





































102  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

The Theology of 
Cybersecurity
Global Threats, Local Protections, and 
Ethical Obligations
By Anthony J. Elia, Bridwell Library, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist 

University

ABSTR ACT Institutions of higher learning, including seminaries and 
theological schools around the world, are increasingly faced with not 
just keeping information safe, but also needing to be proactive against 
external cyber-threats on a global scale. Unlike the world of twenty-
five years ago, unknown actors 10,000 miles away have the potential 
to infiltrate, infect, hold hostage with ransomware, and even destroy 
our valued information. In this presentation I will address the func-
tional, relevant, and practical questions about cybersecurity in semi-
naries and theological schools, along with the theological and ethical 
questions about being proactive stewards of cyber-infrastructure. The 
role of cybersecurity reaches all members of a community and can 
affect everything from student library accounts to the reputation of an 
institution. In this paper, we will look at both the practical and the theo-
logical-ethical nature of cybersecurity in theological institutions, and 
we will ask how we can be more engaged and better protected against 
potential threats. 

INTRODUCTION: OUTLINING THE THEOLOGY  
OF CYBERSECURITY

In this paper, we will discuss two key themes around cybersecurity in 
the context of theology, theological education, and theological institu-
tions. These two themes are 1) the practical aspect of having an under-
standing of cybersecurity at ATS and other theological institutions,  



Papers and Presentations  103

where we are aware of the threats and discuss them; and 2) that tech-
nology, and especially the question of cybersecurity, is engaged with 
as an academic, specifically theological, and ethical topic. Too often, in 
the last twenty-five years of working in theological schools and educa-
tional technology and IT, the role of technology has been relegated 
to the backburner, as having nothing to do with theology. Yet, I recall 
very clearly, perhaps the most prescient of observers back in 2006, a 
friend and colleague, who wrote passionately about Minjung Theol-
ogy, stating that technology was a force of control, post-colonialism, 
and oppression, something that would certainly be central to the very 
modes and debates of state control, corporate power, injustice, and 
inequality. Now, more than a decade later, I believe that this colleague 
had many valid points. Of course, we don’t want to be puritanical about 
technology, but there are surely many opinions about it. In the follow-
ing pages, I will discuss some of these issues, how they have mani-
fested, and how we can work to address these topics as members of 
theological communities. 

TECHNOLOGY, SPEED, AND WHO  
OWNS INFORMATION?

What is information and who owns it? Should information be free, 
regulated, or manipulated? Is it already? Part of our understanding 
about the world is how we understand our place in that world. In the 
last 200 years, with the advent of new transportation technologies, 
the world “grew smaller.” Some scholars have argued that the inven-
tion of the steam engine was by far the most significant technologi-
cal advancement in human history, increasing human travel speeds 
more than at any other point, in distinction to the period preced-
ing that given invention, shifting our speed of travel from months 
to weeks. Others have said the airplane did the same, increasing 
speeds of travel from days or weeks to certain places to mere hours. 
And then there are the inventions of telecommunications and now 
the internet, which though different, have brought elements of infor-
mation and communication to the point of instantaneity. How do 
these changes in our world a) make us who we are, or even change 
who we are; b) inform us theologically and ethically in our places of 
work and life; and c) make us either safer or less safe in protecting 
our personal information?



104  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

WHAT CONSTITUTES CYBERSECURITY?

Why should we even write a paper on “theology and cybersecurity” 
and what does that really mean? Part of the issue that we may be faced 
with in the theological and theological library world is how to engage 
with not only what is relevant in the present, but what will become 
relevant in the coming years. There has been a tendency within our 
disciplines to fall behind in what the tech world offers in primary, 
secondary, and higher education. Why? It is mostly because tech-
nological advances and innovations don’t always seem immediately 
relevant to what has been done in theological education and librar-
ies. For generations, the focus on texts, exegesis, and constructive 
theologies has often found security in the bubble of a self-sustaining 
hermeneutic, one which believes it can thrive on historical stability 
and a legacy that has existed for centuries. This seems to be true not 
just in the thinking about theological ideas, but also about the peda-
gogical practices and applications of practical studies within these 
fields. But as we have quickly entered the “digital age,” where every 
other complaint about our ills is a fixation between “boomers and 
millennials,” or the Gnostic fantasy reflected in some mysterious 
“paper vs. e-something,” we must as librarians and educators begin 
to really think about cyber-presence, cyber-theology, cyber-ministry, 
and cyber-security. The panoply of terms to describe online ideas, 
identities, expressions, and interactions is countless, but we will try 
to contain some descriptions for the purpose of this paper. 

I have utilized specifically, and importantly, the term and idea of 
“cybersecurity” because I believe it is far and away the most signifi-
cant area of consideration and research that should be assessed by 
both the administrative powers of theological schools in its practical 
sense (asking: “How do we keep ourselves, our institutions, and our 
community safe in the present cyber-saturated world?”) and in the 
theological and ethical sense: (asking: “What are the theological and 
ethical implications of how we do any form of theology and ethics, 
including ministry, exegesis, preaching, etc. in the present and future 
age?”). If we are not doing this now, and neglect to ask these questions, 
either as libraries/librarians or as theological schools and accredit-
ing bodies in the next few years, we will be not only doing a disser-
vice to ourselves and our communities, but we will be negligent to our 
commitments in cultivating real communities of vocation seekers. 



Papers and Presentations  105

We live in a world where social justice and its accompanying 
language plays out online in forums and discussion threads, as well 
as in Facebook posts, in raw, unaltered forms, and yet rarely is the 
format and contexts of this meta-form exegetically analyzed itself. 
We want to speak our minds, while having our privacy, yet we post 
constantly about the most revealing aspects of our personalities, 
habits, opinions, and political ideologies. And in those spaces, we fight 
against oppressions and racism, sexism, ageism, and other senses 
of injustice, yet reveal both our own biases, as well as the biases of 
technological systems, search engines, and algorithms (see Safiya U. 
Noble’s new book Algorithms of Opression: How Search Engines Reinforce 
Racism for further details), which eventually are collected, reviewed, 
assessed, and commodified, whereby we become objects of monetary 
value, used and abused by third parties, companies, states, and other 
unknown actors. 

FIRST CONSIDERATIONS: PRIVACY AND OWNERSHIP

Cybersecurity is one of the most pervasive, broadly misunderstood, oft 
feared, and completely necessary terms in the 21st century; likewise, 
theology is perhaps one of the least pervasive, broadly misunderstood, 
oft feared, and certainly necessary terms for a select group of indi-
viduals in the world of academics and religion. What then are the most 
important considerations (practical, theoretical, and theological) for 
us, and why is this paper necessary for us and our communities?

As we think about these ideas and how they fit together, it will 
be beneficial to begin with questions about “information,” as 
mentioned earlier: what constitutes information, how we work 
and deal with information, and even how information has influence 
upon us. Primarily, though, the technology, speed, and ownership of 
information are vitally important. For example, we know that tech-
nology grows at certain rates, we know that technology is responsi-
ble for the speed at which information is carried and delivered, and 
we know that technology plays a role in both “shared” and “owned” 
information. In effect, we know that all of these elements are inte-
gral to how things operate in the world, but we also know how this 
functionality impacts some of the most vital operations in things 
like medicine, law, information technology, and business, among 
many other fields. 



106  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

What is perhaps most important among these terms is “owner-
ship.” The role of who has propriety over information is key to what we 
might call the “new holy trinity” in global communications: technol-
ogy, ownership, and privacy. Though not exclusively the same, propri-
ety and ownership have linking roles, and both are important to how 
we connect both technology, broadly speaking, and the meaning of 
privacy—a term which is often confused with “personal.” Privacy has 
been defined as more relational than the word personal in English. 
In fact, the term “privacy” has its roots in meaning “state of freedom 
from intrusion” dating back to the early 19th century, in contrast to 
simply meaning “the self.”1 Certainly, the nuances of these terms may 
be debated further, but for our purposes, these distinctions are help-
ful as we try to better understand the role of privacy, technology, and 
the ownership of information. 

This leads us to the question: “Who owns what information?” The 
people, the government, third-party entities, companies, or others? As 
we’ve come into a new age, the “digital age,” we have encountered new 
problems. The introduction of enhanced and networked technologies, 
for example, has led to a change in how we perceive, interact, and 
recognize privacy, and ultimately ourselves. The history of cybersecu-
rity might prompt us to consider how information has been utilized, 
protected, or even manipulated for various reasons. Over the years, 
since the 1960s, the development of computers and networks has 
led us into a realm that has changed and about which there has been 
growth in areas good, risky, and even bad.2 As some cybersecurity 
specialists have warned in recent years, the internet is not completely 
safe, because when its foundations were built, no one thought that 
most people would be shopping online, let alone that they would need 
to guard against cyberwarfare attacks. In recent years, we’ve heard 
many reports about what preparedness the U.S. government had in 
the late 1990s and early 2000s leading up to the 9/11 attacks. One 
such tale describes the utility of government computing as grossly 
inadequate, lagging behind nearly a decade, including a description 
of the situation then FBI director Robert Mueller faced in late 2001, 
where the technology was not adequate enough to complete basic 
email attachments, in order to send confidential materials across the 
country. Indeed, the story goes that such information had to be sent 
by an actual agent personally flying from one city to another. 



Papers and Presentations  107

As we address the histories of technology, we will also need to keep 
in mind the roles of privacy, which are part of that trio I spoke of earlier 
(i.e. privacy, ownership, technology). The role of privacy has been 
central to how libraries and other social agencies have operated for at 
least eighty years. In 1939, the American Library Association’s Code 
of Ethics declared the “right to privacy” as part of its core values. In 
the period subsequent, especially from 1958 to 1974, multiple privacy 
cases were taken up within state and federal government agencies, in 
order to clarify where people had rights and where their rights were 
being infringed upon (e.g. NAACP v Alabama; Griswold v Conn.; Katz v 
US; and the Privacy Act of 1974). Privacy rights were even tested in the 
case of a Colorado county attorney, who claimed that library records 
were actually public, after a journalist sought the borrowing records 
and reading history of John Hinkley Jr. (Reagan’s would-be assas-
sin) from a public library. The decision was later overturned, though, 
for obvious constitutional reasons.3 A later issue, prompted by U.S. 
Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s hearings, led to a journalist 
seeking personal (and private) videos of his family in 1988. These 
cases overlapped with the “borrower card dilemma,” which was the 
issue that many libraries in the 1980s had to deal with—where many 
end-of-book borrower cards contained personal borrower data (e.g. 
who borrowed what books and when). This also coincided with the 
development of databases, which recorded personal data that was 
held as secure data by institutions and libraries. As a result of some of 
these changes, the borrower cards were either removed or marked out 
by large and heavy inked black markers to ensure personal privacy. 
Some legal specialists have noted that both of the high-profile cases 
of Bork and Hinkley contributed to the question of what constitutes 
a public record in libraries. But the role of technology must also be 
considered, specifically during the early years of technological change 
in libraries and telecommunications. This coincided with the rise of 
the internet in the 1990s and ultimately the need for cybersecurity.

But these bring up at least two related stories and dilemmas that 
I want to share: 1) In 2008 I discovered that a book by famed scholar 
Irving Babbitt (ca. 1915) had a borrower’s card detailing the borrowing 
history and had been checked out to the well-known church historian 
Martin Marty—back in 1954! I contacted Marty and had an excellent 
conversation about the book. In retrospect, I probably should not have 



108  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

contacted the borrower, even if it had been more than half a century 
earlier, but it helped with the research I was undertaking at the time; 
and 2) In 2012, a professor from a major British university contacted 
Columbia University to ask who had consulted with a sixteenth-
century volume in special collections. It was to help prove an intel-
lectual history of a twentieth-century scholar, who made claims on 
certain historical themes, supposedly based on this early modern text. 
After consultation, the Columbia University Library’s legal and copy-
right team did not allow for library staff to provide that information, 
which we weren’t going to provide anyway, but said that the profes-
sor could come to the United States and view the material in person, 
basically giving passive permission to “see the book.” Both situations 
were problematic on different levels, as there was a tension between 
what constituted historical and even “archival” research with privacy 
laws and protocols. I provide these encounters to help demonstrate 
the greater issues of privacy and the grey areas that prompt questions 
about the limits of this kind of historical research. 

THEOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY, AND SECURITY: OR, HOW DO WE 
UNDERSTAND CYBERSECURITY

There are multiple terms that we might consider when looking at 
the current situation of cybersecurity and theology. These include 
privacy, education, technology, media, social media, institutional 
privacy, seminary IT, hacking, and safeguarding. Each of these plays 
a role in the way that our institutions operate, as well as how we need 
to look forward as proactive stewards of our communities. Cyberat-
tacks constitute a major threat to our society, but what is less known 
by the general public is the percentage which is caused by us, the 
human actors. The general estimate is that around 95% of cyberat-
tacks are based on careless human error, which come in the forms of 
poorly secured personal information or exposing one’s private infor-
mation in places like coffee shops or even in online forums of social 
media. Many of our behaviors are manifested as personal actions 
(things we do) versus digital actions (things our technology enables), 
and these can be further distinguished by types of information, all of 
which are important to either keeping safe or being risky and open-
ing ourselves up to intrusion and cyberattacks. Some of the areas that 
we must be cognizant of include5 1) physical information (computers, 



Papers and Presentations  109

mobile and storage devices, printers, and white/chalk boards); 2) digi-
tal information (email, login credentials, authentication devices and 
portable drives, and browsing windows histories); 3) primary infor-
mation (those things that cybercriminals are looking for to do opti-
mal damage, such as bank information and Social Security numbers); 
and 4) enabling information (e.g., passwords). Breaking down types 
of primary information, we can include a) personal information (date 
of birth, driver’s licenses), b) sensitive information (Social Security 
number, tax ID), and c) organizational information (intellectual prop-
erty, research information). Unauthorized access to any of these can 
do irreparable harm. 

What is important here, though, is that seminaries and theologi-
cal schools need to recognize these kinds of information, as well as 
the safeguards that must be involved in protecting their students, 
faculty, and staff. There are many types of cyberattacks, as well as 
cyberattackers—not all of whom are necessarily bad.6 More impor-
tantly, or perhaps more invasively, we have those actors in the world 
who are looking to and at our information for multiple reasons. Those 
who have been identified by McAfee Labs as “Info-Gathering” actors 
include 1) The Media: which use information to sell stories; 2) Private 
Investigators: who use information for a legal case; 3) Debt Collectors: who 
use hacking to track debtors; 4) Insurance Companies: which use infor-
mation to adjust premiums; and 5) Consumer Businesses: which may sell 
“aspects” of information for profit.7 Furthermore, there are multiple 
ways of “angling” to get people to divulge their personal and private 
information, and many of these are successfully employed globally 
but not always recognized by those who become victims of the crimes. 
These come in both technical and non-technical categories. (Again, 
these all are detailed in the Southern Methodist University data and 
security orientation site).  

Technical
 1.  Phishing: using crafted emails to bait broad groups and gather 

sensitive data

 2.  Spear Phishing: using crafted emails to target employees of a 
specific company 

 3.  Whaling: using emails to target high-ranking or high-profile 
individuals for sensitive data 



110  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

 4. Pharming: spoofing a website to capture personal data

 5.  ID Theft: impersonating someone to steal information, money, 
or credit

 6.  Privacy Invasion: acquiring and selling personal data to third 
parties

 7.  Malware: intrusive and damaging software providing data to 
thieves 

 8.  Man-in-the-Middle: intercepting communications b/w parties 
online

Non-Technical
 1. Dumpster Diving: going through trash to steal information

 2.  Shoulder Surfing: looking over shoulders to steal personal infor-
mation 

 3.  Pretexting: Researching and baiting a person to steal data/infor-
mation

 4. Mail Theft: Stealing from mail to gain information

Having reviewed some of these issues, problems, and approaches 
to cybersecurity and cybercrime, it is important now to understand 
best practices. In short, some of the examples that cybersecurity 
experts provide include, above all: (a) being very careful and aware of 
our surroundings and our stewardship of personal and private infor-
mation; (b) using complex and multiple passwords, including those 
that might not even make sense (e.g., “place of birth?” = “Chicken 
Soup”), so that suspecting thieves will be way off track when attempt-
ing to make guesses; and (c) implementing and using two-factor 
authentication, which is in use in larger organizations and univer-
sities.8 These practices won’t guarantee our safety against attacks, 
intrusion, or identity theft, but they are key strategies for our basic 
protection. 

INFORMATION ECONOMIES: HOW SOCIETY AND OUR INSTI-
TUTIONS FACE ONE ANOTHER

When looking at cybersecurity from the standpoint of institutions, 
especially theological schools and seminaries, there has been a long 
tradition of separating the tasks of theological education from the 



Papers and Presentations  111

practical aspects of everyday work in the office space, library, class-
room, and chapel, among all the places and spaces that make up such 
institutions. But it is necessary to think about this topic in a far more 
targeted, and far more serious way, where we must bring together the 
theological with the technological, not just as actions of training and 
knowledge, but as philosophical points of discussion. 

Information Technology is central to the operation of almost any 
institution, and seminaries are no exception to this. Academic, Educa-
tional, and Information Technologies are part of the core of our oper-
ation, whether or not it is readily recognized by our colleagues and 
administrators. So too, then, is cybersecurity and cyber-infrastruc-
ture. Instead of being merely physical aspects of allowing us to oper-
ate, these concepts and ideas must be taken seriously as part of our 
challenge in understanding the world in which we live, work, worship, 
practice, teach, and learn. How prepared are our schools with “general 
plans” of digital security with in-house or outsourced IT departments, 
and what do we know as members of these communities? What train-
ings are required in terms of safeguarding our information and proper 
online etiquette that doesn’t expose us to the risk of cyberattack? Do 
we ourselves or our schools assume that we won’t be targets of such 
attacks, and if so, why is this the case? Many schools assume the mode 
of “we are too small” or “who wants our data or information anyway?” 
This, we should recognize, is the wrong, and ultimately dangerous 
and costly, approach.

Another area that we need to be aware of is “digital tracking” and 
“digital phenotyping.” Digital Tracking involves how we leave innu-
merable data points on the internet, mostly through social media and 
mobile devices. Our phones can tell how many steps we’ve walked, 
how many times we’ve checked our accounts, who we’ve met, when 
we’ve eaten, who we’ve called or texted, and even the content of these 
interactions. We are prompted with possible “you might like…” items 
for purchase on Amazon or other e-commerce sites, or sent coupons 
from Starbucks, if you even walk by a store, because your geo-location 
was tagged by your phone and shared across multiple apps you may 
have had running on your device at a given time. Digital Phenotyping 
takes this a step further and has recently been defined by Harvard 
scholars and others as “a catch-all term for the trail of relevant health 
data people leave behind in their interactions with the internet, social 



112  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

media, and technology, which has largely untapped potential for the 
early detection of various conditions.”9 Though there are positive 
aspects to what this means, there are other potential risks in how we 
are tracked and analyzed by external entities—as Shoshanna Zuboff 
calls this cleverly, “Big Other.” This term is a nod to the older expres-
sion of “Big Brother,” but is more amorphous, because we are even 
less aware of what is tracking us, or even why we are being tracked 
and categorized. Some potential issues of digital phenotyping (posi-
tive and negative) may include the following:

 1.  Predicting a health issue that goes undiagnosed (e.g., grand-
father in Facebook photo whose photo was seen by a medical 
doctor, who saw skin cancer; child whose eyes displayed a rare 
disease/condition to an eye doctor);

 2.  Targeting individuals with social media data points, which may 
indicate risk factors and be identified by firms or companies 
dealing with medical support; 

 3.  Potentially feeding into medical insurance firms any infor-
mation that has been picked up by algorithms or social media 
aggregation;

 4.  Creating an inaccessible and unknown “phenotype” of you to 
be used in a variety of ways, including financial risk (e.g., credit 
score).

Considering all of these points, we must recognize the potential 
risks and threats around keeping our personal and private data and 
information safe. At the same time, we need to look to how we can best 
cultivate both an environment and a culture of cybersecurity aware-
ness in our theological institutions. 

THEOLOGY OF CYBERSECURITY

In all of what we have covered, there is really one main question that 
we need to consider: What is our moral and ethical responsibility in 
theological education surrounding cybersecurity? This is where “digi-
tal ethics” comes in. Digital ethics can be defined as “how users and 
participants in online environments interact with each other and the 
technologies and platforms used to engage with one another.” But, I 
would also add that digital ethics includes the moral duties of those 



Papers and Presentations  113

users to be good community members in that usage. My own definition 
of digital ethics in 2018 is “the practice of how we live and work in the 
new paradigm of online environments, especially how we represent 
ourselves honestly and take responsibility for both our actions and 
our participation in communities, but also about our stewardship, 
and our ability to model good, safe behavior, as we are cautious and 
protective of our personal assets.”

Our behaviors and ethics are also tied to what will constitute a 
theology of cybersecurity. It is necessary for us, as members of a global 
community of users and believers (in whatever our traditions may be), 
to look at the following questions, and ask ourselves how we can best 
work to better ourselves and communities in the world we now live 
in. These points are what I consider the theological principles about 
technology, information, and cybersecurity, and they should be used 
as guides to our work, ministries, and daily operations in communi-
ties, congregations, and theological institutions. 

 1.  How do we understand social power structures in light of cyber-
security?

 2.  How can we as individuals and communities recognize the role 
of privilege present in cybersecurity and what does that actually 
mean?

 3.  How do socio-economic divisions in society play into knowledge 
and best practices of cybersecurity, and do certain communi-
ties suffer more/less depending on the access and awareness of 
certain information?

 4.  How can we speak both historically and prophetically about 
these themes?

 5.  What justifies best practices in the “blessed community” and the 
technological-informational community?

 6.   Where do we seek guidance and dialogue about the theological 
implications of an increasingly complex cyber- and tech-world?

 7.  Denominationally, what is the way to talk about cybersecurity 
and religion, and what is actually being said and done? What 
more can be done?

 8.  Can we effectively use our theological lexicons (e.g., on sin, 
redemption, grace, and salvation) in this realm of cybersecurity? 
How so?



114  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

As we near the end of this discussion, I think that it would be bene-
ficial to offer at least an initial working definition for the “theology of 
cybersecurity.” I provide this as a way for those in our broader commu-
nity of theological educators, students, learners, administrators, staff, 
and others to begin to think constructively about this topic and work 
toward a better, safer world for ourselves and our communities. 

Theology of Cybersecurity is “the active engagement with our 
world’s contemporary issues of technology, security, and infor-
mation, through the lens of God’s grace, community, and love, in 
order to cultivate the ethical stewardship, safety, and stability of 
creation.”

And with this definition, a roadmap for our institutions then should 
be what we call the “SAFE” rubric: S(tandardize), A(ssess), F(oster), 
and E(nact). It works in the following basic way:

 1.  Standardize regular trainings about cybersecurity and safety in 
seminaries and other institutions;

 2.  Assess on a regular basis the tools and trainings about these 
topics and determine what works best;

 3.  Foster a community of open discussion and debate about both 
the practical issues of technology, information, and cybersecu-
rity AND the theological language, implications, and meaning 
connecting these two areas of intersection;

 4.  Enact the outcomes of these discussions, debates, and conver-
sations about both the practical trainings AND the theological 
discourses at your institutions—DON’T LET THEM FLOUNDER!

With these basic guidelines, I hope that you and your theological 
institutions may work toward a community of greater safety, growth, 
and hopefulness. 

NOTES

1 https://www.etymonline.com/word/privacy
2 The history of important advances includes: 1969- first 

networked computer (ARPANET); 1971- Ray Tomlinson sends 
first email; 1991- first website/page; 1992- First attachment in 
email sent; 1993- first PDF; 1996- official release (public stan-

https://www.etymonline.com/word/privacy


Papers and Presentations  115

dard); 1997- first social media site “Six Degrees;” 1996-2000- 
US government establishes Y2K protocols; 2000-2001- several 
of the first major cyber-attacks on US government (cited: 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50606-
2002Jun26_3.html); 2002- 200% increase in cyber-related 
security incidents; 2002- in November, President Bush signs 
Cybersecurity Research and Development Act—nearly $1 billion 
for cyberinfrastructure.

3 https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/2346/1529/Privacy-
AndLibrariansAnOverview.pdf?sequence=2

4 https://www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/00183854811.pdf
5 Much of the security and cybersecurity prevention discussion is 

drawn from training material at the Southern Methodist Univer-
sity’s authentication services.

6 According to the SMU site plan on cyber-safety, these are some 
of the types of “hacker” that are out there: (1) Script Kiddies: 
Unskilled Hackers Impressing Friends; (2) Hacktivists: Activ-
ists Using Hacking for Political Goals; (3) Lone Hackers: Inde-
pendent Individuals Motivated by Fame or Profit; (4) Organized 
Crime Hackers: Gangs Attacking Governments or Corporations; 
(5) State Sponsored Hackers: Bureaucratic Hacking Groups (e.g., 
Stuxnet malware); (6) Terrorist Groups: Hackers Associated with 
Terrorist Groups.

7 See SMU authentication and security orientation materials.
8 See SMU authentication and security orientation materials.
9 http://www.mobihealthnews.com/43327/harvard-doctors-

argue-the-digital-phenotype-will-change-healthcare

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50606-2002Jun26_3.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50606-2002Jun26_3.html
https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/2346/1529/PrivacyAndLibrariansAnOverview.pdf?sequence=2
https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/2346/1529/PrivacyAndLibrariansAnOverview.pdf?sequence=2
https://www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/00183854811.pdf
http://www.mobihealthnews.com/43327/harvard-doctors-argue-the-digital-phenotype-will-change-healthcare
http://www.mobihealthnews.com/43327/harvard-doctors-argue-the-digital-phenotype-will-change-healthcare

