ARTICLE: "After Computer Siege in Estonia, War Fears Turn to Cyberspace: Attack Struck Country's Digital Infrastructure," by Mark Lander and John Markoff, New York Times, 29 May 2007, p. A1.
Scary and a deep harbinger of things to come?
Sure.
A step backwards security-wise?
Anything but.
Yes, it will cost you money and take on many characteristics, in economic impact, of a blockade, but so long as it remains totally non-kinetic, it's hard to argue this represents some new form of "warfare," but rather its mild virtualization.
Designed to harm, yes. Designed to scare, yes.
But also designed to leave no visible impact. Also designed to be instantly reversible. Also designed not to kill anyone. Also far more easily terminated by negotiations than real war.
I mean, if this is our scary turn to the future, I say it's quite an improvement on what I see whenever the guns come out.
One expert put it well: "Whenever there is political tension, there is a cyber aftermath."
Okay, but why call it war?
Because we like calling everything war. Keeps you scared. Keeps experts in the money.
But here's the key difference: attack me for real and there's real damage. Attack me virtually and I'm forced into better security and resilience.
The former is a complete drain. The latter is a systems improvement.
Sticks and stones versus code? I will take the code.
| Permalink |
