#virtual vandalism

[virtualvandalismnola]

[onthefieldsable]

“The Kiss” by Klimt (Virtually Vandalized by the writer)

[onthefieldsable]

“The Kiss” by Klimt (Virtually Vandalized by the writer)

[onthefieldsable]

“The Kiss” by Klimt (Virtually Vandalized by the writer)

[fortitudinous]

Virtual Vandalism – Organization Development

We experienced a bit of a headache last week when the Fortitude website was hit by some malware. Fortunately my webmaster was able to find the offending piece of coding lurking in some of the pages, cleaned it up and has updated the security to fight off any further attack

For the business, the effect is inconvenience mainly in regards to having to spend time and resource tracking down an offending piece of code, and also on upgrading our security once again. The unknown is how much reputational damage the malware has caused to the site. Like many organizations Fortitude spends time and resource on marketing the website to drive traffic, and has in many ways been successful in that endeavor.

We knew there was a problem prior to getting a notification from Google because the number of visits to the website had dropped significantly, only time will tell what wider impact the 'warning malware detected' pop up will have had in the long term.

Today however, the situation has got me thinking how easily we accept the fact that we have to protect ourselves in the virtual world, and how the perpetrators of virtual vandalism never get pursued.

If we were to put ourselves back in the real world for a minute, the impact on the Fortitude Website would be similar to someone attacking the shop in such a way as to prevent the business from opening its doors to customers for several days.

Just think about that for a minute. If a town centre shop was so badly vandalized that it wasn't able to be accessed by customers for several days, what would the reaction be? It would certainly make the local news. The police would be called in, forensics would be dusting for prints and there would be a demand for action. The business insurance would cover the cost of loss of business, and the cost of putting things back to normal.

But in the virtual world we are in the wild-west, frontier land where bandits roam unhindered, and if a business is affected by malware it is their fault for not having adequate security. On a personal level if you computer has ever been infected you will know the damage that a worm, or virus can have on your computer. But if you are unlucky enough to be affected it is your fault for not having the right level of security.

Back in the real world you put in place the security that fits what you are protecting. Our houses have locks and alarms because of the value of our possessions, and we have extra precautions for high value items such as computers and jewellery.

But in the virtual world your average joe who does banking online and a bit of online shopping is expected to have the same level of security as multi million pound profit making firms. In fact it is your average joe who is more likely to be impacted by the latest virus or malware because they don't have the resources that the big firms do. The virtual vandals pick on the little guy who can't defend themselves and for what?

It's not even as if the virtual vandals get any material gain from the attacks. At least in the wild-west you could excuse the pillaging of farmstead as dog eat dog in the race for survival, but in the virtual world? What is the point of picking on the little guy, and because of the way viruses work the creator of that virus won't even know whom they have impacted or the impact they have had. A student who has lost their dissertation prior to hand in, a mother who can't place her online shopping, someone's personal photographs lost forever and the added cost of replacing the infected machine and upgrading security.

As someone who is curious as to why people act the way they do, I am at a loss as to the motivation of the virtual vandals. I get that if they take down one of the security agents or big banks there can be an argument for 'kudos' or even 'social militancy' but the difference between hacking and malware coding seems to be the heightened sense of 'because I can' mentality as a primary motivate. The same reason why online Trolls, who in the real world are the least likely to be malicious, think it is okay to attack people online.

Whilst bullying in the school playground is being tackled head on, and in most schools the worst of the bullying has been eradicated, the bullies have taken to the virtual world where they can attack unmolested and unmonitored.

In the virtual world it appears we are dehumanized, and individual actions are separated from the very human cost of our actions. But in the real world being able to do something because you can is the very debasement of human society - it is a Lord of the Flies mentality.

Whilst most online users are respectful and want to go about their virtual lives unhindered and unharmed, the virtual world has developed its own underworld and underclass intent on fracturing societal norms. Virtual ghettos already exist where those who can dream up more elaborate ways to harm and disrupt business as usual.

At the moment it is the individual who must bear arms to fight off the invaders, but as more and more of our lives are transferred from the real to the virtual world I wonder how long we will accept the dog eat dog world and start demanding a new sheriff in town.