Restriction of Info and threats of cyber warfare

This post is in response to a query raised by the Thur evening class on cyber warfare.
For questions on whether there should a restriction to access of info (whether on traditional or new media), you want to raise the point that classified info that impacts the security of a nation should be denied access to the public. This pertains to not just military secrets but trade info that affects the economy of the country. Nowadays, wars are not just fought on the military front, but also on the economic front as ecnomic might becomes a proxy (i.e. subsitute) for military prowess.
War in the conventional sense has also been transformed -- now shifted to cyberspace where enemies try to hack into the computer system of rival countries to steal military or trade secrets that can be used to cripple the latter. The anonymity element on cyberspace makes it a convenient platform from which to launch cyberattacks calculated to exact maximum damage but with minimal casualty (no lives lost) on the side of the perpetrators. As seen in the article, anonymity is not a given as digital footprints can be traced, as in the case of China. But it's possible to still feign ignorance as a diplomatic response and claim that one is innocent as what takes place in cyberspace is hard to prove, unlike in the real battlefield where it's for all to see. When employed by terrorists (once again under the cloak of internet anonymity), this phenomenon is known as cyber-terrorism.

Incidentally, a debate surfaced recently in Singapore over the need for a freedom-of-information-act to ensure more transparency. But PM Lee was apparently not enthusiastic on the idea. Recognize that more transparency may lead to more accountability on the part of those who wield great influence (helps prevent corruption), but the arguments goes that it will also compromise security if sensitive info falls into the wrong hands and is used against our interest.



article 1a

article 1b