• Lemminary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    If it’s affecting the operations of real-world systems and it’s intended to induce panic, it’s arguably beyond “cyber”, no?

    • Kid@sh.itjust.worksOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Of course, in the end it is just conflict, and when it spills over into the real world then you have a war. But this is not always the case We have already had disruption in power grids, nuclear plants, hospitals, public offices, critical infrastructure of financial markets (some of them with impact in real lives) without retaliation in the physical world.

      Cyberwar, in my perspective, have some nuances. For instance, in a physical conflict, a hostile nation’s invasion of my property immediately becomes a state issue. However, this isn’t always the case in a cyberwar if a hostile state invades my organization (It’s hard to immediately distinguish whether the actor is a nation state, a financially motivated group, hacktivists, or just a guy who eats pizza in his mom’s basement). Most of the time, organizations are on their own.

      In a cyberwar, espionage is also far more acceptable. This is something the NSA (and FSB/SVR) has been doing for years (against private entities and states). In a way, I understand that it is something similar to what the cold war was (is), but with no boots on the ground.