Cyber security: How do the government protect cyberspace?

 Sadly the Government see the threat of cyber attacks both to the private sector and public to be very real and compromising to many businesses all over the UK. In 2014 the Information Security Breaches Survey found that an enormous 81% of big companies had disclosed information regarding some form of security breach within their cyber data (Johnson, 2013). Costing each organisation a mean total of between £600,000 and £1.5m. The findings are also supported by frequent stories regarding large scale cyber attacks. The Director of the GCHQ "In GCHQ we continue to see real threats to the UK on a daily basis, and I'm afraid the scale and rate of these attacks shows little sign of abating". This of course makes us aware of the attacks that are a real threat  to our cyber privacy but potentially our national security and business owners. However, what does our country provide to ensure that cyber attacks become less frequent and are more difficult to execute. Cyber attacks are expected to cause more damage in the future, according to the Royal United Service Institute (RUSI), their survey suggested that businesses are taking responsibility for their own safety and not waiting for the government to rescue them. This could be because they believe the government will not help them or are incapable and therefore take it into their own hands, or they feel happy with the education of cyber security given in the annual strategies (French. 2014). More than half of CEOs (57%) hold themselves accountable for major cyber security incidents, whereas 88% of these businesses have dramatically increased their annual cyber security spending following breaches to their systems (Nicolson, 2012) . Responding to this survey a Cabinet Office spokesperson said the government published its Cyber Security Strategy in 2011 and has invested £860m to 2016 on what they are calling the National Cyber security programme to ensure that Britain continues in its efforts to become more safe in doing business online and preventing breaches of this type becoming even more frequent.



Reference List-



Epiphaniou, G., French, T. and Maple, C. (2014). The DarkWeb: Cyber-Security Intelligence Gathering Opportunities, Risks and Rewards. Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 22(LISS 2013), p.21.



Johnson, M. (2013). Cyber Crime, Security and Digital Intelligence. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.


Nicholson, A., Webber, S., Dyer, S., Patel, T. and Janicke, H. (2012). SCADA security in the light of Cyber-Warfare. Computers & Security, 31(4), pp.418-436.

Cyber politics, Activists, Terrorists and The Internet

The Internet can be seen as one of the most likely tool for communication for an activist for any cause, especially to those without the access to mass media attention. Political activists are one of the most common on the internet and use the platform that the internet gives minor parties to express their opinions and recruit members. In summary it is now possible with the internets capabilities for individuals and groups to connect virtually with millions of people who share their attitudes, values and ideas. Unlike the traditional mass media, Rob Kitchin argues, "cyber space is not a broadcast medium with a few producers and many customers, but rather a decentralised communication system where individuals are both the consumer and the producers... cyber-space is interactive; users can choose what information they receive and send" (Griset and Mahan, 2007). The main advantage for Internet for political activists when compared to more traditional media is its interactive nature. However, this type of activism can have disadvantages of sites offering online responses, communication from vast distances and discussing privately ideas and suggestions is that it can aid terror plots and spread violent groups with their political views. Terrorist organisations such as ISIS are using online forums and sites to express their extremist views and also to recruit members from all over the world to execute acts of destruction to their own countries or to join the fight in Syria. This should come as no surprise, as the more the interests of an extremist group have been disregarded, the more attractive the benefits of the Internet would be. In 1994 Conrad Winn used the metaphor of the "theatre of terror" to illustrate and analyse the terrorists' use of the Internet motivated by their need to stage violent events to attract the mass media and therefore strike fear and shock to the public of the enemy (Dunn Cavelty, 2007). The Internet can be used as a catalyst or tool for terrorists in two ways. Firstly, the Internet is a useful tool for communication, joining terrorists and their followers, spreading hateful propaganda and instructions, distributing psychological scare campaigns and the networking terrorist groups and organisations. Secondly, opposing to using the Internet, terrorists can be seen to attack, in a tactic that has been called cyber terrorism (Janczewski and Colarik, 2008). At present, terrorist organisation are preferring to using the Internet to benefit from instead of attacking it. The main advantages of the Internet for modern terrorism is that the network of computer-meditated communication (CMC), is perfect for terrorists as a communicator as it is; not censored, decentralised, it cannot be controlled or restriction, and it allows access to anyone in particular who wants to access information. Furthermore, the modern terrorist organisations structure in a considerable amount of ways is compatible with the structure of the Internet. It is argued that the loosely knit network cells and subgroups that are typical of modern terrorist groups uses the Internet for intergroup and intragroup networking to its full advantage (Stohl, 2007). For example, Al Qaeda has shown it is a remarkably adaptive entity, due its decentralised structure. Cyber-fear is generated using the Internet and a prominent example of terrorists using the internet for such, is the violence towards hostages such as the beheading of James Foley.  Many more have been staged to strike fear into the opposition and spark a retaliation. Experts argue that this method of cyber fear allows a potential impotent group to seem entirely large and powerful with their messages and threats, in essence this creates an illusion they are more important and threatening than they really are (Griset and Mahan, 2003).






Reference list-




Dunn Cavelty, M. (2007). Cyber-security and threat politics. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Griset, P. and Mahan, S. (2003). Terrorism in perspective. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.


Janczewski, L. and Colarik, A. (2008). Cyber warfare and cyber terrorism. Hershey: Information Science Reference.




Stohl, M. (2007). Cyber terrorism: a clear and present danger, the sum of all fears, breaking point or patriot games?. Crime Law Soc Change, 46(4-5), pp.223-238.

'Anonymous' hacking organisation, heroes or villians in the wake of Paris attacks?

Hacking is a general term that governments in particular use to describe any type of cyber crime relating to the invasion of privacy by a group or an individual using technology most frequently the use of computers. As hacking in most circumstances is used to obtain personal information from someone or an organisation in particular and used for purposes that are illegal it is considered a crime but very difficult to regulate (Coleman, 2012). This is why authorities portray hackers as anti-social, dangerous individuals, who attack our computer systems, to invade privacy and to even in some circumstances threaten national security on a mass level (Coleman, 2011). Some hackers if use their knowledge and skills to access bank accounts to take money from their victims and this can be very difficult to prevent. However, there are some organisations of Hackers for example 'Anonymous' who use their knowledge to portray messages to the wider public but also to play some what of a vigilante against terrorist organisations. Since the attacks in Paris on the 13th of November 2015, the hacker group have issued a warning to ISIS threatening they will take down their network (Baker, 2015).  The hackers will therefore be aiding these governments in the take down of ISIS, the video uploaded after the attacks stated in French that they will launch the biggest cyber attack and members all around the world will 'hunt them down'. Defiantly, saying at the end that the French people are stronger than ISIS and they will defeat the evil within ISIS (Baker, 2015). There are many issues when looking into this type of hacking as, declaring war on ISIS an organisation the government are desperate to take down does this mean that their illegal means of doing so become legal? It will clearly be shown I believe that the governments fighting ISIS will not be interested in the illegal means of hacking that anonymous have shown over the years, they will want the information that they will subsequently provide. However, it is vital that the members stay anonymous as after ISIS have been brought to justice, they could face huge criminal charges for previous attacks even though they had been pivotal in the take down of ISIS. The debate that therefore comes from this, should they be punished for the previous 'crimes' if they have served their country and others in the destruction of this terrorist organisation. Similarly, if a murderer were to help their country take down a terrorist organisation would this eradicate all sins prior, it can be said that hacking and murdering are not the same morally however the point still stands, does one incredibly good deed help erase previous crimes before that?

Reference list

Baker, K. (2015). Hacking group Anonymous declares war on Isis in YouTube video. [online] Mail Online. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320055/Hacking-group-Anonymous-declares-war-Isis-YouTube-video.html [Accessed 17 Nov. 2015].

Coleman G (2011) Hacker politics and publics. Public Culture 23(3): 511–516.

Coleman G(2012) Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Coleman G (2014) Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy: The Many Faces of Anonymous. London: Verso.

Doctorow C (2012) The problem with nerd politics. The Guardian, 14 May. Available at: guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/2014/problem-nerd-politics (accessed 24 July 2014).