Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
ers do. Access to specialized tools and knowledge is difficult, but not impossible. As
part of IA justification, you must ask if your organization is a potential target for a
politically motivated action.
13.5.3.5
Information Warfare
Dr. Ivan Goldberg defines information warfare as “the offensive and defensive use
of information and information systems to deny, exploit, corrupt, or destroy, an
adversary's information, information-based processes, information systems, and
computer-based networks while protecting one's own. Such actions are designed
to achieve advantages over military or business adversaries.” “Business is war”
is not a mere tongue-in-cheek aphorism, but rather a more literal reality. War is
about business. Nation-states are formed in large to protect economic interests;
these economic interests take form in commercial enterprises. There is a symbiotic
relationship between commercial enterprise success and the success of the nation.
The motivation of war is more often economics. The targets of war are often civilian
and those that are of economic support to the nation. Targets of war have become
more IT oriented as IT emerges as the center of trade and commerce.
There is justification for IA to protect information and information technology
in a global environment where the paths of commerce are not limited by physical
access. Virtual office fronts enable producers from across the globe to meet con-
sumer demands. Discovering competitive secrets or subverting competition is but
a few mouse-clicks away. Paranoid? Well, it can be. There is a distinction between
paranoid and prudent. Prudent includes performing a risk assessment and risk
analysis that addresses the threat space as well as the asset space. Act as reason and
rationale about facts and assumptions prescribe.
13.5.3.6 Asymmetrical Adversarialism
Symmetrical warfare (adversarialism) means “both sides are (roughly) equally
equipped. It is polite war to a fault, and both sides play by the rules.”
he enemy
is easy to spot—he is that guy lined up over there, across no-man's-land. Even the
Cold War was symmetrical in the sense of a known enemy with rules of engage-
ment, albeit somewhat clandestine.
Asymmetrical adversarialism is a new order of conflict engagement. Though
not a new concept, it is a tactical philosophy adaptable to information technology.
Traditional asymmetric adversarialism is the sniper killing anonymously from a
distance, it is the terrorist striking innocents, and it is the use of an overwhelming
http://www.psycom.net/iwar.2.html (accessed October 2007).
Win Schwartau's
Asymmetrical Adversarialism in National Defense Policy
.
