http://www.businessweek.com/printer/magazine/cyber-weapons-the-new-arms-race-07212011.html h/t to Liberal Civvy and others who passed this one to me... While it is important to bear in mind that there is a whole new dimension of activity going on regarding computers, networks, and "cyberspace", I get itchy when martial terms are so liberally (no offense, LC) dispensed in articles like this. Its a long piece, uses all the scare words, and vacillates back and forth between truly military use of terms and militaristic euphemisms in a cyber context. When I started working cyberspace topics in earnest last year I quickly derived a drinking game. (Recommend using water for this unless you're looking for a quick drunk.) Everytime the word "cyber" is used in one of these articles (except for cyberspace and CYBERCOM) take a drink. Good way to stay hydrated. (This one has 22, for example). My problem with the profligate use of "weapons", "war", "battles" and the lot in this context is that the laws associated with State on State action are not being applied here. The number of non-State and/or independent actors that could be at work changes the game significantly. Take for instance this leap in the first paragraph: But two people close to the company say that they, as well as national intelligence investigators now looking into the case, suspect something more sinister: a professional heist performed by someone with ties to China or Russia. While that is certainly a very possible assumption, it is far from complete or accurate. Any number of corporate or private concerns, not to mention several other States (who we would normally term as "friendly") are quite capable of taking similar action and for the same reasons. But so what? If it were a Chinese or Russian with direct ties to their government, are we going to launch a retaliation? No. On the other side of this, is "espionage" the same as "war"? And in the case of this event, is a physical attack to take a device the same thing as a "cyber" attack? Where's the line on this? By logical extension, does that mean that hackers are now legitimate military targets at any time? Are hackers actually "cyber weapons" themselves? Is the hiring/employment of a hacker the same as proliferating a weapon? What's really scary is a bunch of commercial concerns "duking it out" in cyberspace without the controls and rules of kinetic, State vs State war (such that it is).
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/_vF6pcaS4gc/cyber-arms-race.html
Posted
Jul 22 2011, 09:52 PM
by
BLACKFIVE