岌岌可危的信任:接近网络攻击的影响

IF 1.7 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Miguel Alberto Gomez, Ryan Shandler
{"title":"岌岌可危的信任:接近网络攻击的影响","authors":"Miguel Alberto Gomez, Ryan Shandler","doi":"10.1093/jogss/ogae002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Proximity is a core feature of theories of political violence, with the effects of attacks rippling outward so that geographically proximate individuals experience more severe effects than those more distant. However, this model of proximity and exposure is unlikely to recur for cyberattacks. The incorporeality of cyber incidents and the absence of a physical epicenter constrain the mechanism coupling physical distance with harm. To empirically test the relationship between proximity and cyberattacks, we conducted a field study involving 707 German respondents following a ransomware attack in Düsseldorf. We find that the classical “ripple effect” is reversed, with political trust highest among people closer to the attack and lowest among those geographically distant. We postulate that in the absence of firsthand exposure to its effects, geographically distant individuals employ abstract conceptions of the consequences of cyber incidents that do not align with actual events. Consequently, distance does not confer security, and it can even amplify the adverse effects of exposure. This finding highlights the need for governments to actively work to assuage public fears following cyberattacks.","PeriodicalId":44399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Security Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trust at Risk: The Effect of Proximity to Cyberattacks\",\"authors\":\"Miguel Alberto Gomez, Ryan Shandler\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jogss/ogae002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Proximity is a core feature of theories of political violence, with the effects of attacks rippling outward so that geographically proximate individuals experience more severe effects than those more distant. However, this model of proximity and exposure is unlikely to recur for cyberattacks. The incorporeality of cyber incidents and the absence of a physical epicenter constrain the mechanism coupling physical distance with harm. To empirically test the relationship between proximity and cyberattacks, we conducted a field study involving 707 German respondents following a ransomware attack in Düsseldorf. We find that the classical “ripple effect” is reversed, with political trust highest among people closer to the attack and lowest among those geographically distant. We postulate that in the absence of firsthand exposure to its effects, geographically distant individuals employ abstract conceptions of the consequences of cyber incidents that do not align with actual events. Consequently, distance does not confer security, and it can even amplify the adverse effects of exposure. This finding highlights the need for governments to actively work to assuage public fears following cyberattacks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Global Security Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Global Security Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogae002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogae002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

邻近性是政治暴力理论的一个核心特征,攻击的影响会向外扩散,因此地理位置较近的人受到的影响比距离较远的人更严重。然而,这种邻近性和暴露模式不太可能在网络攻击中重现。网络事件的非现实性和物理震中的缺失限制了物理距离与危害的耦合机制。为了实证检验距离与网络攻击之间的关系,我们在杜塞尔多夫发生勒索软件攻击事件后,对 707 名德国受访者进行了实地调查。我们发现,经典的 "涟漪效应 "发生了逆转,距离攻击较近的人政治信任度最高,而距离较远的人政治信任度最低。我们推测,由于没有亲身经历过网络事件的影响,地理位置较远的人对网络事件后果的抽象概念与实际事件并不一致。因此,距离并不会带来安全感,甚至会放大暴露的不利影响。这一发现凸显了政府在网络攻击发生后积极消除公众恐惧的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Trust at Risk: The Effect of Proximity to Cyberattacks
Proximity is a core feature of theories of political violence, with the effects of attacks rippling outward so that geographically proximate individuals experience more severe effects than those more distant. However, this model of proximity and exposure is unlikely to recur for cyberattacks. The incorporeality of cyber incidents and the absence of a physical epicenter constrain the mechanism coupling physical distance with harm. To empirically test the relationship between proximity and cyberattacks, we conducted a field study involving 707 German respondents following a ransomware attack in Düsseldorf. We find that the classical “ripple effect” is reversed, with political trust highest among people closer to the attack and lowest among those geographically distant. We postulate that in the absence of firsthand exposure to its effects, geographically distant individuals employ abstract conceptions of the consequences of cyber incidents that do not align with actual events. Consequently, distance does not confer security, and it can even amplify the adverse effects of exposure. This finding highlights the need for governments to actively work to assuage public fears following cyberattacks.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Global Security Studies
Journal of Global Security Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
34
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信