Ontological (In)visibility and Cyber Conflict: The Problem of Sight and Vision in Establishing Threat

Abstract

This paper builds on the work of scholars working on ontological security, cyber security, and computer science to understand the problem of threat assessment and vision before, during, and after cyber-attacks. The previous use of ontological security theory (OST) has been limited because it has relied upon an overly simplistic vision of threat assessment at the international, state, and individual level. While previous scholars have examined the background, latent, or assumed visions of security threats as interpreted by agents and how their conditions do or do not effectively capture the anxieties of populations and practitioners this piece seeks to put these issues in conversation. In conceiving of ‘the state’ and ‘threat’ this piece examines the notion of vision, because as states conceive of threats in terms of terrorism (overt and theatrical) and cyber (covert and private) a mismatch of responses is noted. This piece reads the current cyber security landscape (2009-2019) in the United States through a lens of repeated and rambunctious cyber-threats and attacks and a largely passive response by the US citizenry through OST alongside: (1) the literature on computer science dealing with the concept of ontology, (2) the traditional threat framework found in the terrorism literature around response to threat with a comparison to the cyber-conflict literature, an (3) examination of the interplay between the public and government around the visibility and salience of cyberthreats.

Ontological security, cyber technology, and states’ responses

“…Because the cyber realm is largely opaque to the outside world and because individuals, corporations, public utilities, hospitals, or governments who suffer from cyber attacks often hide these attacks out of shame, embarrassment, or for security concerns no trauma is effectively transmitted and thus no concerted popular response is generated. (Whooley, 2021: 49, my emphasis)…”

“…According to Whooley, unlike kinetic attacks, which leave observable traces, cyber-attacks are difficult to observe. Therefore, experiencing such attacks does not create collective traumas and does not challenge states’ ontological security (Whooley, 2021: 49–50). 10 As he explains, securitizing the self seems to require a collective trauma:This is precisely the problem: anxiety without vision is lost on voters and policymakers not directly focused on the issue of cybersecurity.…”

“…Nonetheless, these studies on emotions and cyber have not linked these aspects to ontological security, and they focus on individuals’ emotions rather than on emotions at the societal level. Finally, a number of works have briefly mentioned that cyber technology connects with ontological security (Hansen and Nissenbaum, 2009: 1160; Stevens, 2016: 90) and others elaborate on more specific themes: self-image and the justification of surveillance (Ralston, 2014); collective memory and Wikipedia (Gustafsson, 2020); targeting an opponent’s ontological security needs and disinformation (Bolton, 2021a); (non-)traumas and the securitization of cyber-attacks (Whooley, 2021), and emotions and social networks (Kinnvall, 2019: 292; Solomon, 2018; Steele, 2019). These works provide useful points of departure for this research.…”