Cyberterrorism is defined as the convergence of cyberspace - the Internet - and terrorism.  Cyberterrorism includes illegal attacks against computers, networks and information stored in those computer networks. Cyberterrorists have numerous objectives: to threaten national security, to intimidate people or force governments into the adoption of their political or social agenda.

The real question is whether all tools that we have at our disposal are effective to combat hackers or cyberterrorists. Are today's firewalls, encrypted software, anti-virus programs, anti-phishing programs, malware prevention programs effective enough? Is the amateur hacker who tries to hack into networks for fun deserving of the same treatment as a cyberterrorist? As the most recent events have shown with the compromised Yahoo, Gmail and Hotmail email accounts, this type of activity is here to stay.

Martin Libicki of RAND Corporation argues in his report Cyberdeterrence and Cyberwar that strategic cyber warfare shouldn't be a priority for the U.S Military. He asserts that one of the differences between cyber and other forms of warfare is that cyber is largely untested and that it sometimes works and sometimes it does not work. He contends that cyber warfare as an offensive strategy is ineffective and advises against creating a separate service branch akin to the Army, Navy or Air Force dedicated exclusively to cyber warfare. His recommendation is for government to defend critical IT infrastructure through strict regulations that address security issues and the pursuit of diplomatic, economic and prosecutorial efforts against cyber attackers.

The protection of the Internet is vital to all global governments because of its importance to their economies and societies in general. The White House has released a report calling for urgent action to secure the U.S computer network infrastructure. Even ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom, who resigned as government's cybersecurity director running the National Cyber Security Center, criticized the lack of funding for the NCSC and the National Security Agency's dominant role in cybersecurity initiatives in his resignation letter. "The threats to our democratic processes are significant if all top-level government national security and monitoring are handled by one organization," Beckstrom said.

However, implementing full-scale anti-cyberterrorist or anti-hacker measures do come at a cost. Civil liberties and privacy concerns are first on the list. Is the U.S Constitution enough to ensure that freedom in the way web users surf the Internet remains without having an official "policeman" to oversee each activity? How about other nations who have still have Internet censorship?

Looking at the music industry and fighting piracy as a clear example, one can see that the issue of policing and implementing measures to watch over every user and their activities is highly complex. Are Internet Service Providers responsible for reporting all illegal downloaders to the record labels and publishers? Should the ISPs pay the music industry a cut of their profits since they are monetizing from piracy since a large number of subscribers pay for high bandwidth accounts in order to download or share music or movies illegally on the Internet?

There is certainly an opportunity cost for any measure that is adopted. The future of the Internet lies in its decentralization and globalization. Governments and the private sector should weigh both the advantages and disadvantages of each measure they adopt. What should be implemented are all the necessary safeguards that do not interfere with the overall user experience on the Internet or induce privacy concerns. A secure Internet is vital and so is the advancement of social good and freedoms.

McAfee CEO Dave DeWalt reiterated his company's commitment to fighting everything from cyber terrorism to spam attacks. "At least 20 countries have invested in cyber warfare," he said. "We see it almost everyday. To protect our assets, it's about learning from our history -- learning lessons that shape our strategy and help us to evolve our protection."

DeWalt also supported to increase the influence of the Security Innovation Alliance (SIA), an organization he described as "the NATO" of security software. "We don't have a common architecture to coordinate our fight to resolve these threats," he said. "We need to know if data is coming to us from a friend or foe from the IP side in real-time."

General Colin Powell warns, "The worst thing that could possibly happen would be if we became so threatened by malware and viruses that people start to lose confidence in technology." However, Powell himself lost a bit of faith recently when he thought he received a legitimate email from a familiar friend friend of his in Gmail. "Hey, all my computers are protected," he said, "But some people are still getting through." Powell was the intended to be a victim of a 419 scam asking him to wire cash to a distressed man in Nigeria in need. "What scared me was whoever this hacker was knew the right guy to use to get my attention," Powell said. "He somehow knew the relationship between us."

How do we introduce new security technologies without them becoming an inconvenient pain to consumers and at the workplace? I have witnessed first hand the effects of adding security software and attack-prevention programs to my business computer network, portable laptop and home computer. My computer took longer to load programs, slowed down my overall surfing speed as well as forced me to check pop-ups in order to verify, accept or reject most activity that was conducted. In many cases, I decided to disable a lot of the security precautions I had set-up because I chose convenience and speed over advanced security. While we might have the technology and infrastructure to address most security issues, many of us are victims of our own decisions not to take the necessary precaution to address high risk behavior. While regulations and security technology are crucial in our quest for safeguarding our assets, a lot is attributed to our actions. Bad programming can not be attributed to the programming language, but the programmer.