The word cyber is almost exclusively used when discussing security of computer systems. It's used very heavily by government and academic circles and it propagates to other industries from there.
In the 90s I used the word to describe an instant messenger version of "phone sex" and I haven't been able to take anyone that uses the term seriously after that, but I never really took the goverment or academia seriously to begin with.
Even in academia, at least in my corner of it, "Cyber" as a term has a very government/military/suit connotation. Academics will sometimes use it when writing grant proposals or presenting in a DARPA-ish context, but most researchers prefer to call what they do "cybersecurity" (or even just "security", if a CS context is clear).
Yeah, not only is "Cybersecurity" a "Thing" (I work in s/w security and hear it all the time) but people still talk about "Artificial Intelligence" when they mean image filters and classifiers, and have been doing so since the 1980's.
Language fires the imagination. This is mostly a good thing. Sometimes it's also stupid, but not necessarily bad for it.
It’s usually used by either people working with the government, or by people who are tech-illiterate (marketing etc). The rest of the security industry is likely to snicker if they hear that word.
“Computer security” is too narrow; you want to secure more than just computers (phones, for example, which are technically just little computers but no one calls them that).
“Information security” is too broad as it covers more than technological systems—sensitive information often exists on paper, for example.
A close plain English name would probably be something like “information systems security” and I have heard some people use that, but it’s kind of a mouthful.
I guess I wonder why people get so upset and offended by the word cyber. Sure it’s a made up word, but all words are made up. IMO a lot of the resistance to using it comes down to weird cultural signaling like “I’m too smart or informed to use this dumb word.” It’s just a word, and even people who complain about it know what it means.
For me that cultural signal goes the other way around. When faced with people using "cyber" unironically I'm attributing that to government proximity, weird processes and TED talks for managerial types instead of actual technical content. Which is fine in context I guess, that doesn't make the term any less stupid, for me it signifies a certain cultural distance from the subject matter of a generation that has been left behind. I always assumed the term stemmed from the old use of cyberspace or cyber information highway in the 70s/80s(?), we've moved on from that era of the internet being a sci-fi construct. Even school children get at least some technical understanding these days and are made aware of larger implications like privacy.
While I absolutely agree that it's a pointless discussion, I don't believe it's completely insignificant.
You're not the only one. Brussels, the self proclaimed capital of the European Union and seat of many lobbies, is full of those "cyber-security" types. They proudly declare themselves experts in the field but are hardly pressed to discuss any product other than what they've been told to sell.
Ah, cheers, forgot about that one. I'm not saying the word "cyber" is generally stupid but the use as a pop culture prefix is... problematic and misleading in my view if you'd prefer other terms. It's just used as theatrics from the type of people that classify getting hit by ransomware due to unpatched systems as some APT, at least everywhere I see it.
I agree with you -- I think there's a lot of cultural signalling, perhaps some unintentional by those who use the word 'cyber'. Generally speaking, I'm off-put when someone uses the word "cyber" because I generally interpret that as a signal that someone doesn't really know that much about infosec/cyber-security. For example, let's suppose that I'm meeting with a rep from Company X's cybersecurity team and we're reviewing my threat model, counter-measures, the specifics of the encryption, etc... and I'm asked "this all looks good, but is it cyber?" -- it's just plain off-putting. That said, I'll still do my best to smile and be helpful because, at the end of the day, we're trying to improve the world, not cut people down.
They needed a fancy word to attract and anchor the ridiculous investments made. This area has attracted so much attention, it has become an overlay IT organization that demands a lot of care and feeding. Nothing escapes the cyber-amoeba... even sleepy areas like asset management need expensive cyber tools and expensive cyber people.
Think of it like front end web development in the 90s. Webmasters ended up with a lot of independence and cash, because the company had to get on the information superhighway.
This is way off, the security community at large rejected the term cyber for years, but it was necessary to play ball with govt. That's it. The fact that vendors now leverage the word is irrelevant, that happened way later.
This is such a specious argument and yet repeated ad nauseam. Please stop. For one, it doesn't make the listening and harvesting of data ok, just because it may already be happening. Also, it's just condescending. You don't think the parent or other people of reasonable intelligence and valid concern haven't thought about that? Then, it also just misses the point anyway -- no, I'm not OK with my cell phone harvesting anything and everything it can get (cadence of my walk, say). Yes, I like having access to maps on the go. These concerns aren't mutually exclusive, and most of us choose not to live like Stallman. We still live in a rich and complex ecosystem of law and precedence, highly dependent on where we are on a given day, what nationality we are, etc. None of that invalidates the quite reasonable expectation to privacy (not to mention that solutions exist such as opt-in, but cavalier people working in tech choose instead the race to the bottom of privacy and chasing cost-per-click).
Right, I'm not saying it makes it ok, I'm saying OP is a hypocrite or doesn't understand what technology is capable of. But of course if you believe any device capable of listening is listening, then you have to forfeit your smartphone along with your home automation device.
