real danger. I think that I would have to agree. Any massive-scale, "Live Free or Die Hard" type of cyber attack seems too far-fetched to be a real worry, and the actual damage that can be done by a virtual attack isn't nearly as significant as more common forms of terrorism, in my opinion.
I would have to agree with Robert. It seems to me that the US could put its efforts into other, more pertinent counter-terrorism areas. I think the US should focus more on trying to win the hearts and minds of supporters of terrorist organizations and try and "drain the swamp" instead of putting time and energy into areas that may pose little threat.
I don't know how probable or possible a large-scale cyber-attack on the United States would be, but apparently Michael Chertoff feels that it is a serious issue. What about the attack conducted by Russia on Estonia? Didn't that cause big problems for the Estonian government?
On a different--but related--note, i think the internet can be a tool for terrorists even if it is not used to launch a cyber-attack. One facet of the 'without borders' aspect of terrorism is the ability of terrorists to reach audiences and sympathizers through the internet. Part of winning hearts and minds is to stifle the radical Islamist message online.
(*please count this towards week 4-7)
The article states that Mr Chertoff was "unashamed in trying to tug at the heart strings." I don't know how much the public sector can do in fighting cyber-terrorism, but I wonder if they are asking for their support to give the public a sense of owning the fight against terror.
This article reminded me what we discussed in class about the domestic public. The government wants the help of the public to fight against terrorism. The government also wants the public to realize that there is a threat. It might be that the government is asking for help from the private sector just to remind the public of the threat of terrorism is still out there and to not forget it.
Post a Comment