Security in the Cyber Era
Security
in the Cyber Era
Introduction
The debate over a free and unobstructed
internet has been brewing over the last decade as countries have adopted laws
in order to secure its borders. Many countries have adopted draconian laws in
order to ensure that their citizens are protected but the laws restrict the
free flow of information in an effort to keep others from having access to the
country’s inner secrets. How these laws would impact the country’s national
security against terrorism or other attacks is unknown. Yet the increased
demand on the cyber world has made many countries open to any kind of attack
from any source around the world. Terrorism is no long a singular attack
against a specific target, it can now effect targets from multiple arenas with
just the click of a button. The source of the attack may not even be terror
related, it can in the end be one man attempting to reveal how one country is
spying on all the others.
So how does terrorism relate to the
fear of a world where the internet is regulated to the point that companies would
have to obstruct who gets what content? According to Joseph S. Nye Jr.’s
article “Deterrence and Dissuasion in Cyberspace” the “Internet has contributed
some $4 Trillion to the world economy in 2016… In contrast, a mere twenty years
ago, there were only 16 million Internet users, or one-half percent of the
world’s population.”[1] This illustrates the power
that the internet has over the world economy, and where there’s an economy
there’s the possibility of attacks against the structure that holds it up. Nye
further states that “More than 20 billion devices are forecast to be connected
to the “Internet of Things” in the next five years, and some analysts foresee
such hyper connectivity enormously expanding the range of targets for
cyberattack.”[2]
As humans become more dependent on their devices there’s an ongoing threat of
outside sources using it to attack consumers in order to orchestrate an all-out
attack against the public. “Cyberwar can be viewed as the most recent phase in
the ongoing revolution in military affairs. This time, however, the threat is
said to be directed at the sophisticated technological civilizations of the
West, rather than at desert insurgents or the leaders of rogue states with
arsenals of inferior second world military hardware.”[3]
The digital age has created the
possibility of such attacks becoming a possibility and whether the world is
ready for it no one really knows. What many are saying is that the Internet
doesn’t influence terrorism abroad but the theory is out there and the way in
which we share information is rapidly changing. In order to understand these
changing phenomenon’s we have to look at the changes from all side and since
information changes faster today than it had before it makes tracking
cyber-crimes impossible without a precursor to measure it from.
Cyber Crime and Terrorism
Can the Internet become a breeding ground
for terrorism or any form of crimes against a nation? While the debate is
certainly changing as the Internet evolves, many security analysts have stated
that the Internet and terrorist activities are impossible to combine. David
Benson’s article “Why the Internet Is Not Increasing Terrorism,” states,
“Seemingly,
individuals can set up a Facebook profile under any identity, post random
pictures of others as themselves, and thereby remain anonymous; but even in the
face of these concerted efforts, it is very difficult to hide one’s identity.
Long-term anonymity is essentially impossible because actions on the Internet
leave “tracks in the snow” indicating where information comes from and where it
is going… Most importantly, information this seemingly arcane does not require
government-level resources to discover; just-above average knowledge of
computers will suffice.”[4]
According
to Benson because many people can track the activities over the Internet using
indicators such as IP addresses, it is impossible for a terrorist organization
to hide their activities because they would leave behind a footprint that would
be easy to track. One of the many reasons why many terrorist organizations
continue to thrive is with the use of non-traceable means. They use prerecorded
video in order to get their message across while in the background there’s no visual
representation of where an enemy organization would be able to find them. The increased dependency on social media for
the average citizen is something that they don’t desire, and if they use it as
a form to communicate it’s rare unless they give out clues as to where they
could be found. Benson also articulates that,
“the
Internet is not a force multiplier for terrorist organizations. Further, it
shows that state security organs extensively use the Internet to interdict
attacks; terrorist are no more able to complete attacks with the Internet than
without it… However, focusing on the role of the Internet within individual
cases has distorted the conclusions of such studies about the general effects
of the Internet on terrorism”[5] As terrorist
As
an individual case it becomes a different type of attack, but it is still an
attack overall if it can effect a system on a grand scale. Attacks of any kind
can be judged under the law if in the end it results in a physical crime in
which individuals are hurt and terrorist aren’t using these means in order to
carry out these attacks.
The most common attacks that happen
in cyber space generally attack individual citizens through emails and lines of
codes hidden in websites. Cassandra M. Kirsch’s essay, “Science Fiction No
More: Cyber Warfare and the United States,” articulates that “The most common
cyber tools employed by private and state hackers are Structured Query Language
(“SQL”) code injection, Distributed Denial of Service (“DDoS”). And worms.
While many of these cyber tools characterize recent developments in cyber espionage
and the use of each tool alone does not result in damage, their objective and
combined use can quickly breed an atmosphere of war.”[6] Kirsch’s essay is some
ways countering Benson’s in which she believes it is possible to use a
cyber-attack in an act of terrorism as a way to begin what can become warfare.
If a country can be hacked from the outside, it is essentially possible to feed
them false accounts in which can breed hostilities with outside sources. The
same attacks can be used to gain information on countless citizens and used
their identities as a device against a government in order to put them off of
the trail of the attackers. Kirsch also stipulates,
“Although
cyber tools used for espionage activities are often the same tools used to
attack a nation’s computer networks, acts of cyber warfare deviate from their
espionage counterparts by going beyond compromising a computer network. Rather
than passively monitor state activities on a computer network or copy data, a
cyber attack actively “penetrates another nation’s computer systems or networks
for the purposes of causing damage or disruption.”[7]
By
using the invisible lines of the internet, they can essentially attack a
government without so much as walking out the door. Yet most terrorist groups
tend to attack countries near their own locations while taking credit for
attacks in other countries even when the perpetrator isn’t a direct affiliate.
Most of the time this happens if the perpetrator of the attack a lines
themselves with the intentions of the terrorist group. Outside of that most of
the attacks that have occurred from terrorist organizations towards a direct
target, has been within the borders of their own nation or the surrounding
regions.
With the focus of attacks and the
threat of cyber terror as a plot Erik Gartzke’s “the Myth of Cyberwar: Bringing
War in Cyberspace Back Down to Earth,” Gartzke tries to describe how a
terrorist organization’s need to have their attacks at the forefront with their
names at the center. Gartzke writes that,
“The
focus is again on the potential for harm, rather than on exploring the motives
and operational logic of perpetrators. If internet anonymity is awkward for
targets of attacks, it is also a problem for initiators. Terrorists spend as
much time marketing their exploits as they do fighting, bombing, assassinating,
and so on. Where anonymity protects an aggressor from retribution, it also
dilutes credit for the deed. Vandals often “tag” their handiwork—creating an
identity where none need exist—precisely because real anonymity means not
receiving credit for one’s handiwork. Internet vandals also brand their
exploits, presumably because they wish to receive credit for their exploits,
even at some risk to their anonymity.”[8]
Terrorist
organizations thrive on being able to get credit on the world’s stage for any
attacks that result in either loss of life or disruption in the lives of the
people within the country of attack. The threat of a cyber-attack as a use of
warfare by a terrorist organization is probable but in the end without the
proper resources and connection it makes it impossible for an organization to
coordinate that type of attack against a foreign entity when every move they
make could be traced right back to them. Computers and cellular devices are
traceable, and easily trackable when the foreign country knows how to track it.
Gartzke also notes that, “There is a significant fault, however, in the theme
of impending cyber apocalypse: it is far from clear that conflict over the
internet can actually function as war.”[9] As a function for war, and
when an organization can block their location it can become an effective tool
in the threat of a higher form of warfare against another country. “Treating
cyberspace as an operational domain is an excellent idea, but doing so quickly
reveals differences between internet conflict and warfare on land, sea, in the
air, or in space. Deterring or even defending against cyberattack may prove
difficult, as others have argued, but it will prove much harder still for an
attacker to figure out how to benefit from internet aggression, unless
cyberattacks occur in conjunction with attacks in other domains.”[10] How do you defend against
an unknown entity? As the treats rise in cyberwarfare countries have begun to
start from the ground up as a way to combat it, by starting with laws in order
to prevent attacks from happening.
Net Neutrality and Worldwide Policing of the Internet
As the internet platform grows so does the
efforts of governments around the world trying to police the invincible lines
of information that is constantly streaming. Social media websites are the most
well-known places where people connect and express their views. Websites like
Facebook and Youtube are places in which many people showcase their lives,
crafts and personal views on everything from the latest celebrity gossip to
their opinions on the current headline news. Yet “Talk of a “cyber-Pearl
Harbor” first appeared in the 1990s. Since then, there have been warnings that
hackers could contaminate the water supply, disrupt the Financial system, and
send airplanes on collision courses.”[11] Even though some have
said that the Internet isn’t increasing the chance of a terrorist attack,
there’s still the possibility of someone using it as a gateway towards a bigger
attack. With that threat many countries have begun legislation on making the
internet a safer place, but many of these laws can have effects of Orwellian
proportions.
“Out
of fear that terrorism is a threat and the Internet makes it stronger,
governments have established new bureaucracies and passed laws that are
expensive, far reaching, and intrusive. Entire corporations, operating both
independently of and in cooperation with governments, have been established for
the primary purpose of collecting information surrounding terrorism on the
Internet. Mere possession of Internet-derived materials, some of which
terrorism experts themselves have in their possession, has been used to convict
people of terrorism-related offenses.”[12]
Many
of the laws that are being passed are coined to say that they were made to
combat cyber terrorism and terrorist in their countries. Yet what are the cost
of imposing some of these laws and towards whom are they targeting? Information
based on terrorism is being collected but there is always the possibility of
the government, or the Federal Communications Commission using their power over
the individual rights of the people in order to gain knowledge of what a person
does in their private lives.
In the United States these laws
began with a communications law that was enacted decades before wireless
internet was even a possibility. The Communications Act of 1934, was created as
a way for companies to have better prices as well as making sure that they did
not discriminate towards those who brought the product. The law itself was
broken up into Title I and Title II, when the internet became a driving force
in the world it had been under Title I which most argued stifled the free flow
of creativity. At the beginning of the
new millennia the same law was used to police the internet, and so many
proponents decided to advocate in favor of having the Internet become
classified under Title II which is the same venue in which phones are
categorize. Suring the hearing “Ensuring Competition on the Internet Net
Neutrality and Antitrust,” on February of 2011 fears of monopolizing the
freedom of the service. “This Committee has long been concerned on a bipartisan
basis about allegations and fears that the incumbent telephone and cable
companies who provide a majority of this country’s Internet service could abuse
their power in the Internet service market to discriminate against certain
website content or platforms to anticompetitive effect.”[13] Monopolies in the United
States are against the law, and the fear of a single company controlling the
Internet and the flow of information is something that needed to be looked
into. Without a free market it could become possible for a terrorist
organization or even the government itself to control the information in which
people see.
Net Neutrallity isn’t without it’s
oponents one of which is the new head of the Federal Communications Commission
Chairman Ajit Pai, who has proposed to overturn Net Neutrality. On the FCC
website it states that
“The
FCC has proposed to return the U.S. to the bipartisan, light-touch regulatory
framework under which a free and open Internet flourished for almost 20 years.
The FCC's May 2017 proposal to roll back the prior Administration's heavy-handed
Internet regulation strives to advance the FCC's critical work to promote
broadband deployment in rural America and infrastructure investment throughout
the nation, to brighten the future of innovation both within networks and at
their edge, and to close the digital divide.”[14]
These
proposed changes were made after the new presidential administration took
office, as a way to overturn what they saw as heavy-handed regulations made
under the Obama administration when they moved the regulation from Title I to
Title II of the Communications Act. This was also done as a way to move the
authority over the internet to the Federal Trade Commission which is an agency
that’s primary objective is to protect the consumer. Maureen K. Ohlhausen wrote
the article “Antitrust Over Net Neutrality: Why we Should Take Competition in
Broadband Seriously,” that, In 2015, the FCC subjected broadband Internet
service providers to Title II regulation. It did so to enforce net neutrality
rules, which require ISPs (internet service providers) to treat all content on
their networks equally. The principal justification is to prevent ISPs, in delivering
content to their subscribers, from favoring their own content or that of other
creators who pay for “fast lanes.” Should such discrimination flourish—the
concern goes—ISPs
could
relegate disfavored content providers to second-tier modes of access to consumers,
degrading competition.”[15] The article further
argues that those proponents too easily dismiss antitrust laws as well as how
to protect the consumers and the conflicts over whether ISP’s are really
competitive.
The problem with those who are against
Net Neutrality lies in where other countries are taking their internet rules
after it was revealed that the United States spying program was revealed by
Edward Snowden in 2013. Countries like China have now created laws in which
outside companies might be penalized if the information of their citizens were
shared with another government. "Those who violate the provisions and
infringe on personal information will face hefty fines."[16] The law itself was created in a way to combat
terrorism within the country, as well as attacks on its citizens. Yet the law
also monitors what content that those who live within the country can view and
share with others. Websites are monitored from the inside and companies are
required to house the browser information of its citizens. The question is
whether the United States is attempting to follow suit or if taking down Net
Neutrality means that they would be able to sell the information of the people
to the highest bidder.
Conclusion
Whether terrorism is influenced by the
internet, or if laws are made to protect or harm the citizens of the country is
something that has become a topic where everyone is clearly divided. Those who
favor Net Neutrality favor a free flow of information, whereas those who wish
to regulate it want to control the content in which the people would be able to
access. It’s a topic at the forefront of whether terrorism is possible in the
internet age and if the information we as citizen read and share influences
terrorism around the world. IP addresses are traceable and make it impossible
for terrorist to be able to create an event that would devastate a country but
as time changes and people learn to use the internet it becomes a probability.
One hundred years ago we couldn’t have foreseen this kind of act, but as the
digital age continues and people become more dependent on technology it becomes
a possibility that one day it may happen.
Bibliography
Benson,
David C. “Why the Internet Is Not Increasing Terrorism,” Security Studies, 23
(2014);
293-329.
“China to implement cyber security law from
Thursday,” available from
“Ensuring
Competition on the Internet Net Neutrality and Antitrust – February 15, 2011
Serial
No. 112-13” available from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg64583/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg64583.pdf accessed 5 July
2017
Gartzke,
Erik. “The Myth of Cyberwar: Bringing War in Cyberspace Back Down to Earth,”
International Security, Vol. 38 No.2 (Fall
2013); 41-73.
Kirsch,
Cassabdra M. “Science Fiction No More: Cyber Warfare and the United States,”
Denver
Journal of International Law & Policy,
Vol. 40 No. 2(Fall 2012); 620-647.
Ney
Jr, Joseph S.. “Deterrence and Dissuasion in Cyberspace,” International
Security, Vol. 41
No. 3 (Winter 2016/17); 44-71.
Ohlhausen,
Maureen K. “Antitrust Over Net Neutrality: Why we Should Take Competition in
Broadband Seriously,” available from https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1054963/ohlhausen_cotechjournal.pdf accessed 17 July
2017.
accessed 5 July 2017.
[1] Joseph
S. Ney Jr. “Deterrence and Dissuasion in Cyberspace,” International Security,
Vol. 41 No. 3 (Winter 2016/17); 44.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Erik
Gartzke, “The Myth of Cyberwar: Bringing War in Cyberspace Back Down to Earth,”
International Security, Vol. 38 No.2 (Fall 2013); 41
[4] David C.
Benson, “Why the Internet Is Not Increasing Terrorism,” Security Studies, 23
(2014); 304.
[5] Ibid; 295-296.
[6]
Cassabdra M. Kirsch, “Science Fiction No More: Cyber Warfare and the United
States,” Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, Vol. 40 No. 2(Fall
2012); 625.
[7] Ibid;
623.
[8] Erik
Gartzke, “The Myth of Cyberwar: Bringing War in Cyberspace Back Down to Earth,”
International Security, Vol. 38 No.2 (Fall 2013); 46-47
[9] Ibid;
42.
[10] Ibid;
44.
[11] Ney Jr.
“Deterrence and Dissuasion in Cyberspace,” 45.
[12] Benson,
“Why the Internet Is Not Increasing Terrorism,”; 293-294.
[13]
“Ensuring Competition on the Internet Net Neutrality and Antitrust – February
15, 2011 Serial No. 112-13” available from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg64583/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg64583.pdf accessed
5 July 2017
[14]
“Restoring Internet Freedom” available from https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom accessed
5 July 2017
[15] Maureen
K. Ohlhausen “Antitrust Over Net Neutrality: Why we Should Take Competition in
Broadband Seriously,” available from https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1054963/ohlhausen_cotechjournal.pdf accessed
17 July 2017
[16] “China
to implement cyber security law from Thursday,” available from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-cyber-law-idUSKBN18P0G9 accessed
17 July 2017
Comments
Post a Comment