Week Seven-Discussion
What is the role of government in securing cyberspace? ( write in 250 words)
===============================================================
The psychological effects of cyber terrorism ( write in 2-3 pages )
Psychological Effects of Cyberterrorism.pdf
==================================================================
Information Security is important to the success of any company.
For your final project you will be answering the question:
What’s Our Biggest Information Security Threat Today?
Include your references in APA format
You may create any ONE of the following to satisfy your final presentation requirements. Be sure to answer the question (What is our biggest information security threat today?)
Select either #1, #2, or #3.
Reference Heading
Personal Heading
Title:
Author:
Date:
Name:
Date Submi.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Gross et al.
Page 2
Author Manuscript
against Israel in support of the Palestinian cause (Rogers 2014). Islamic activists will not
only use the Internet to recruit members and raise funds for social welfare projects but also
to steal money for terrorist activities or disseminate information to stoke fear and demoralize
a civilian population. States will pursue online espionage but also wreak havoc by crashing
multiple systems—as did the Russians, allegedly, in Estonia in 2007, with mass denial-ofservice attacks on government sites, and in Ukraine in 2016, with cyber attacks on the
airport and power grid (Polityuk 2016).
Author Manuscript
Underlying many of these attacks is terrorism: an attempt to extract political concessions by
instilling fear in the civilian population. In this way, cyber terrorism is no different from
conventional terrorism. Yet cyber terrorism is far more subtle. To date, cyber terrorists have
neither killed nor injured anyone. Nor have cyber terrorists successfully destroyed any
critical infrastructures. Whether this is due to the offensive inadequacies of the terrorists or
the superior defensive capabilities of the United States and its allies, experts have yet to
decide.
But as the war on cyber terrorism continues, it is increasingly clear that protecting vital
national interests is only half the battle. Security experts rightly worry about defending
transportation networks, refineries, dams, military installations, hospitals, banks, and
government offices from cyber attack just as they worry about defending the same facilities
from terrorist bombs or ballistic missiles (Lewis 2002). Yet lost in the haze of cyber warfare
is the human dimension. While scholars and policy makers raise concerns about the dangers
that cyber terrorism holds for national security, we know little about its effects on human
security.
Author Manuscript
Human security emphasizes the conditions necessary for a vibrant civil society (Tadjbakhsh
2014). At the most basic level, people must be able to live free of undue fear, anxiety, and
trepidation. At a more developed level, civil society requires energetic public discourse,
judicious public policy, and respect for human dignity. Following 9/11, we now recognize
that conventional terrorism undermines human security even more than national security. It
is a common truism that terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead
(Jenkins 1975; Lerner et al. 2003). The dead are few; it is the living whose daily lives are
transformed by the constant fear of impending doom. Conventional terrorism exacerbates
feelings of insecurity and perceptions of threat that prompt public cries for protective and
militant government policies that can short-circuit public discourse, intensify intolerance for
dissident views, and infringe on human rights (Boggs 2002; Hirsch-Hoefler et al., 2014).
Does cyber terrorism cause similar effects?
Author Manuscript
At first glance, it seems that it cannot. In their attempts to formulate the law of cyber
warfare, the framers of the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber
Warfare remain unconvinced that cyber attacks that block e-mail, deny service, employ
economic coercion, undermine confidence in the government or economy, or, in their
example, “cause panic by falsely indicating that a highly contagious and deadly disease is
spreading through the population” cause sufficient mental suffering to rise to the level of a
terrorist attack (Schmitt 2013, §11.2, 3; 30.12; 36.3; 59.9). Unfortunately, these assumptions
are untested and in a series of field experiments we studied how cyber terrorism affects
Bull At Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 04.
Gross et al.
Page 3
Author Manuscript
psychological well-being and political attitudes that impinge upon human security by
causing stress, anxiety, and fear—all of which radicalize political attitudes and push people
to exchange privacy for security to prevent cyber terror in the future.
Simulating cyber terrorism
Author Manuscript
In our field survey experiments, we first interviewed 522 individuals following
Anonymous’s well-publicized attempt to perpetrate an “electronic Holocaust” in April 2015,
when the hacktivist group promised to take down servers and “erase Israel from cyber
space.” In a second study, in January 2016, 907 subjects viewed various film clips describing
hypothetical Hamas attacks on Israel’s national water company. In one scenario, cyber
terrorism was fatal; terrorists poisoned the water supply with an overdose of chlorine that
killed two and injured many more. In other scenarios, cyber terrorism was not lethal; no one
suffered physical harm but hackers appropriated the bank account numbers of the company’s
customers and successfully transferred money to Hamas. A third group of subjects viewed a
fatal but conventional mass-casualty terrorist attack, while a control group viewed a neutral
film depicting the dedication of a water treatment plant. Following these screenings, we
surveyed respondents on measures fundamental to human security. These included stress,
anxiety, insecurity and threat perception, political militancy, and a willingness to relinquish
privacy and civil liberties in favor of security.
Author Manuscript
In some ways, Israelis are a unique population for such a study. The ongoing conflict
between Israelis and Palestinians (and Palestinian allies like Hezbollah and Iran) is a
constant feature of everyday life. Terrorism, too, simmers beneath the surface. Since January
2015, terrorists have taken 23 civilian lives in Israel. Yet Israelis know their enemy, know
what they want and can imagine the way to peace. This puts terrorism and cyber terrorism in
the context of a political struggle that has, in many ways, fixed and acceptable costs. Like a
couple of wary boxers, each side circles the other, constantly poking and provoking. This
leaves Israelis, who score very high on the UN’s world happiness index, weary but resilient.
In contrast, the West’s confrontation with radical Islam is enigmatic and exceptionally
violent. In the same period since the start of last year, 67 Americans and 197 Europeans have
lost their lives in terrorist attacks. Unlike Israelis, Americans and Europeans don’t know
their enemy, have no clear idea what they want or how to confront their demands. Islamic
State attacks are brutally violent for their own sake. Americans and especially Europeans
will find resilience elusive as terrorism and cyber terrorism fuel an inescapable cycle of fear.
Learning from the Israeli case and understanding the effects of cyber terrorism for other
Western nations is crucially important.
Author Manuscript
Measuring stress and insecurity
Not surprisingly, exposure to cyber terrorism is stressful. Figure 1 uses the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory (STAI) to show how stress and anxiety grow as attacks become more
deadly. With a score of 4.00, conventional mass-casualty terrorism (e.g., suicide bombings)
evokes a level of anxiety at the top of the scale. The stress scores for lethal and non-lethal
cyber terrorism are not far behind, and all the scores significantly surpass the control group.
Bull At Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 04.
Gross et al.
Page 4
Author Manuscript
But the interesting point is this: Individuals were equally disturbed by lethal and non-lethal
cyber terrorism, meaning there is no significant difference between the two when it comes to
stress. Both cause significant panic and anxiety and both, it seems, are equally capable of
cracking the foundations of personal wellbeing and human security.
Author Manuscript
Cyber terrorism also left individuals insecure and wary of future cyber terrorist attacks.
These judgments are measures of threat perception and gauged by such questions as: “To
what extent do cyber attacks undermine your sense of personal security?” and “To what
extent do you feel threatened by cyber terrorism?” Like stress, threat perception increased
steadily as attacks grew more severe (Figure 2). But even in our control group, Israelis are
on edge and exposure to non-lethal cyber terrorism did not appreciably increase perceptions
of threat. Lethal attacks, on the other hand, did trigger a significant jump in threat perception
and it didn’t matter much whether they were cyber or conventional terrorist attacks. These
findings show how stress and threat perception are two different phenomena. Stress is
emotional while threat perception is cognitive. And while lethal and non-lethal cyber attacks
evoke feelings of stress, only terrorism accompanied by injury and loss of life nurtures a
serious preoccupation about the next attack. If a person’s reaction to cyber terrorism has
both an emotional and cognitive dimension, it is also sensitive to circumstance and the
identity of the perpetrator. After it was clear that Anonymous’s threat of an “electronic
Holocaust” was empty, threat perception fell by 10 percent. People were still fearful, but not
so much. But many Israelis do fear Hamas. and when that group, rather than Anonymous,
was the perpetrator, threat perceptions increased by 20 percent, from a mean score of 2.9 to a
score of 3.5. Hamas is a far more frightening adversary than Anonymous, even as they
perpetrate similar attacks.
Author Manuscript
Stress, anxiety, insecurity, and perceptions of threat do not stand alone. Instead, we know
that studies of conventional terrorism show how stress, anxiety, and heightened perceptions
of threat radicalize political attitudes and draw individuals away from concerns about civil
liberties to worries about national security (Verton and Brownlow 2003). In the wake of
mass-casualty terrorism, individuals turn inward, disparage outgroups, move to the right on
security and privacy issues, and call upon their government to take strong military action
(Canetti et al. 2013; McDermott 2010). The effects can have a chilling effect on civil society
and political discourse in many democratic nations, as debates about torture, rendition, due
process, military belligerency, and surveillance show. We were not surprised to see similar
effects from cyber terrorism.
Political reactions
Author Manuscript
Figures 3 and 4 depict an array of political attitudes that harden in the wake of terrorism. As
noted, individuals in our first survey confronted an ongoing cyber attack by Anonymous and
in the second, a simulated attack by Hamas. In each case, we asked individuals about their
support for internet surveillance, government regulation, and military retaliation in the
context of an unspecified cyber terror attack. Questions centered on surveillance and civil
liberties (“Should the government monitor emails and social networks for suspicious
phrases?”; “Are you willing to let the government read emails to improve personal and
national security?”),1 government regulation (“Should the government require businesses to
Bull At Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 04.
Gross et al.
Page 5
Author Manuscript
install cyber security systems?”), and military retaliation (“Following a cyber terrorism
attack, should the government respond with a small-scale cyber attack against military
targets, a large-scale cyber attack against military and civilian targets, a small-scale
conventional (missiles, bombs, and artillery) attack against military targets, or a large-scale
conventional attack attacks against military and civilian targets?”)
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Attitudes varied depending on the perpetrator. When Anonymous was the attacker, 54
percent of the respondents in our survey would allow the government to monitor e-mails for
suspicious phrases, 48 percent would allow the government to monitor Facebook and
Twitter, and 23 percent would allow the government to read e-mails. When the perpetrator
was Hamas, support for government surveillance leaps to 67 percent in favor of monitoring
e-mails, 46 percent in favor of monitoring social media, and 61 percent in favor of reading emails. Among Americans in general, by contrast, only 43% of the respondents would allow
the US government to monitor the communications of US citizens (Shelton et al. 2015, 6).
Among Israelis, support for surveillance depends on the identity of the perpetrator. And
while the identity of the attacker did not affect calls for government regulation (74 percent of
the respondents would require business to install cyber security software) fears of Islamic
terrorism dominate the public’s demand for military responses. As Figure 4 demonstrates,
individuals facing Hamas terrorism were considerably more militant and supported
conventional retaliation by a margin of nearly 2:1 compared to those facing the hacktivist
group Anonymous. One reason may be greater fear of Hamas but another may be the
recognition that Hamas, like Islamic State, has infrastructures and territory vulnerable to
conventional attack. On the other hand, it is fear of Hamas rather than its vulnerability that
drives greater support for surveillance. These data highlight the public’s willingness to
employ conventional military measures to quash cyber terrorism, strong attitudes that will no
doubt influence political leaders as they weigh kinetic military responses to cyber threats
(Libicki 2014).
Author Manuscript
From a psychological perspective, the data offer a curious finding. We expected to find a
clear connection between exposure to cyber terrorism and militant, hardline attitudes. The
harsher the terrorist attack our subjects experienced, the greater their militancy. But this is
not what we discovered. Instead, we found that the greater one’s perception of threat, the
greater one’s militancy. The odds were more than twice as high that individuals with high
levels of threat perception will support surveillance, government regulation, and military
retaliation compared to those whose threat perception is lower. We cannot explain why some
individuals are more fearful than others. Past exposure to cyber attacks explains only a small
part of the variance. Other personality factors, beyond the scope of our study to examine, are
also probably at work. Nevertheless, it is clear that the threat of terrorism and how one
perceives it are better determinants of militancy and hardline attitudes than the experience of
an actual attack. And, indeed, this is how terrorism works. One need not suffer direct harm
to be terrorized; it is enough that one fear direct harm to suffer the ravages of contemporary
terrorism, whether cyber terrorism or conventional terrorism.
1“Reading” and “monitoring” are different. “Monitoring” suggests either the collection of metadata or only reading e-mails that
trigger security concerns, while “reading” suggest scrutinizing every e-mail.
Bull At Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 04.
Gross et al.
Page 6
Author Manuscript
From Anonymous and Hamas to Islamic State
Author Manuscript
These results offer tantalizing evidence that cyber terrorism mirrors conventional terrorism
even when its victims do not suffer injury or loss of life. We found that cyber terrorism
increases stress, anxiety, fear, hardline attitudes, and political militancy. But circumstances
matter, because the identity of the perpetrator helps explain the political attitudes related to
cyber terrorism. Hamas is more threatening than Anonymous. When Hamas is at the wheel,
Israelis see a brutal terrorist organization and do not much distinguish between cyber and
conventional terrorism. Anonymous, on the other hand, still carries some cachet as a rogue
hacktivist group that is unwilling or unable to harm anyone physically. Hamas, for the most
part, poses no threat to Americans and Europeans. But Islamic State certainly does, and it
will not be long before the group gains the capabilities to mount cyber-terrorism attacks.
And, as with Hamas, the fact that these attacks might cause little physical harm may be
irrelevant. Islamic State, like Hamas, will trade on its ruthless terrorist image. Leveraging its
success at conventional terrorism, it will move seamlessly and effectively to cyber terrorism
to produce outsized fear and panic. Marrying conventional and cyber terrorism will have
chilling effects: Islamic State and other terrorist groups will be able to achieve the dramatic
effects of suicide attacks and mass casualties at the relatively low cost and risk of cyber
terrorism. There will be no need for suicide cyber bombers. Cyber terrorism is a force
multiplier that can magnify the effects of limited, sporadic, and even failed kinetic terrorist
attacks. In tandem, conventional and cyber terrorism can undermine human security in a
most fundamental way.
Restoring human security
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Human security thrives when societies are open, tolerant, peaceful, and vibrant, and when
they offer citizens the conditions necessary to flourish economically, intellectually,
physically, and emotionally (Tadjbakhsh and Chanoy 2007). Physical security is a necessary
condition for human security but not sufficient if civil society fails to allow its members to
thrive. To thrive, individuals must maintain tolerance and social discourse. By inducing
stress and anxiety, cyber terrorism endangers psychological wellbeing and increases
perceptions of threat even if individuals suffer no physical harm. Once cyber terrorism
successfully breaches a critical infrastructure to kill and injure (as in our film clips), these
effects are more pronounced. Threat perception is not all bad. Reasonable perceptions of
threat are essential to protect individuals and their communities from dangerous surprises
but become disabling when they foster insecurity and prompt visions of an inescapable cycle
of violence (Canetti-Nisim et al. 2009). It is the nature of cyber terrorism to target civilians
(Gross 2015, 153–183). Some of this is mere efficiency: Civilian targets are softer than
military targets or critical infrastructures, which states take great pains to protect. But part is
strategic: Targeting civilians is a way to demoralize and terrorize. This is precisely what
Anonymous, Hamas, and Islamic State promise to do.
In response, civilians are increasingly willing to jettison privacy and support military
retaliation. Neither outcome bodes well for human security. Privacy embraces the right to
keep secrets and preserves a domain for individuals to build their personal identities and
communicate without interference or duress. Surveillance inhibits free speech, discourages
Bull At Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 04.
Gross et al.
Page 7
Author Manuscript
political opposition, prevents dissenters from organizing or publishing anonymously, and
disrupts the flow of information necessary for a well-functioning civil society. Surveillance
threatens privacy but not without cause. Surveillance can strengthen physical security.
Gaining access to the content of e-mails and social media may allow law enforcement
authorities and intelligence agencies to co-opt and cripple hostile organizations. Physical
security is as important for human security as privacy. Balancing the two will be
exceptionally challenging in the shadow of cyber terrorism, and cyber security experts and
policy makers cannot unilaterally fortify the former at the expense of the latter.
Author Manuscript
Political militancy is equally problematic. Facing cyber terrorism and the threat it poses to
national and human security, governments consider a range of tempered policies that include
criminal prosecution, counter espionage, and active cyber defenses. Because most offensive
cyber attacks fall far short of war, each of these retaliatory responses is freighted with fears
of escalation that the United States and other nations wish to avoid. Nations must be careful
as they weigh their responses to hostile cyber operations (Hathaway et al. 2012). Civilians,
particularly those who already find themselves in the midst of an armed conflict, are less
restrained and may push their governments in unwarranted and dangerous directions as they
call for harsh military retaliation following cyber attacks. Human security does not demand
pacifism but it thrives best in a society that is cautious about the use of armed force. Cyber
terrorism, like conventional terrorism, upends judicious decision making.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Eliminating the toxic effects of cyber terrorism is not simply a matter of cyber security. It is
not enough to thwart or reduce the incidence of cyber-terror attacks. Protecting facilities is
only half the battle. Fear, insecurity, anxiety, and militancy are often the product of
perceived, not actual, threats. Cyber terrorists lurk in the background, and individuals will
not be mollified unless they are eliminated. Despite their best efforts, however, no
government will ever eradicate cyber terrorism, and people will always be driven by their
outsized fears. Mitigating these fears is as equally important as reducing the incidence of
attack. But the means are entirely different. Perceptions depend crucially on information
and, as a result, risk assessment and communication are of crucial importance is the war
against cyber terrorism. Individuals who misunderstand the nature of cyber terrorism and the
threat it poses are most likely inclined to greater fear, insecurity, and militancy than those
whose assessment is sober. Experts, to be sure, remain divided over the risk of cyber
terrorism. Nevertheless, the cyber security community must address the fears of everyday
citizens by cogently assessing the danger of cyber terrorism and the protective measures
necessary to maintain secure networks. Risk communication is sorely lacking; properly
implemented, it can reduce insecurity and perceptions of threat. Finally, there is also room to
think about psychological intervention and cognitive behavior therapy to treat cyber
terrorism–induced anxieties, just as it is used to treat the effects of conventional terrorism.2
Risk assessment and psychological treatment protocols address the human dimension of
cyber terrorism and should not be neglected as nations work to fend off cyber terrorists of all
stripes.
2For example, see Somer et al. 2005.
Bull At Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 04.
Gross et al.
Page 8
Author Manuscript
Cyber terrorism has many faces, as does the psychology of the masses. Our research
demonstrates how even non-lethal, seemingly banal forms of cyber terrorism have a
considerable impact on the attitudes of victimized populations. Our experiments show a
“cyber terrorism effect” that enables terrorists to foster fears akin to kinetic terrorism and
pursue similarly ideological goals. In this way, cyber terrorism pushes well beyond cyber
crime even when its methods—identity theft, destruction of data, and disruption of service—
are sometimes similar. When Anonymous threatens an electronic Holocaust by corrupting
data or stealing identities, they are taking sides in violent, armed conflict, and their actions
are far more than criminal. They are attacking innocent civilians, not bilking an easy mark.
Victims know the difference. Under attack, they react with not only fear and trepidation, as
do victims of crime, but with demands for protection from the enemies of the state via harsh
military retaliation, surveillance, and strong government. This is the psychology of
terrorism.
Author Manuscript
Acknowledgments
Funding
This research was made possible, in part, by grants awarded to Daphna Canetti from the US National Institute of
Mental Health (R01 MH073687), from the Israel Science Foundation (594/15), and from the US-Israel Binational
Science Foundation (2009460), and to Michael L. Gross from the Israel Science Foundation (156/13).
Biographies
Michael L. Gross is a professor in and the head of the School of Political Science at the
University of Haifa, Israel. His recent books include The Ethics of Insurgency (Cambridge
2015) and Moral Dilemmas of Modern War (Cambridge 2010).
Author Manuscript
Daphna Canetti is a professor of political science at the University of Haifa and the director
of the university’s graduate program in Democracy Studies. Canetti’s research examines the
psychological challenges and policy implications of terrorism, warfare, and political
violence. Her publications appear in political and psychological outlets including the Lancet,
the American Journal of Political Science, the British Journal of Political Science, and
Political Psychology. Her commentary has been featured in media outlets including NPR
and the Washington Post.
Author Manuscript
Dana Vashdi is the head of the Division of Public Administration and Policy at the
University of Haifa, Israel. Her research focuses on the well-being of citizens in general and
of employees in particular as well as on teams in public organizations, organizational
learning, and healthcare policy. She has published articles in a wide variety of academic
journals including the Academy of Management Journal, the British Medical Journal,
Human Resource Management, and Public Administration Review.
References
Boggs C. Militarism and Terrorism: The Deadly Cycle. Democracy & Nature. 2002; 8(2):241–259.
Canetti-Nisim D, Halperin E, Sharvit K, Hobfoll SE. A New Stress-Based Model of Political
Extremism Personal Exposure to Terrorism, Psychological Distress, and Exclusionist Political
Attitudes. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2009; 53(3):363–389. [PubMed: 22140275]
Bull At Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 04.
Gross et al.
Page 9
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Canetti D, Hall BJ, Rapaport C, Wayne C. Exposure to political violence and political extremism: A
stress-based process. European Psychologist. 2013; 18(4):263.
Gross, M. The Ethics of Insurgency: A Critical Guide to Just Guerrilla Warfare. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 2015.
Hathaway OA, Crootof R, Levitz P, Nix H, Nowlan A, Perdue W, Spiegel J. The Law of Cyber-Attack.
California Law Review. 2012; 100(4):817–885.
Hirsch-Hoefler S, Canetti D, Rapaport C, Hobfoll SE. Conflict will harden your heart: Exposure to
violence, psychological distress and peace barriers in Israel and Palestine. British Journal of
Political Science. 2014:1–15.
Jenkins, BM. Will terrorists go nuclear?. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation; 1975. (P-5541
in the RAND Paper Series)
Lerner JS, Gonzalez RM, Small DA, Fischhoff B. Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of
terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science. 2003; 14(2):144–150. [PubMed:
12661676]
Lewis JA. Assessing the Risks of Cyber Terrorism, Cyber War and Other Cyber Threats. Center for
Strategic and International Studies. 2002 Dec.
Libicki, MC. Cyberspace in Peace and War. Vol. Chap. 32. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press;
2014. From the Tallinn Manual to Las Vegas rules. 2016 (forthcoming)
McDermott, R. Proceedings of a Workshop Deterring Cyberattacks: Informing Strategies and
Developing Options for U.S. Policy, National Research Council. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press; 2010. Decision Making under Uncertainty; p. 227-241.
Polityuk P. Ukraine Sees Russian Hand in Cyber Attacks on Power Grid. Reuters. 2016 Feb 12. http://
www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-cybersecurity-idUSKCN0VL18E.
Schmitt, MN., editor. Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013.
Somer E, Tamir E, Maguen S, Litz BT. Brief cognitive behavioral phone-based intervention targeting
anxiety about the threat of an attack: A pilot study. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2005; 43(5):
669–679. [PubMed: 15865920]
Shelton M, Rainie L, Madden M. Americans’ Privacy Strategies Post-Snowden. Pew Research Center.
2015 Mar 15. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/03/
PI_AmericansPrivacyStrategies_0316151.pdf.
Rogers A. What Anonymous is Doing in Ferguson. Time. 2014 Aug 21. http://time.com/3148925/
ferguson-michael-brown-anonymous/.
Tadjbakhsh S. Human security twenty years on. Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre (NOREF).
2014 Jun. http://www.peacebuilding.no/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/
540cb240aa84ac7133bce008adcde01f.pdf.
Tadjbakhsh, S., Chanoy, AM. Human Security: Concepts and Implications. Abingdon, UK: Routledge;
2007.
Verton, D., Brownlow, J., editors. Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism. Emeryville, CA:
McGraw-Hill/Osborne; 2003.
Author Manuscript
Bull At Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 04.
Gross et al.
Page 10
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 1.
Author Manuscript
Anxiety in the Wake of Terrorism
CONTROL: No terrorism
CYBER TERRORISM, NON-LETHAL: Disclosure of account information, loss of funds
CYBER TERRORISM, LETHAL: Deaths and injuries
CONVENTIONAL TERRORISM, LETHAL: Deaths and injuries
Author Manuscript
Bull At Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 04.
Gross et al.
Page 11
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 2.
Author Manuscript
Threat Perception and Insecurity
CONTROL: No terrorism
CYBER TERRORISM, NON-LETHAL: Disclosure of account information, loss of funds
CYBER TERRORISM, LETHAL: Deaths and injuries
CONVENTIONAL TERRORISM, LETHAL: Deaths and injuries
Author Manuscript
Bull At Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 04.
Gross et al.
Page 12
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 3.
Percent Favoring Survelliance and Government Regulation
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Bull At Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 04.
Gross et al.
Page 13
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 4.
Author Manuscript
Percent Favoring Small-Scale and Large-Scale or Conventional Retaliation
CYBER RETALIATION SMALL SCALE: Cyber attacks against military targets
CYBER RETALIATION LARGE SCALE: Cyber attacks against military and civilian
targets
CONVENTIONAL RETALIATION SMALL SCALE: Kinetic attacks against military
targets
CONVENTIONAL RETALIATION LARGE SCALE: Kinetic attacks against military
and civilian targets
Author Manuscript
Bull At Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 August 04.
