Talk:Cyberterrorism/Archive 1

message: Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 2 to July 8 2004, consensus was to keep.  Discussion:
Non-term in fanciful use at one speculation-laden web page. - David Gerard 20:12, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

message: I think Cyberterrorist should probably be merged into this article in the same way terrorist seems to have been merged into terrorism. I'm also surprised at all the discussion just trying to pin down the meaning of this term, there is a dictionary definition. As for the VFD the article is probably needed just as much to describe it's use in fiction as it is to describe it in reality. --FlooK 16:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Cyberterrorist

message: Thanks Eleland for the worthy additions to this stub article! I have attempted to merge your text with previous material, as it is always better to "merge" that to "replace". --Zappaz 01:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dec 6 additions 

message: 129.173.131.89/129.173.131.90 recently added a lot of well-written, detailed and well-referenced information to the article.  Unfortunately, a little bit of Googling shows that rather than being a well-written summary of the information contained in the referenced sources, at least some of it is straight word-for-word copying from those referenced sources.  I've reverted the changes; hopefully we can separate out what was copied from anything that was original and rewrite the copyvios. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvios removed from article 

message: The writer above claims to be a security professional, but does not give any identification.  Before making my own comments, I will identify myself.  My name is Shane Martin Coughlan, and I have done reseach into Cybernetic Warfare at the University of Birmingham (http://www.bham.ac.uk/polsis) for my MA degree.  The final paper that I produced on this subject, creation a definition of Cyber Warfare, can be found online at http://www.shaneland.co.uk/ewar.
I have experience in the analysis of information warfare, cyber warefare, cyber terrorism and all the other terms that have been appearing in recent years.  C4I is my speciality, though cyber warfare is something I have payed attention to.  My ex-fellow students work in many fields, including anti-terrorism in Japan (Yokohama), and in military analysis for the Chinese department of defence in the PRC.
Terrorism is causing "terror" to force people to act in a certain way.  It's a way of pushing people, especially in situations where you (the terrorist) have less power than them (the people).  It is a form of control or manipulation.  Cyber terrorism might reasonably be expected to effective utilisation of informaton technology to meet these type of aims.  It could take many forms in itself, though logically attacks on large services (power, air traffic control) would be the most effective actions of any potential cyber terrorist. 
People commenting above (on both sides) are making mistakes with regards conceptualising what is terrorism, and what is cyber.  And with thinking about how the two can or will be combined to attain certain goals.
A suggestion:
The article needs to be explicit about how the term cyber terrorism is misused by the media as a tagline.
The article needs to be more complete, contextualising cyber terrorism as a subset of terrorism with a focus on asymmetrical control of information space.
The article needs to contextualise itself with regards other uses of cyber technology for destructive aims (eg cyber warfare).
I would be happy to do this, and create an article on cyber warfare.  What do you guys think?
:You seem to be conflating two different things, Shane.  You move from "utilisation of informaton technology" to "control of information space".  Since "information technology" means computerized infrastructure, this matches the conventional usage of the term 'cyber-terrorism'.  "Control of information space", however, seems like it might be broadening the definition so that suddenly it includes "This person used the Internet to say something which would cause the faithful to question our great guru!"  As ridiculous as it sounds, there are people who have actually tried to broaden it in exactly this fashion, so that whistleblowers can be tarred as "Internet terrorists".  While it's not impossible to imagine acts that really do qualify as terrorism that utilize only actual information transmission -- the equivalent of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s "shouting fire in a crowded theater" -- it is worth noting that the judicial test of "clear and present danger" which was set by the same case was overturned back in 1951. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyber terrorism is really a matter of perspective 

message: This article amazes me for its lack of sources, given the multiple editors who continue to tweak this article.  A new action-star-battles-cyber-terrorists movie stands on the horizon, and history tells us a blockbuster movie will pique the media's interest in the topic.  This is what people will find when they search for "cyber-terrorism"?  This is what will be edit-locked for a short time?  I worry that moviegoers will wonder "how old was the child who wrote this essay?"  Ah, well.  Perhaps the movie producers will hire someone to edit this article in an effort to spruce up the importance of cyber-terrorism... Rob Rosenberger 05:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four years later and it still lacks sources?