|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"Cyber-terrorism is the leveraging of a target's computers and information technology, particularly via the Internet, to cause physical, real-world harm or severe disruption." This is the listed definition. Should this possibly be broadened? For example, cyberterrorism could also be applicable to, other than physical or severe disruption harm, be connected to perceived danger or threats (psychological effects of terrorism). I am new to the wikipedia community, so please be gentle on me if this seems silly!Dc3tech 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
My view is that "terrorism" belongs nowhere in the label carrying the definition given here, or by anyone. Appending "terrorism," deliberate acts of physical violence against civilians for political aims, to the word "cyber" suggests that "cyberterrorism" is a form of violence, and that it is a form of terrorism. One would have to be in a very philosophical state of mind to judge that such a tag is appropriate for what's actually described in this article. On one hand, the word "cyberterrorism" is in common use, to be sure -- I just think that this "ism" is a definition that was coined by politicians for a political, and should be rejected. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
"The basic definition of Cyber-Terrorism... ...subsumed over time to encompass such things as simply defacing a web site or server, or attacking non-critical systems, resulting in the term becoming less useful. There is also a train of thought that says cyberterrorism does not exist and is really a matter of hacking or information warfare. Some disagree with labeling it terrorism proper because of the unlikelihood of the creation of fear of significant physical harm or death in a population using electronic means, considering current attack and protective technologies.
in simple english: someone who destroys countries computer systems"
This doesn't actually define cyberterrorism, so I think this should be moved to another section. Also, the summation at the end beginning with "in simple english..." needs to be corrected for spelling, grammar and accuracy. Loosifur 15:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC
The first paragraph could be a transcript of some of of Regans's propaganda films. I've never read something so condescending in my life. I know I do nothing but suggest improvements18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I know there's been a lot of debate over this article, so I didn't want to jump straight in and start a firestorm. I'm thinking the article needs an introductory lead-in above the contents box, which would probably render the "Cyberterrorism" section void. I wouldn't say copy it directly, but probably something loosely based around that paragraph. Comments? --Stretch (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Self-citation done anonymously on 18:46, 6 July 2008
My investigation of the edit on 18:46, 6 July 2008 leads me to conclude Technolytics alumni Kevin G. Coleman cited himself anonymously. I cannot assume good faith here: in April I uncovered Mr. Coleman posing as a man named "Brian Agent" (outside of Wikipedia).
Mr. Coleman picked a peacock secondary source for his self-citation, choosing a 2005 military document that merely quotes a 2003 piece he penned for a commercial magazine.
I am a vocal critic of Mr. Coleman, hence NPOV prevents me from dealing with his self-promotional edit. I implore others to investigate this edit and to be bold. Rob Rosenberger (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason to have both this article and Internet and terrorism. They cover exactly the same thing, and I can't think of any subtle distinctions that could possibly be made. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 21:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
More than legitamate
"...the United States has more than legitimate concerns..."
This article is almost entirely composed of speculation. In my opinion, this article should not focus on:
- Things cyberterrorism could do
- "Concerns" expressed by various parties
- "Potential" threats
- Possible targets
Most of this is clearly original research, but some of it is from sensationalist news stories which I will grudgingly admit are acceptable sources.
So my concern is, has there actually ever been any actual cyberterrorism? A few minor incidents are mentioned, but only the Estonian incident has its own article. It looks to me like the main topics of this article should not be cyberterrorism itself, because of a lack of subject material, but rather: the definition of cyberterrorism (although Wikipedia is not a dictionary), because that seems to be under debate, and fears and concerns about terrorism. This article should clearly express that cyberterrorism is not widespread, and that at this point it is mostly speculation. Do these sound like reasonable changes to make? ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 07:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added an image I uploaded of the Air Botswana website (which is currently defaced as of September 7, 2010 by a group calling themselves the "Pakistan Cyber Army"). I found the defacement when I was looking up info for a school project earlier (it did give me a bit of a shock). I'm just not sure what its copyright status would be, being defaced, I doubt Air Botswana holds the copyright to it as it currently stands, and the website itself doesn't help much (it says: "Copyright 2010. All Rights Reserved illegally P4Ki5t4n Cyb3r 4rmy [sic]"). If anyone with more knowledge can help, I'd appreciate it.
- Having come back here, I've just realised I never signed this message, so here's my (belated) signature. — Life in General (Talk) 15:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Definition and Examples
I would like to provide some insight on making the article better. In terms of the definition for cyberterrorism it needs to be simple pointing out the purpose on why it is done. We can say that cyberterrosim is a form of cybercrime by means of using computers, networks, and the Internet to cause destruction and harm for personal objectives. We can also give an example on how cyberterroism can be done, such as the shutting down of critical infrastructures which may result in serious casualties for those within the infrastructure. Cyberterrosim can be done anywhere in the world since it uses the public Internet and it is considered to be a form of terrorism to further ideas and political objectives.
Matusitz, J. (2005). Cyberterrorism:. American Foreign Policy Interests, 27(2), 137-147. doi:10.1080/10803920590935376
Ayers, C. E. (2009). The Worst is Yet To Come. Futurist, 43(5), 49
"During the Kosovo conflict in 1999, NATO computers were blasted with e-mail bombs [...]" ..."blasted" sounds a bit over the top. I assume this was emails with large attachments or zip files that expanded to a deliberately massive size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_bomb) ? It's referenced in the following article that states the attack was of limited effect: http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/nov/05/balkans 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Angelica, Amara D. "The New Face of War" TechWeek. November 2, 1998.
- Also at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/08/03/17577001.php - http://www.webcitation.org/673pqNII7