Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
'Hacktivism' has emerged as a new phenomenon in the spectrum of cyberconflict and
can be described as electronic disobedience or computerized activism, operating in the
tradition of non-violent direct action and civil disobedience and borrows the tactics of
trespass and blockade from earlier social movements, applying them on the Internet.
Another form of cyberconflict is that asymmetrical war includes not only cyberterrorism
and hacktivism, but also any kind of economic cyber-deception. We suppose that all
these actions cannot be considered as cyberwar but as an international cybercrime.
Thus cyberwar is not a synonym of asymmetric war, though cyberwar in some cases
can use asymmetric operations which will be shown below.
Creating the JTF-CNO will demand army regulations for this cyber-army, similar to
the 'Field Service Regulations', which explains a message by the Washington Post about
the appearance of National Security Presidential Directives (NSPD-16) with the aim of
developing guidelines for offensive cyberwarfare 20 :
x “President Bush has signed a secret directive ordering the government to
develop, for the first time, national-level guidance for determining when and how
the United States would launch cyberattacks against adversary computer
networks, according to administration officials. Similar to strategic doctrine that
has guided the use of nuclear weapons since World War II, the cyber-warfare
guidance would establish the rules under which the USA would penetrate and
disrupt foreign computer systems”.
However we cannot comment on this top-secret document, because we do not want to
be suspected of cyber-espionage and can only cite Mr. Arquilla 21 , who has offered a good
explanation of the NSPD-16:
x “ I think the presidential directive on information warfare is prima facie evidence
of how seriously the government does take cyber warfare. This administration is
suggesting that we need to pull out all the stops to defeat terrorism. It is an
admission, if only a tacit one, that cyberspace-based means of warfare are an
essential part of the campaign against global terrorism.”.
Unfortunately information from the interview by Mr. Arquilla 21 does not give us any
additional data about forms of regulation of cyberattacks allowed in the US cyber-army.
Moreover, in his interview, cyberwar and cyberterrorism are considered as terms with the
same definitional domain. We understand Mr. Arquilla well enough, but suppose that
cyberwar is the Pandora's box, and nobody will be able to stop this phenomenon in
future. Furthermore, we shall attempt to prove our assumption.
x “Before we can realize a proof, we must guess a way by which to realize the
proof”
x D. Polia
S-curve of cyberwar . Let us review directions of development of the cyberwar
conception in the future. For this purpose we shall use the S-curve for cyberwar. Above
we have shown that the stage of development of the S-curve will start after the stage of
formation, i.e. graphically, after a first inflection.
At this stage the theoretical cyberwar-oriented systems will constantly improve and a
potential attacker will have possibilities to use this system in real applications.
But a rate of change of development will begin to decrease after finishing a second
inflection (indefinite, but predictable moment) and the 'saturation' stage will start.
What can happen after that? There are two forms of the next level of the S-curve and,
accordingly, of a cyberwar-oriented system:
Search WWH ::




Custom Search