Director and I diverge is in the efficacy of the cyberterrorist threat as opposed to that of everyday terrorist use of the Net (that is, for radicalization, researching and planning, financing, and other purposes).

Dorothy Denning’s definitions of cyberterrorism are probably the most well known and respected. Her most recent attempt at defining cyberterrorism is: “…[H]ighly damaging comput-er-based attacks or threats of attack by non-state actors against information systems when conducted to intimidate or coerce governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are political or social. It is the convergence of terrorism with cyberspace, where cyberspace becomes the means of conducting the terrorist act. Rather than committing acts of violence against persons or physical property, the cyberterrorist commits acts of destruction or disruption against digital property.” 2

ILLUS TRATION B Y JON HAN

Analyses of cyberterrorism can be
divided into two broad categories on
the basis of where the producers stand
on the definition issue: those who
agree broadly with Denning versus
those who wish to incorporate not just
use, but a host of other activities into
the definition. The literature can also
be divided on the basis of where the
authors stand on the magnitude of the
cyberterrorism threat. Dunn-Cavelty
uses the term “Hypers” to describe
those who believe a cyberterrorist at-
tack is not just likely, but imminent,b
and the term “De-Hypers” to describe
those who believe such an attack is
unlikely. 1 Most journalists are hypers,
on the other hand I’m emphatically a
de-hyper. In this column, I lay out the
three major reasons why.

three Arguments Against cyberterrorism

In my opinion, the three most compelling arguments against cyberterrorism are:

˲ ˲ The argument of Technological Complexity;

˲ ˲ The argument regarding 9/11 and the Image Factor; and

˲ ˲ The argument regarding 9/11 and the Accident Issue.

 

b See, for an exemplary example, journalist Dan Verton’s Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyberterrorism. McGraw-Hill, New York, 2003.

The first argument is treated in the academic literature; the second and third arguments are not, but ought to be. None of these are angles to which journalists appear to have devoted a lot of thought or given adequate consideration.

In the speech mentioned earlier, FBI Director Mueller observed “ Terrorists have shown a clear interest in pursuing hacking skills. And they will either train their own recruits or hire outsiders, with an eye toward combining physical attacks with cyber attacks.” That may very well be true, but the argument from Technological Complexity underlines that ‘ wanting’ to do something is quite different from having the ability to do the same. Here’s why:

Violent jihadis’ IT knowledge is not superior. For example, in research carried out in 2007, it was found that of a random sampling of 404 members of violent Islamist groups, 196 ( 48.5%) had a higher education, with information about subject areas available for 178 individuals. Of these 178, some 8 ( 4.5%) had trained in computing, which means that out of the entire sample,