Considering Cyber Attacks & Availibility

In our July/August issue, writer Evgeny Morozov wrote on the instances, capabilities, and possible ramifications of cyber-warfare, while questioning the rules of engagement. This released questions of a pensive, yet still paranoid olfaction: At what point are cyber-attacks considered armed attacks, how feasibly could cyber-terrorism be used as a DHS-esque scare-tactic and if an actual threat, should such attacks to be considered a matter of international law? Comforting was the fact that most hackers are more blackmail artists than they are the chaos loving, movie villain types.

Still, it is easy to fear something we hardly understand. Morozov followed up this piece with a brief analysis of the cyber-scare South Korea, in which he points out the distinct possibility that it was drummed up by politicians as propaganda against North Korea and keeping (already) archaic digital laws intact. With that said, we should not be so naive to think that somewhere down the road, something drastic could not happen. And awareness is growing. Today, threatpost.com posted a digested article based off a Center for Strategic and International Studies report, iterating the point that developed countries (America, most so) are most vulnerable to cyber attacks because of the dependence and numerous ties into digital technology, re: personal information resting on other peoples servers ripe for the hacking.

What these articles fail (or choose not to) show us is what kind of counter strike we would be capable of unleashing. Yes we are most dependent on the Internet, but doesn’t that mean we are also inexorably bound to understand what is coming at us, and innovate? One may counter and say, most Americans have better things to do than write damaging code, but the fact is Americans invented hacking. I say ‘Bring it!’ Easy for me to say, I don’t partake in online banking, nor do have any idea of the consequences of waging cyber-warfare against theAmerican government. Ignorance is bliss, I say. There is a different dynamic than our arms race with Soviet Russia, because this type of engagement is not a matter of accumulating resources, but of preparation and defense. So my simple solution is we (on a government scale) should be allocating money into to prestigious tech schools, teaching Dikembe Mutumbo like defense coding and encryption techniques, or we should start taking the most sensitive information off of web servers and going the floppy-discs protected by ex-ivy league football players holding big guns. Why empower virus writers by giving them the faintest whiff of possible chaos? The more conservative root  is to create more complex web security systems.Yet doesn’t that only encourage an escalation of who can better hack or defend? If someone wants to steal information, make them do it in person. With less access to sensitive material, the chance of espionage inevitable decreases as well.

On a more personal level, I hate feeling like I’m marked on the web as a marketing function and unit with a credit card. And the fact that cyber attacks are entering into the national consciousness (soon to be rhetorical fodder) is almost as scary as the attacks themselves. While FDR would have me believe that there is nothing to fear but fear itself, I’m going to hedge my bets by minimizing my information and accounts on the Internet, and read more books. I like stealing information from those.