By reflecting on active public-domain government documents and statements, this article seeks to develop securitisation theory's articulation of the dichotomy between legitimate and illegitimate violence as it is reflected in British government policy. This dichotomy has (re)developed through a process wherein GCHQ and MI5 are portrayed as 'faceless guarantors' of security, in Manichean juxtaposition to the discursivelycreated phantom cyberterrorists, who are presented as 'faceless detractors' of security. It has previously been stated that the terrorism discourse associated with the present 'War on Terror' is attributed, in part, to mechanics of fantasy. I argue that, within the securitised discourse of cyberterrorism, the limits of fantasy possesses a murky nuance, which in turn, allows for a deeper -or at least more entrenched -securitisation. The official discourse surrounding the intelligence services' online surveillance apparatus operates with a similar opaque quality, but this is upheld by securitising actors as a strength to be maintained.
Keywords: cyberterrorism, securitisation theory
IntroductionThe term 'cyberterrorism' was first coined by Barry Collin in the 1980s (Brickey 2012), and has become a 'buzzword' not just in terrorism studies and cyber-security circles, but also -recognising cyberterror's prowess for eye-catching copy -within the media (Weimann 2005, 131;Gordon and Ford 2002; Jones 2005, 7). This media-friendly characteristic has perhaps encouraged a propensity to conflate cyberterrorism with hacking and cyberattacks more broadly (Taliharm 2010, 62-63), which has applied weight to the need for common conceptual understanding. Denning's testimony before the United States Congress' House Armed Services Committee offers one definition of the term. Accordingly, she stated that:"Cyberterrorism is the convergence of cyberspace and terrorism. It refers to unlawful attacks and threats of attacks against computers, networks and the information stored therein when done to intimidate or coerce a government or its people in furtherance of political or social objectives". Crucially, "to qualify as cyberterrorism, an attack should result in violence against persons or property, or at least cause enough harm to generate fear" (Denning 2000).Hua and Bapna offer a similar definition, stressing the role of 'significance' in the scale of the attack, and the inducement of physical violence or the creation of panic (2012, 176). A clause for cyberterrorism appears in British law in the 2000 Terrorism Act, under which Section (2)(e) detailed attacks "designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system" (National Archives 2000, 1); a clause that, Clive Walker contends, distinguished the dichotomy between 'costly nuisances' and bona fide 'cyberterrorism ' (2006, 632).Given the dearth of a cyberterrorist attack up to the point of writing, cyberterrorism can be considered to be a phenomenon that has been talked into existence (Conway 2005). Regardless, in the UK, cyberterrorism is arg...