Cyberwarfare needs to be framed far more broadly.
When we hear the term “cyberwarfare” we think of government-backed hackers stealing data, or releasing viruses or other software exploits to disrupt another country’s capabilities, communications, or operations. We imagine terrorists or foreign hackers planning to destroy America’s power grid, financial systems, or communications networks, or stealing our secrets.
I’ve been thinking, though, that it may be useful to frame the notion of cyberwarfare far more broadly. What if we thought of JP Morgan’s recent trading losses not simply as a “bad bet” but as the outcome of a cyberwar between JP Morgan and hedge funds? More importantly, what if we thought of the Euro’s current troubles in part as the result of a cyberwar between the financial industry and the EU?
When two nations with differing goals attack each other, we call it warfare. But when financial firms attack each other, or the financial industry attacks the economy of nations, we tell ourselves that it’s “the efficient market” at work. In fact the Eurozone crisis is a tooth-and-claw battle between central bankers and firms seeking profit for themselves despite damage to the livelihoods of millions.
When I see headlines like “Merkel says Euro Rescue Funds Needed Against Speculators” or “Speculators Attacking the Euro” or “Banksters Take Us to the Brink” it’s pretty clear to me that we need to stop thinking of the self-interested choices made by financial firms as “just how it is,” and to think of them instead as hostile activities. And these activities are largely carried out by software trading bots, making them, essentially, a cyberwar between profiteers and national economies (i.e. the rest of us).