X hits on this document





41 / 77


government policy by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping,” could be used to further criminalize the various forms of cyber attacks.133  Similar statutes could be enacted to deal with IW collaborators.  

Today, the fact that 439 million computers are now connected to a ubiquitous internet has deconstructed any online ethical code that once existed.  This is evidenced by the fact that business plans for “bad code” have proliferated through the use of botnets now emerging at the rate of 1 million per month and are used for blackmail and other criminal acts.134  These botnets also now routinely affect national security.  In May 2006 a virus infected the U.S. State Department’s eastern Asia bureau, forcing a system crash during North Korea’s missile tests.135  The right advanced worm released today making use of botnets and zombie networks could infect and crash every computer connected to the internet simultaneously.136  How it is possible to avoid such an eventuality?

Cyber attacks expose the weaknesses of a generative network, i.e., networked computers that retrieve and install code from sources anywhere on the network.137  The current system is analogous to nibbling food from hundreds of different people, some established vendors, some street peddlers.138  This strategy exponentially increases system flexibility, but at the cost of security.  The alternative is to transform the personal computers into information appliances, like a game console, in which one central administrator approves content for all of the machines.  Such a resolution of the

133 18 U.S.C.§ 2331 (2000).  For more definitions, see, e.g., Mohammad Iqbal, Defining Cyberterrorism, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 397 (2004).

134 Zittrain, supra note 121 at 45.

135 Id. at 47.

136 Id. at 52.

137 Id. at 38.

138 Id. at 55.

Document info
Document views187
Page views201
Page last viewedTue Oct 25 17:43:02 UTC 2016