We journalists often have mixed feelings about what we report and write. Naturally, we like to see our reporting vindicated by events or other reporting. This makes us feel prescient. Still, we often feel bad, because what we've reported harms some group or society as a whole. That's how I felt when I read a recent story in The Wall Street Journal headlined "Cyberwar ignites new arms race."
In the past, I've argued that — contrary to conventional wisdom — the Internet does not represent "progress," because its benefits are vastly overshadowed by its potential for social anarchy and global conflict. So far, that hasn't happened on a significant scale — cyberattacks have mostly involved business and government spying — but The Wall Street Journal story suggests that broader conflicts are just a matter of time.
It reports that "countries have begun to amass cyberweaponry on an unprecedented scale." At least 29 countries "have formal military or intelligence units dedicated to offensive hacking efforts," estimate Journal reporters Damian Paletta, Danny Yadron and Jennifer Valentino-DeVries. And 50 countries, including some of the 29, "have bought off-the-shelf hacking software."