Despite increasing evidence that the recent “cyber attacks” on the US and South Korea may be from traditional mom-and-dad’s-basement hackers (and not terribly innovative ones at that) rather than North Korea… some politicians are still calling for reactions despite the murky nature of who was responsible. (Threat Level)
Given this venue… a question arises: When does a cyber-attack become “violent conflict?”
For good insight into the spectrum of cyber threats... see the Congressional Research Service report Botnets, Cybercrime, and Cyberterrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues (FAS)
UPDATES - 7/12/09:
1) Time asks who's responsible
2) Steve suggested Ian Lustick's take on what constitutes violence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Given this venue… a question arises: When does a cyber-attack become “violent conflict?” "
ReplyDeleteDepends on how one defines violence. Using a purely material definition, it only involves physical coercion. However, Ian Lustick's definition is useful because it focuses on the perceptual uncertainty produced by an action, whether a physical action or not.
A situation or event is violent to the extent that a sudden and drastic increase occurs in the scale of negative values at stake. The more drastic and rapid the increase, the more negative, and the more people who experience this increase, the more violent is the situation or event.
By this definition, cyberattacks are most definitely acts of violence, as they threaten what we value.
Here's the link to Lustick's piece, don't know if its been published yet.
http://www.prio.no/files/file48070_lustick_violdef_foroslo_v2.pdf