In this article the authors composed an experiment to detail how the influence of different
types of cyberattacks have on policies and the people’s attitudes towards those policies. The
authors seek to answer two main questions. Does increased exposure to cyberattacks call for a
society to address the problem with more intrusive cybersecurity policies? And how does the
way people perceive these cyberthreats affect the relationship between the exposure and the
policies? The authors utilized a controlled randomized survey experiment that provides the data
of how exposure to lethal and nonlethal cyberattacks develop specific cybersecurity policies.
The authors found, with about 1,022 Israeli participants being exposed to simulated televised
lethal and nonlethal cyberattacks, the exposure of the lethal cyberattacks led to the development
of more intrusive cybersecurity policies. The authors also discovered the factor that was leading
to the development of more strict policies was their threat perception, also the severity of
exposure altered the level of urgency in support for these cyber policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So the first question posed by the authors discusses the exposure of the different types of
cyber attacks. Whether lethal or nonlethal, and how the reaction of society plays a role in the
urgency for policy making to thwart these attacks. They argued that due to the perceived threat
of lethal cyberattacks, society is in full support for the government to take action. However, this
action is at the cost of rights to privacy online. I think what the authors failed to address is
whether the media should be allowed to cover incidents of lethal cyberattacks due to the results
of the public reaction. The authors suggest lethal cyberattacks may be considered cyberterrorism
or a politically motivated cyber attack, either or, the exposure results in a public outcry for the
government to act. As we have learned in our class modules most media outlets tend to take an
incident and over exaggerate the situation as a whole in order to fear monger society and push
them to fulfill a politically motivated or policy specific agenda. Especially in the growing age of
disinformation from media outlets. While the public does have a right to know when incidents
occur, I think the better solution would be privacy of incidents over the cost of the public’s
privacy online. Taking away privacy online puts the public under a scope and treats everyone as
a criminal. I also think another solution to be effective in online safety would be to educate the
public and build upon their human firewall. With the rapid growth of integrating technology in
everyday products the main targets of education should be families and youth who know very
little about the cyber world and the vulnerabilities that are presented from the result of internet of
things technology. While the authors emphasize that this experiment presents the threat of
targeting critical infrastructure that affects the public as a whole and causes urgency which it
should, I don\u2019t think broadcasting it would aid in finding a solution rather just making it worse.
This is because the authors findings also suggest the reaction to nonlethal cyberattacks had a
lesser degree of reaction to develop policies. The solution I think would be for the government
to be ahead in developing direct action plans in place for critical infrastructure attacks in
cyberspace. The media would only be allowed to cover incidents when they\u2019re dealt with
entirely and have them under control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Indeed due to the evidence and findings from the authors, the public’s exposure to lethal
cyberattacks will result in stricter policies online for everyone. Making the privacy of citizens a
casualty in the battle of cyberspace. Also due to the public\u2019s immediate turn to government
solutions verifies the concern that the public chooses governmental regulation over
interventionists forms of cybersecurity policies. The authors also suggest that lethal cyberattacks
are nuanced and early in their age, while this may be the case, the media presenting this to the
public can only cause more damage to a society with disinformation and blowing up a situation
presenting more myths about cybersecurity. Accurate education of government and critical
infrastructure employees as well as updating hardware and software can minimize the threat of
cyberattacks upon said structures which will ensure the public maintains privacy rights online
and the government can properly protect its citizens from the growing online threats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reference: Snider, Keren L. G., et al. “Cyberattacks, Cyber Threats, and Attitudes toward By Emiliano Sanchez Article Review In this article the authors composed an experiment to detail how the influence of differenttypes of cyberattacks have on policies and the people’s attitudes towards those policies. Theauthors seek to answer two main questions. Does increased exposure to cyberattacks call for asociety to address the problem with more intrusive cybersecurity… <\/p>\n
Cybersecurity Policies.” Journal of Cybersecurity, vol. 7, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1-11,
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/cybsec\/tyab019<\/a>. Accessed 1 Apr. 2025.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"