War 2.0

November 11, 2008 | Written by

Veterans Day has me thinking of war (and peace) and how social media has helped or hampered our military and the services that support it. Since war tactics often resemble business practices (how many CEOs have read and used "Art of War"?), hopefully this post will also provide some insight for businesses as well.

Social media is a new military battlefront much in the same way that it’s the new forefront of communications. And as in PR, learning the new rules of the game have not come without growing pains. For example, Google-owned YouTube recently realized that terrorists have been sharing training videos on the site. Well, after September 11 this year, YouTube banned videos "that incite others to commit violent acts, videos on how to make bombs, and footage of sniper attacks," relying on users to report such videos as violating the terms of service.

But whether this will make a dent in the "war on terror" is doubtful. According to the FBI’s Richard Kolko, "It’s good news if there are less of these on the Web, but many of these jihadist videos appear on different websites around the world, and any time there is investigative or intelligence value we actively pursue it."

So much for ROI on social media strategies!

There are other cases, however, where real effects have been felt as the result of malicious web aggression. Take the 2007 Estonian Cyberwar (yes, such a thing exists). Summarized from Wikipedia:

"Estonian Cyberwar" refers to a series of cyber attacks that began April 27, 2007 and swamped websites of Estonian organizations, including Estonian parliament, banks, ministries, newspapers and broadcasters, amid the country’s row with Russia about relocation of a Soviet-era memorial to fallen soldiers. Some observers reckoned that the onslaught on Estonia was of a sophistication not seen before. The case is studied intensively by many countries and military planners as, at the time it occurred, it may have been the second-largest instance of state-sponsored cyberwarfare, following Titan Rain."

And WSJ recently called cyberweapons "a staple of war" in reference to Russia’s attacks on Georgia in August, where they appeared to be used for the first time alongside conventional weapons. (Incidentally, Estonia sent two "leading cyber-defense experts to Tbilisi to help stave off cyber-attacks emanating in Russia.")

They even quoted the aptly named Scott Borg, director of the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit, a think tank that advises governments and companies, "we are in a world where governments have not decided yet whether the tools of cyberattacks are weapons."

The US Air Force has seemed to have vacillated in its role in waging war online as well. According to WIRED:

For years, the Air Force’s leader argued that computer networks were a warfighting "domain" — on par with air or space as a place for combat. The service even changed its mission statement to read, "As Airmen, it is our calling to dominate Air, Space, and Cyberspace."

But recently, they scaled down their proposed Cyber Command announcing that there will no longer be a new major command developed for cyberspace operations.

Perhaps efforts should be stepped up. As we are just learning now, it looks like both McCain and Obama’s sites were subject to cyber attacks during the recent presidential campaign. Where did those attacks originate? China!

Other countries have not been so ambivalent in cracking down.

Last week, Pakistan ruled that "cyber terrorism" will be punishable by death. From Reuters/NYT:

The Prevention of Electronic Crimes law will be applicable to anyone who commits a crime detrimental to national security through the use of a computer or any other electronic device, the government said in the ordinance. "Whoever commits the offence of cyber terrorism and causes death of any person shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life." The ordinance described cyber terrorism as accessing of a computer network or electronic system by someone who then "knowingly engages in or attempts to engage in a terroristic act."

How does this all relate to corporate PR? A few lessons can be gleaned:
- Our enemies (competitors) are attacking (competing) with us online – we ignore Web 2.0 at our own peril.
- Anyone with an Internet connection can have a big impact. That includes those seeking to damage your company’s reputation or your country’s functionality
- Broad understanding and cooperation is hard to achieve in Web 2.0, but steer clear of corporal punishment to get your executives on Twitter
- The most successful campaigns will intergrate cyber- (ePR) and conventional (traditional) weapons (media outreach), while relying on expert strategic counsel

**UPDATE 1 (11/13)**

Ruder Finn’s role in War 2.0 can be seen in our work with the Department of Homeland security on Ready.gov. We built the website as the central component of their nationwide citizen preparedness campaign, which encouraged Americans to prepare themselves and their homes in the event of a terrorist attack.

Here’s the case study: Don’t Be Afraid, Be Ready

More from RFI Studios

• Tipping Point 2.0 – Left Brain
• Health 2.0 – Left Brain
• Dominating Web 2.0: PR or Advertising? – Left Brain
• Mass Consumption – Left Brain
• Behind the trends – Left Brain

Ask RFI Studios To Recommend Your Posts