Prank or terrorism? Aaviksoo calls for cyber crime definition

  • 2007-09-12
  • By Joel Alas
TALLINN - Estonia's defense minister has backed away from previous government claims that the Russian government was behind the "cyber war" which affected several Web sites in the wake of the Bronze Soldier removal.
Defense Minister Jaak Aaviksoo told a conference on Sept. 5 that the direct involvement of the Russian government could not be proven, but said they "coincided" with anti-Estonian rhetoric and riots.
"We have no solid evidence that the Russian Federation was involved," Aaviksoo said. "There is an indirect link on which we are not willing to expand… We can use the term 'cyber terrorism' that was, if not government sponsored, then government tolerated."

In late April, when Estonian Web sites began being disabled by a flood of hits from across the world, Foreign Minister Urmas Paet pointed the blame squarely at the Kremlin. Paet said several of the IP addresses of the attacking computers had been traced to Russian government offices in Moscow. His claim was repeated by Prime Minister Andrus Ansip and Justice Minister Rein Lang, who stood by the statement after computer security experts found that the attacks were the work of private individuals.
On Sept. 5, Aaviksoo addressed an American Chamber of Commerce conference in Tallinn that dissected the "cyber attacks" and their effect.
He said it was now clear the attacks came from computers across the world, many of them accessed by hackers without the knowledge of their owners.

Aaviksoo said governments needed to define cyber crimes, which could be as devastating as a physical attack.
He compared the recent attacks 's which disabled the Web sites of several major banks, newspapers and government services 's to the military blockading of ports in the days of seafaring trade.
"We need to clean up the language and agree on definitions. When does an innocent e-mail cross the line and become cyber crime, terrorism or war?" he said.
Aaviksoo said computer owners could one day be held responsible for not safeguarding their machines against improper use, in the same way gun owners are responsible for ensuring their weapons are locked away.