Whether or not society, politicians, or the military agree that true cyber warfare will take place in the future, or cyber terrorism, undoubtedly there are key advantages that will entice the forces of criminals, governments, hackers, activities, and terrorist to continue to pursue cyber attack tools as part of their agenda, leaving many vulnerable to exploitation or worse.

Aviram Jenik, the chief executive officer of Beyond Security names several distinct criteria as to why cyber attacks hold unique  advantages in an article entitled “Cyberwar in Estonia and the Middle East.” The first reason is that a cyber attack can be selective and the ramifications controlled. A cyber attack could target a nations entire economy without necessarily destroying the critical underlying infrastructure or be used to target the nation’s infrastructure along with its economy. An economic attack may paralyze civilian life, weaken the state through loss of economic productivity and create public panic.

The second advantage, is that a cyber attack can executed in an “completely painless form” for the terrorist because an attack can be launched at the press of a button, and does not need the deployment of several operatives, which would heighten the risk of being caught by security forces.  This tactic has distinct advantages in terms of cost and visibility. The attack can be theoretically lethal with little warning and requires less effort to get past security barriers at places like airports, which may derail an operation. In addition, the operative that triggers the attack has the ease of a global expanse, able to launch  the attack  from a number of places not constrained to borders, essentially  gaining the flexibility to attack from any place in the world.  An attack at “ a click of a button” may be programmed to occur at a certain time or only if a certain logical condition is met. This enhances both the flexibility and the opportunity of the attack while increasing the likely hood of success.

Low cost is the third advantage, since “a 21 000-machine  botnet can be acquired for  just a few thousand dollars, and yet cause damage and disruption easily worth hundred of times that,.” This eliminates the cost of conventional weapons and operational risk. The fourth reason is that law enforcement and cyber security is not adequate to protect a nation’s cyber borders from these type of attacks.  A DDoS attack may be thwarted by upgrading fire walls yet no nation, save a highly totalitarian regime, currently has the legal authority to order its ISPs, telecommunications companies and other online businesses to take protective measures like installing firewalls, leaving a country vulnerable to cyber terrorism.

These advantages are concrete, real and vital attractions to cyber perpetrators, along with state and non state actors alike, being especially solidified by the fact that governments cannot effectively coordinate amongst each other or often, even internally on the nature of cyberspace security. With exponential rise  in technology, it is likely more and more actors will see the benefits of cyber attacks in the new cyber world to come.

For the past several years many politicians and security experts within both North American  have warned of “cyber war” and the potential vulnerability to national infrastructure.  Although this may seem extreme, and perhaps fear mongering with the agenda of enhancing security over personal liberties, I believe there is a growing need for concern because of the systems that control many of the western world’s infrastructure. These systems called SCADA, have often been cited as a critical security vulnerability to a cyber attack and with good reason.

Supervisory control and data acquisition or SCADA systems as well as digital control systems otherwise known as SCADA systems, which originated in the 1960s are mainly used for controlling a particular process or monitoring a certain process.  For example, all major water system authorities in the U.S have these SCADA systems. They work on site automatically and need no human controller by collecting data from sensors in devices used for industrial processing and then storing this data.

The vulnerability  of SCADA systems remains high since nearly all SCADA systems are accessible through the internet to saves cost but in doing so increases vulnerability . SCADA systems are involved in an array of vital infrastructure control  including electricity, oil, gas, water treatment, waste management, and maritime, air, railroad and automobile traffic control industries,  as well as telecommunications including 911 emergency calls. The vulnerability to cyber attacks is alarmingly high, because  the small drone like computer systems have virtually no security, firewalls, routers, or antivirus software to protect them whiling being  spread across a nations infrastructure , even in some of the most remote places imaginable. Furthermore all industrial control systems have long life cycles often 10 to 20 years and older systems were originally designed with no idea that terrorists would conceivably target infrastructure through cyberspace or with any concept of terrorism at all, and thus have little to no cyber-security, and also happen to be interconnected in ways never originally intended.

Some evidence exists that Al Qaeda is evolving into the cyber attack world as plausible option for future operations. Laptops recovered from Al Qaeda operatives held critical information on program data and software sites for SCADA info, giving alarm to the already theorized and now credible threat of a cyber attack on such systems, creating a security dilemma for the future of our infrastructure.

Cyber attacks have been successfully employed, enough to be an ominous window of potential threat with hazardous effects in the future.  The first wide incident of a cyber assault took place in Estonia in 2007. The incident was provoked by the moving of a bronze soldier memorial marking the burial site for soviet soldiers lost during World War II. Native Estonians saw it as a symbol of both Russian and Nazi occupation, while Russian immigrants, which constitute about 25% of the total population, saw it as a symbol of Soviet victory over Nazi Germany.

The controversial move sparked the worst riots the country had ever seen along with a massive DDoS attack by hackers traced back to Russia and likely the Kremlin .  Estonia, “one of the most wired societies in the world” saw its Internet infrastructure overwhelmed. Approximately 1 million computers worldwide were used, unknown to their users, to overwhelm the Estonian sites and services. The attack targeted government communications, banks, Internet service providers, newspapers and media, and even home users.  Estonia’s financial activity was crippled, as bank websites became unreachable.  Emergency lines were knocked out for hours.

The cyber attack shutdown these services not for a few days, but for two weeks.

More recently a warning came on October 11, 2012 from United States Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who aimed for new legislation on capitol hill against cyber terrorism, expressed alarming concern over the potential for cyber attacks. Warning of a “cyber Pearl Harbor,” Panetta stated the attack could be a   “cyber-Pearl Harbor that would cause physical destruction and the loss of life, an attack that would paralyze and shock the nation and create a profound new sense of vulnerability.

Penetta’s words help solidify that cyber war is possible and that Estonia may very well be an ominous demonstration of things to come. It clearly represents the threats imposed on wired societies and the capabilities that both countries along with non-state actors may have. As societies around the world continue to become more wired and dependent on cyberspace, the threat of cyber war to possibly take down entire economies will increase undoubtedly posing harsh questions to global governance and international security.

Last week, Edward Snowden  asked for clemency from the United States Government and to “no longer be treated as a traitor.” The damage he has done to the international community, to trust in authority has been significant, and although the government may act unethically it was not Snowden’s right to leak classified intelligence to anyone.

In the NY times article, Snowden insists “my government continues to treat dissent as defection, and seeks to criminalize political speech with felony charges that provide no defense. However, speaking the truth is not a crime. I am confident that with the support of the international community, the government of the United States will abandon this harmful behavior.”

He further argues that “systematic violations of law by my government that created a moral duty to act,” have had positive effects.”

Snowden had a responsibility to confidentiality. He was arrogant and rash and could not have possibly comprehended the negative impacts that his “revelations” may have. He compromised national security which could cost lives in the future because of the scope, magnitude, internal complexity of national security. One person’s act may have long lasting ramifications on the lives others and therefore speaking the truth is a crime.

Certainly any government can act hypocritically or break the law, but the world is becoming more integrated and complex. If Snowden believes that other countries aren’t trying to do similar things or achieve similar techniques, then he is a fool.

The hypocritical irony to this debacle is that Snowden received free speech awards in Russia, a country that actively prosecutes free speech, kills journalists, eliminates protests, and is notorious for its intelligence agencies (former KGB now SVR and FSB) and their ruthlessness.

If Snowden actually believes he’s helping anyone, he is wrong and narrow minded. Thus far, Snowden has only helped to ensue mistrust among allies who actively spy on each other even if it is not public, and strengthen the intelligence and cyberspace arms race among enemies of the United States and its allies.

Meanwhile, Snowden has loss perspective on all the human freedoms found in a democracy like the United States in hopes to encourage the delusion of perfection while serving as a PR puppet to the Putin Regime, enhancing both the authoritarian state of Russia from within and abroad.

Snowden is delusional and deserves no clemency especially since he has lost the perspective that many intelligence agencies across the world do equal if not far more sinister activities in the name of power.