Reuters on Monday, May 13th reported that an inquiry into Christchurch’s mosques shooting massacre began hearing evidence as New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern prepared to co-host a meeting in France that sought global support to tackle online violence. It is indeed a point worth noting that the investigation points to online violence. Is this violence terrorism? A respected academic Bruce Hoffman defines terrorism as: “…the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change. All terrorist acts involve violence or the threat of violence…” However, the mayhem caused does not qualify to be called any other and it speaks volumes of the wisdom and farsightedness that the Prime Minister displayed by calling it just violence. This could even be construed war on the sovereignty of a nation. Like all things disrupted, violence as an act is also being disrupted to converge to new forms and new pedagogies. What is this metamorphosing into?
Relations between countries are almost all the time recognised by conditions of ‘Peace’ and ‘war’. But ‘peace’ does not necessarily imply a lack of conflict and ‘war’ does not necessarily mean major conventional or nuclear war between the nations concerned. Countries do not wage full blown wars any more. They do not use conventional weapons either. Many of them would probably use economic wars in order to weaken the economy and thereby reduce political and military power. They could use trade embargoes, boycotts, sanctions, and tariff discrimination, freezing of capital assets, suspension of aid, prohibition of investment and other capital flows, and expropriation.
There are a range of activities that countries are engaged in, that do not always generate a declaration of war or, a state of war’, but which would hardly qualify for the designation ‘peace’. There could be a range of activities defined as ‘low-intensity warfare’ and could include guerrilla warfare and terrorism. Disaffected groups, would-be revolutionaries and the like use this form of warfare to put pressure on governments, and the conflict takes place usually within the confines of one country. External governments may be involved directly by, for example, giving aid to the insurgency movement. All these seem to be fading into oblivion with online crime, online violence, online terrorism and all things online. Truly the new order of war seems to be waged online. WhatsApp, social media and the all-pervasive internet are new kids on the block to wage silent wars to chilling effect.
We also seem to use phrases like “cyber 9/11” without really understanding cyberterrorism. Could election meddling, dissemination of propaganda through social media, hacktivism, and the targeting of critical infrastructures, amongst others, be labelled cyberterrorism? Or are these just cybercrimes?
Major technology firms on May 15th pledged to come up with new measures for stamping out violent extremist content on the internet, amid growing pressure from governments pushing for action. While New Zealand rampage that was live streamed on Facebook via a head-mounted camera, a silent backend technology supported a series of bombs that ripped through churches and hotels in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday, killing at least 290 people and injuring hundreds. Even the 1993 Bombay bombings had the support of high-end technology. Have the technology firms done too little too late or is this shutting the stables after the horses have bolted? Any intervention to stamp out gore and death is welcome. The recognition that the future is anchored in the cyber, be it times of war or times of peace with Google, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft coming together in Paris to unveil the “Christchurch Call” of voluntary commitments for online platforms must be welcomed. Their nine-point plan for addressing the threat posed by livestreaming must also be welcomed. One can only hope that is not symbolic until the next attack.
There is a collateral damage besides the real that is borne by the people when an act of terrorism is perpetrated. Why did the social media giant not block the video streaming? Was this a technology challenge? It would have amounted to tweaking a few algorithms. They certainly could have at least blanked out the service in that nation. Surely people’s lives are above a brand and a little lucre. Data analytics profiles almost every individual using internet. Why did it not breach the machinations of the extremists by profiling their hateful purpose? Why was “digital fingerprinting” to track and remove harmful pictures and videos not done? Why was illicit content not tracked? Why was access to the service “FaceBook Live”, not denied to the users who have shared extremist content? Freedom of speech is certainly paramount to human values but can it be misused to the detriment of others right to live?
Every one of us use social media for propaganda. Politicians and Political parties use it for personal aggrandisement. Cyberterrorism is the “convergence of cyberspace and terrorism” it could include the use of social media by terrorist groups to spread their ideology. Without the “cyber”, this activity would more likely be labelled propaganda. One must know the difference before ways are found to tackle. We often complain to the media companies to prevent their platforms from becoming stages for broadcasting cyber violence. To qualify as cyberterrorism, an attack should result in violence against persons or property, or at least cause enough harm to generate fear.
Countries need to improve on the provision in their IT Act’s and tighten legislation to introduce penalties for companies that fail to take down offensive content once it is flagged, by either users or the authorities. People values are equally important for how could one stop hate speeches camouflaged in national fervour? If there are supporters for such speeches there are equal number who oppose if not more. One from such could eventually cross the line and cause mayhem. One cannot prevent content from being uploaded, massive resources would be required to track all content. A cybercrime warrior has the entire cyber space to watch out for. A cyber terrorist has only his target.
While it is clear that cyberterrorism is a threat that cannot be ignored or underplayed, we must also be careful when assigning this label to different incidents. Overusing the term can lead to unwarranted hysteria that can oversimplify cyber-attacks. It can also shift the focus from issues in the realm of cybersecurity.