Talk:Cyberterrorism/Archive 1

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)

• Actually, it's a common buzzword, especially in the late '90s. I got 98,000 google hits (try the alternate spelling "cyberterrorism"). Keep and cleanup. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Very common term, especially when the government starts saying stuff about computer security. Give it a round on cleanup. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep & clean: Common term, though I'm afraid that it will just be a definition. In the US, there have been multiple news accounts of this or that person (including Richard Clarke) being the "cyber-terrorism Czar." If someone can construct a history of the concerns and a state of the art on its role in government, it would be a great article to feed into other wiki links. It would need to be a labor of love from someone working in IT security. Geogre 00:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Cleanup, expand and keep. Exploding Boy 01:10, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, not in dire need of cleaning either (I think) Lussmu 15:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep; I've heard it often enough in the past that I believe it's a real term worth defining/documenting. -- pne 16:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've heard this bantered around quite a bit on TV since those gruesome execution videos have been hitting the internet. - Lucky 6.9 19:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Might unfortunately become more than a buzzword if the next generation of computer viruses materialize... --Alexandre 09:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. There's nothing fanciful about the term and it's used by security professionals. David appears to have missed the other 50,000 or so Google hits for the term and the estimated 1,700 hits on the US government sites in the .gov domain, including the one at the US Computer Emergency Readiness Team, which handles the initial US government responses to cyber-terrorist incidents. Jamesday 21:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discusion

Merge with Cyberterrorist

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)

Dec 6 additions

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)

Re-added text lost to the redirect from Internet-terrorism

Sorry fellows, I missed the VfD... The text that was deleted was sourced from the provided citacions in the refrences section and should stay. I have re-aded some of the text as well as the refs. As I am sure that some of you will disagree, please state the reasons and lets discuss them. -- Zappaz 05:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the VfD summed it up all adequately. (pauses, waits for the shrill squawk of "I am not talking to you" to die down) Even with the vast and probably never-to-be-solved disagreement on what the definition of terrorism is, so-called "Internet terrorism" fails to meet "the only general characteristic generally agreed upon [...] that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence." Now can you find a "scholar" who will say instead that terrorism is characterized by sending a message, and therefore everything which sends a message is terrorism (instead of, say, free speech)? I'm certain you can; you can probably find a "scholar" who argues by similar logic that bats are birds, since flying is characteristic of birds. This does not mean it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

Not a single vote was cast for "keep" or for "merge and redirect". The only votes were for "redirect" or for outright "delete". Why, precisely, do you feel yourself entitled to unilaterally turn that decision into "merge and redirect"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because sometimes VfD voters do not read the references. The references I provided (I originated the Internet terrorism article) warrant their inclusion, VfD or not VfD. I am re-addding the text. I have place this on RfC. --Zappaz 05:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Please write your comments below:

The text that is being debated here seems to be

---

Cyber-terrorism is also discussed in the context of Cyberspace as the use or misuse of information dissemination for terrorist purposes.

Although Terrorism is generally defined as the use of violence, for political reasons, against non-military targets, some scholars¹, ²argue that terrorism is most successful when its message reaches a large public, much larger than the circle of those actually harmed by it. By inference, people or groups that use the Internet for the systematic spreading of information aimed at harassing, damaging or destroying the business of corporations or the public standing of political and religious figures, could be accused of cyber-terrorism.

==References==

1. Denning, Dorothy E., and Peter J. Denning (ed.). Internet Besieged: Countering Cyberspace Scofflaws. New York: ACM Press, 1998
2. Introvigne, Massimo. So Many Evil Things: Anti-Cult Terrorism via the Internet. 1999 [1]

---

Considering the emotional overtones of "terrorism", and the fact that words like "slander", "libel", and "smear campaign" already cover the activities quite nicely, I don't think we should include this unless the use of "internet terrorism" is much wider-spread than the two references cited. --Carnildo 06:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A minor note: "slander", "libel" and "smear campaign" all assume that the information that's being distributed is false, something that is not true of '"Internet terrorism"'. In order to say someone is committing slander or libel, you have to first show that the information they distributed was false, and then you have to show that they either knew it was false or acted with malicious disregard for whether it was true or false. In order to hurl an accusation of "Internet terrorism", the only qualification is: you distributed information on the Internet, and it was perceived as damaging someone's reputation. Did you help to spread the revelations about all the misdeeds committed at Enron and WorldCom? You're an Internet terrorist; even if you told no more and no less than the truth, your reporting of the facts about what those corporations did to make an illegal buck is "Internet terrorism". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your interpretation of that paragraph is rather surprising. --Zappaz 05:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not terribly surprised that you're surprised; you may never have asked yourself whether there were any problems with Introvigne's formulation of "Internet terrorism" at all, let alone looked for the specific problem of it being uselessly broad. But the fact is that it is; there is absolutely nothing in the definition which separates the "Internet terrorist" from a whistleblower, who's distributing information about the misdeeds of a corporation or public figure because it's all true information and deserves to be known. It amounts to a lettre du cachet; without having to actually argue against the accusations of critics, you can simply smear them with the label of "well-known to be an Internet terrorist" -- counting on your audience not knowing that every critic who uses the Internet falls under the uselessly broad definition of that emotionally loaded neologism. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A "smear campaign" can work just as well with the truth as with lies; it just needs to be conducted with the purpose of harming someone's reputation. And at least in British common law, the fact that something's the truth is not a sufficient defense against a libel/slander charge. --Carnildo 01:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's true; I should have specified that it's in American law that charges of slander and libel absolutely require that the charges be false. (All the more reason, though, why the concept of "saying bad things" doesn't need to be covered under the title of "Internet terrorism".) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The text does not talk about slander or libel. It talks of the systematic spreading of information aimed at harassing, damaging or destroying'. --Zappaz 06:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And that differs from a smear campaign how? --Carnildo 06:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, gentlemen, this passage is based in two solid references that I provided. Please remember the policy about Wikipedia:No original research. --Zappaz 05:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And I repeat: Does the term have wider use than those two articles? I recently removed someone's paragraph about a high-school "Scientific Investigations" class from the SI article, on the grounds that it was not a significant enough use of the abbreviation to warrent a mention. That usage was probably wider-spread than the use of "Internet Terrorism", if those two articles are the only appearance. --Carnildo 06:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Denning book, as far as I can tell from its online summaries, is about system intrusion, which is the subject of the current article. So that leaves Introvigne as the only cite for "Internet terrorism" in the novel and slippery sense of "being strongly critical of someone via the internet."

A quick Usenet search will show that Introvigne's hands are not clean and his interest in these matters goes well beyond the academic. (I encourage you to do the search, but one group he has labelled as "terrorists" responded here). I do not believe that this article should become a vehicle for Introvigne's personal views on the issue of cults. Gazpacho 13:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I voted to delete 'Internet Terrorism', which is where the above paragraph came from. I believe that it's wrong on several levels, although very quickly one crashes into the age-old problem of definining terrorism. My simplest objection to the paragraph is therefore that it's logically flawed; the second sentence follows on from the first sentence reasonably enough, but the first sentence is broken.

Terrorism is not simply defined as "the use of violence, for political reasons, against non-military targets". Terrorism is the organised use of violence or the substantive threat of violence, outside the context of formal warfare, for the purposes of achieving a political goal with destruction, death, fear and intimidation. The use of violence differentiates it from propaganda; the aim of causing fear and intimidation sets it apart from guerilla warfare or sabotage; the fact of a political goal sets it apart from gangsterism.

Without violence, therefore, the 'cyber terrorism' described in the second sentence of the paragraph above is more like activism; under the definition above, the various nasty rumours which pop up on Snopes [2] (such as "Starbucks refuses to serve US soldiers", "KFC outlets in poor inner-cities sell poisoned food") would be defined as 'cyber-terrorism'.

Putting on my queen bitch hat, and having read through Massimo Introvigne's article - which, I will warn you in advance, contains the phrase "socially constructed notion" quite near the top, and uses 'cyberspace' without irony - the impression I get is of someone who is being paid by the word. In fact, the more I read the more I come to despise Massimo; not for any of the beliefs attributed to him by the various ranting anti-Massimo sites, which are themselves despicable, but because of the overweening self-regard, the dripped Taki-like self-importance of having one's own 'Center' on which to publish lengthy, unedited drivel. I picture the man introducing himself as "Massimo Introvigne, director of CESNUR". The 'about' page mentions a pan-global network of scholars and uses the plural throughout, but the only names which appear are Massimo's and one 'Olivier-Louis Seguy', who doesn't seem to have done much of note. I realise that I am now playing the man, not the ball, but I really do believe that the above paragraph would belong more on one of the other articles I have mentioned above. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Introvigne is not the not the only one that has raised this issue. There is Jeffery Hadden and Douglas Cowan Anti-Cult Terrorism via the Internet Revisited. There is also Jean-François Mayer's paper. Clearly Introvigne has rubbed some people the wrong way, including Ashely above. That does not mean that the use of Internet terrorism in this context of does not deserve a mention in this article: Anti-cultist have and are using the Internet (including our dear project) for activities that fall within this category. --Zappaz 03:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so when you say "well-referenced" what you really mean is "it fits my particular point of view; I have seen my group criticized and I want to artificially promote that to 'Internet terrorism.'" Hmmmmm... it seems to me that there's a certain group that's taken a lot of criticism on Wikipedia, their name rhymes with "ex-squeamies", and certainly there's been an organized campaign to distribute information aimed at harassing them and destroying their standing. Now, the posters who are constantly reiterating the chant of "they're a hate group; they're a hate group; anyone who even wants them to be dealt with fairly is disgusting" would of course claim that the information they distribute is true and that it must be distributed regardless of whether any credible source corroborates it -- but according to Introvigne, "Internet terrorism" has nothing to do with truth or falsity! So clearly I can name a dozen "Internet terrorists" working on Wikipedia trying to harass and destroy the "ex-squeamies".

Let's get rid of this hokum. It doesn't deserve to be mentioned on Wikipedia except perhaps in Doublespeak. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, if the activities in question are somehow specific to cults (as the citations indicate they are), then the cult article is the appropriate place to mention them. Gazpacho 07:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Gazpacho (my favorite soup, BTW). I will place these in Cult and/or New religious movements.

I must disagree with Gazpacho. He is correct that cult is a more appropriate place than cyber-terrorism to talk about Introvigne's flimsy construction of "Internet terrorism", but if "Internet terrorism" was worth talking about at all, why would the VfD have passed with not a single word indicating that the content should be kept? I'm sorry, but one user's opinion (even that of Gazpacho, whom I like and respect) is not a free license to recreate content that was deleted by a near-unanimous VfD. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As for Antaeus' charged POV and modus operandi, he is one of these editors that can really can rub some of us the wrong way, and I am not the only one, unfortunately. --Zappaz 05:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You know, Zappaz, it's bad enough that you stooped in the first place to such embarrassingly petty personal attacks, but at least you had the modicum of taste to keep it to yourself -- and the modicum of sense to not announce "by the way, all these accusations like 'oblivious to their own mortality and their own failures as human beings'? 'have no empathy whatsoever'? 'bigots'? When I say those things, what I mean is 'Antaeus Feldspar'. Now you've announced that I am the intended target of that list and now you're publicizing that list. You seem to have a hard time recognizing when you are making personal attacks. Well, you're clearly doing it here; are you ever going to even acknowledge that you're committing personal attacks -- not to mention ad hominem? Or are you just going to keep trumpeting that it's clearly someone else who is blinded by their own self-righteousness? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

'Nuff said, Antaeus. You may rightly consider this a personal attack: you indeed rub me the wrong way, and some of the comments I made where "inspired" by your behavior. I consider the way you behave in WP to be a subtle and deadlier version of the same. At least I do not hide behind self-righteousness.

Gahahahahaha! ROFL! -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa, I have a bias, that happens to be the opposite of yours in 99.9% of the articles edits. You, with a anti-cult bias (well hidden behind a sharp prose), and myself, with a different understanding of emerging religions, that makes my POV to be yout total opposite. We have two choices, one to accept and embrace our biases and use each other to balance the other for the benefit of WP readers. Or we can have a tedious time in fighting each other on these article. Your choice, Antaeus. --Zappaz 04:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You know where I stand, Zappaz. You simply don't want to hear it. Like the apocryphal physicists who wanted to decide that bumblebees couldn't fly because then they'd have to rethink what they knew of physics, you shut your eyes to there being anything one can do with a bias except "embrace" it -- because then you might have to do something besides the easy route of embracing it.

Now, since neither you nor I are the subject of this discussion, let's get rid of this red herring you dragged across the trail. If the content of "Internet terrorism" is not found acceptable to consensus at Internet terrorism what makes it acceptable in some other article? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(BTW Antaeus, when I say ...are oblivious to their own mortality and their own failures as human beings; I said that not as a passing judgement of others, but as an acknowledgement that I am that way sometimes myself, and when I see that others are totally oblivious, it rubs me the wrong way because of their lack of acknowledgment and their 'always right, know-it-all" arrogant attitude.) --Zappaz 05:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Am I understanding that correctly? Because it reads like "I admit that at least theoretically I can sometimes be wrong, but it only bothers me when others are wrong." -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. I admit that sometimes I fall on that trap (not just theoretically!), but at least I am conscious of that fact and do not hide it when that happens. While "others" seem oblivious to their bias all of the time or chose to hide it, even when they are aware of it. --Zappaz 16:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And of course, the fact that you go snooping around user pages and then announce "Aha! I've found out what your bias is!" and then revert their changes and announce that it is because they have a bias that you are reverting their changes without considering them has nothing at all to do with why people don't leap all over themselves to talk about their possible biases! Oh, just give it a rest, Zappaz! For all your blather of how it's other people that are self-righteous, it's you who's constantly running away from the issues and straight to the personalities -- as you've done here! I don't even know whether you actually give a damn at all about NPOV, for all that you harp on it and wield it as a blunt instrument to beat on others, but one thing's for damn sure, you are not the saint of fairness and balance that you portray yourself as. Your constant whining about how it's "others" who are unaware of how completely bigoted they are whereas you are "conscious" of your own flaws and consequently incapable of their depravity -- it's exactly the self-righteous blindness you claim that you despise. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, what do you want from me? Can you just face it? We do not get along. That is the begining and end of it. We can throw shit at each other for another month with the hope that some will stick, but is that fun? I am removing some stuff from my user page, with the hope you do the same (if you kow what I mean). I am now going to bake a good, suculent cheescake open a nice bottle of Merlot and have a quite evening thankyouverymuch. --Zappaz 03:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* What do I want from you? Something you've made it very clear that you will never ever give: respect and credit. If you were the expert on me that you pretend to be, you'd have noticed all the times I reverted edits made from the anti-cult POV (you know, the one that according to you I'm all about?) because they didn't meet sufficient standards. If you knew as much as you thought you did you'd have noticed all the times that I put information into articles that was favorable to the cult perspective, because I thought that information contributed to a fuller and more balanced picture. But you can't be bothered to notice that so I have no faith whatsoever that you'll ever stop "hurling shit at me", let alone notice that yes, I do happen to believe and practice what I say about editing to standards, not to POVs. You'll just keep insisting "No, you are not admitting that every single edit you make is trying to advance YOUR CAUSE and therefore you are BLINDED by your self-righteousness." You'll continue to demand explanations for my edits, then completely ignore the explanations you get and insist "This is all about preserving your POV!" and revert me. What do I want from you? It doesn't matter, because I already know what I'll get and that's more condescension, more insults, more impugning of my honesty and good faith. Enjoy your cheesecake. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did enjoy the cheesecake, it was not a perfect one, the curd was a bit too soft, but good nonetheless... Now seriously, I have extended an olive branch, with the sincere hope we can move on from were we stand. At least suspend your assessment for a while and see if it is possible that we can collaborate in articles without hurling that staff around. I have decide to join the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club. I know it is a tall order for a person with my character, but heck, worth a try if the outcome is one of more enjoyment in editing WP. That will hopefully take care of the issues you raised in your last sentence. --Zappaz 02:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Additional Thought: There is an ongoing 15 year debate over what the definition of cyber terrorism should be. Let me add one thing that should be included in any discussion related to cyber terrorism. From the readings... "There is no cyber terrorism without terrorism, period." Any discussion outside this connection diminishes our focus of prevention, detection and response to this increasing threat. Without the intent of terrorism, it's just hacking, cracking and/or cyber crime. I truly believe that this is why we still debate the term, as well as include activities that are outside cyber terrorism. Thank you all for your contributions to this topic, truly.

Copyvios removed from article

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)

Cyberterrorism does not exist

I am a security professional, the term is meaningless and dilutes and semblance of intelligent discussion on security issues.

You cannot terrorize over a computer. No amount of packets will make my flat screen blow up in my face.

No, but I could probably construct a series of packets that will keep your computer from starting up the next time you turn it on. You are using an x86-based architecture, aren't you? --Carnildo 23:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure you could, but that's not terrorism. We need not dillute the term by applying it senselessly to every inconvenient act by someone. There is already a term for that, hacking. If you want the criminal term, destruction of property. But you keeping my machine from booting won't leave me in the state of utter terror.

Ok, let's say I craft a series of packets that takes down Yahoo!, Google, MSN, and Ebay. Would that count as cyber-terrorism? How about a series of packets that wipes out every computer connected to UUNet? --Carnildo 00:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's artificial to reduce the entire spectrum to just "anthrax" or "inconvenience". Can you send anthrax by e-mail? Of course not. Does that mean that anything else anyone might do via hacking, no matter how malign their intent, would simply be "inconvenience"? No. Tamper with medical services, 911, power plants -- that's more than just "inconvenient". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, if you took at UUNet, Yahoo, Google, or for that matter the entire Internet, that would still not be terrorism. Not unless it involved bombings which then would depend. Tampering with medical sevices and such might actually get close to terrorism, but the all-inclusive intent of the word makes it all meaningless. But break down the word terrorism, you cannot be terrorized by hacking. No one will fear for their lives if Google isn't available. --jbamb

What if I were to use a bomb to destroy a core UUNet switching facility? Would that be terrorism? --Carnildo 18:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's got nothing to do with "cyberterrorism". It's just blowing up lines at that point. Sure it has impact on the Internet, but then it is terrorism and the word is sufficient. You don't call blowing up power stations Energyterrorism... Cyber-terrorism is a word meant to convey a certain method of attack, a methodology that is completely unable to render the victim in a state of terror and thus, not terrorism.

I agree with the person who started this thread. "Cyber-terrorism" is the misuse of a strong word, terrorism, to make hacking seem more threatening. News media do this all the time to sell more papers or air time. It's similar to "software piracy." There's no piracy -- if you want to know what piracy really was, read your history books. But the license owners want you to equate it with taking ships at sea and murdering the crews. Sure, someone is trying to manipulate you by fear, but it's not the hackers or software copiers. Shoaler 8 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

Cyber terrorism is really a matter of perspective

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)

==

Ok, I'll identify myself, I'm John Bambenek, a security researcher at the University of Illinois. If you want my creds, google, for instance, "John Bambenek SANS". I've written lots for them. You can lexis my name and find me sourced for various infosec events. Now that the intellectual masturbation is done...

Terrorism means something very specific and is widely misused to begin with. Terrorism is not simply attacks that the recipient government does not like. Terrorism is not any event that entails the loss of life. Terrorism IS the use of violence or threat of violence against civilian (or more specifically non-military) targets with the intent of terrorizing the population (hence the word). 9/11 was terrorism because it hijacked civilian airliners and then flew them into the World Trade Center, and obviously illegal target based on the laws of war. *IF* there were no civilians on the plane that hit the Pentagon, that attack would NOT have been terrorism.

Guerilla warfare is not terrorism, provided you are hitting valid targets. For instance, the militants in Iraq are not committing terrorism when they attack US soldiers, suicide bombs or otherwise. They are committing terrorism when they blow up a civilian coffee shop.

With that in mind, how does one commit cyberterrorism? Things like computer virus writers have been lumped in as cyber terrorists. I've seen a few computer virus infections, and no one died from it. The closest thing to cyber terrorism that you could get is if terrorists rented a plane and started dropping old CRTs out the back of the plane.

Someone made the comment, what about attacking and disabling power plants, or disabling banking, or the internet as a whole? Is there any immediate risk to life of that? No. Does it create terror? No. It's economic in nature, not psychological. Maybe people would get stupid, but heck, if anything that caused people to get stupid was terrorism, we'd have to start bombing public schools. Terrorism is a hot-button word right now. Putting cyber in front of it creates a nice buzzword that makes things more important than they really are. --John Bambenek 16:29, 15 Dec 205 (CST because UTC is for girls)

I don't think dropping CRT can be considered as cyber-terrorist. It would call poison-terrorist (or bioterrorist not so sure) because every one will be sick by lead poissoning

==

Hackers hacking Antarctic bases so the scientists are without proper energy doesn't qualify as terrorism? (that was prevented, of course)

Forms of Cyber terrorism

Can we please add this section into the article. I measn it pretty much lacks some ideas that the reader might get of cyber terrorism. I mean when listing an activity such as cyber terrorism, which is a activity which the public knows very little about. It is best to give the idea on some forms of what cyber terrorism might be. I think some should be added to the list. such as:

Kidnapping, similar to a way that a sex offender uses the Internet to communicate with children, a terrorist might use chat rooms, social networkings, forums, and instant messaging, to kidnap a person of which is part of the country that the terrorist is against.

Mass Hacking, a terrorist may create certain computer viruses to attack certain websites and e-mails to corrupt it, and may reduce infrastructure among the area due to it's importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconleaf (talk • contribs)

Forms of Cyber Terrorism that should be open to inclusion and discussion:

Cyber terrorism is the use of cyber space for: 1. The communication and coordination of terrorist activities 2. The gathering of intelligence of potential targets 3. A force multiplier for physical attacks such as by disabling emergency response systems causing physical harm by electronically attacking control systems for dams, electrical systems, medical databases, and a host of other computer dependent infrastructures that result in physical harm when disabled and/or modified operationally

Four years later and it still lacks sources?

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)