Cyberterrorism and Cyber Attacks in the Public Sector: How Public Administration Copes with Digital Threats

ABSTRACT Cybersecurity concerns among citizens and public administration officials are considered to be one of the major barriers to e-government implementation. While cyberterrorism is on the rise, the operational state of cybersecurity in the public sector appears as a black box and previous literature has scarcely examined how public authorities perceive and cope with cyber attacks. This study investigates public employees’ attitudes toward cybersecurity in the public sector, as well as the arrangements and measures in place to protect sensitive governmental data and securely manage it for privacy and regulatory compliance. Thus, it contributes to the e-government literature by presenting a comprehensive framework of cybersecurity in the public sector and by providing empirical evidence thereof. Furthermore, it gives an insight into the prevalent attitudes and cybersecurity infrastructure within the realm of public administration. Finally, the article derives research and managerial implications and provides suggestions for future research.

[1]  Jonna Järveläinen,et al.  IT incidents and business impacts: Validating a framework for continuity management in information systems , 2013, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[2]  Jan C. Weyerer,et al.  E-Government Implementation: Theoretical Aspects and Empirical Evidence , 2015, Public Organization Review.

[3]  M. J. Moon The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality? , 2002 .

[4]  Heejung S. Kim,et al.  Is there an "I" in "team"? The role of the self in group-serving judgments. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  W. Waugh,et al.  Collaboration and Leadership for Effective Emergency Management , 2006 .

[6]  S. Dawes The Evolution and Continuing Challenges of E-Governance , 2008 .

[7]  JajodiaSushil,et al.  The ephemeral legion , 2011 .

[8]  R. Bromme,et al.  Expertise and estimating what other people know: the influence of professional experience and type of knowledge. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[9]  Sean M. McCrea Counterfactual thinking following negative outcomes: evidence for group and self‐protective biases , 2007 .

[10]  Philipp Otto,et al.  Exploiting one’s power with a guilty conscience: An experimental investigation of self-serving biases , 2015 .

[11]  Soonhee Kim,et al.  South Korean Public Officials' Perceptions of Values, Failure, and Consequences of Failure in E-Government Leadership , 2003 .

[12]  N. Betz,et al.  Reliability and Validity of Five-Level Response Continua for the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale , 2005 .

[13]  Said S. Al-Gahtani,et al.  Modeling the electronic transactions acceptance using an extended technology acceptance model , 2011 .

[14]  Christopher G. Reddick,et al.  E‐GOVERNMENT AND ITS INFLUENCE ON MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS: A SURVEY OF FLORIDA AND TEXAS CITY MANAGERS , 2007 .

[15]  Donald R. Cooper,et al.  Business Research Methods , 1980 .

[16]  M. J. Moon,et al.  Advancing E‐Government at the Grassroots: Tortoise or Hare? , 2005 .

[17]  Brahim Herbane,et al.  Business Continuity Management: Time for a strategic role? , 2004 .

[18]  Constantine Sedikides,et al.  The self-serving bias in relational context. , 1998 .

[19]  Wm. Arthur Conklin,et al.  e-Government and Cyber Security: The Role of Cyber Security Exercises , 2006, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06).

[20]  David C. Yen,et al.  G2G information sharing among government agencies , 2014, Inf. Manag..

[21]  Max Manley,et al.  Cyberspace’s Dynamic Duo: Forging a Cybersecurity Public-Private Partnership , 2015 .

[22]  Christopher G. Reddick,et al.  Factors that Explain the Perceived Effectiveness of E-Government: A Survey of United States City Government Information Technology Directors , 2009, Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res..

[23]  Michael Tamborski,et al.  Self-Serving Bias or Simply Serving the Self? Evidence for a Dimensional Approach to Narcissism. , 2012, Personality and individual differences.

[24]  Arben Asllani,et al.  Viewing Cybersecurity as a Public Good: The Role of Governments, Businesses, and Individuals , 2013 .

[25]  Jack A. Goncalo,et al.  Hidden consequences of the group-serving bias: Causal attributions and the quality of group decision making , 2008 .

[26]  Gianluca Misuraca,et al.  Understanding the e-government paradox: Learning from literature and practice on barriers to adoption , 2014, Gov. Inf. Q..

[27]  Rossouw von Solms,et al.  A cyclic approach to Business Continuity Planning , 2004, ISSA.

[28]  Naresh K. Malhotra,et al.  Basic Marketing Research: A Decision-making Approach , 2008 .

[29]  Hideyuki Tanaka,et al.  Vulnerability and information security investment: An empirical analysis of e-local government in Japan , 2005 .

[30]  Lynn Westbrook,et al.  Digital information support for domestic violence victims , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[31]  A. Elliot,et al.  The Self-Serving Bias , 1998 .

[32]  Jiunn-Woei Lian,et al.  Critical factors for cloud based e-invoice service adoption in Taiwan: An empirical study , 2015, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[33]  Paul Jen-Hwa Hu,et al.  Determinants of Service Quality and Continuance Intention of Online Services: The Case of eTax , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[34]  Jing Wang,et al.  Research on e-Government evaluation model based on the principal component analysis , 2011, Inf. Technol. Manag..

[35]  Jelena Jardas Antonić,et al.  Measuring performance of local e-government in the republic of Croatia using data envelopment analysis , 2017 .

[36]  H. Triandis,et al.  The Self-Serving Bias in Attributions as a Coping Strategy , 1986 .

[37]  R. Burke Johnson,et al.  Research Methods Design and Analysis , 2010 .

[38]  Jensen J. Zhao,et al.  Opportunities and threats: A security assessment of state e-government websites , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[39]  G. Pradhan,et al.  Secure Information Sharing Between Government Intelligence Agencies: An Innovative Protocol Based on Trust , 2009 .

[40]  Peter Berghmans,et al.  Information Security Risks in Enabling e-Government: The Impact of IT Vendors , 2011, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[41]  Christopher G. Reddick,et al.  Empirical Models of E-Government Growth in Local Governments , 2005 .

[42]  Donelson R. Forsyth Self-Serving Bias , 2008 .

[43]  Radha Iyengar,et al.  Is There an , 2008 .

[44]  David H. Tobey,et al.  Enhancing the Cybersecurity Workforce , 2011, IT Professional.

[45]  J. Dawes Do Data Characteristics Change According to the Number of Scale Points Used? An Experiment Using 5-Point, 7-Point and 10-Point Scales , 2008 .

[46]  Lu Yixin Study on the Current Situation of Information Security and Countermeasures in China , 2011 .

[47]  Afzaal H. Seyal,et al.  A study of executives' use of biometrics: an application of theory of planned behaviour , 2013 .

[48]  Jane Fedorowicz,et al.  Barriers to Interorganizational Information Sharing in e-Government: A Stakeholder Analysis , 2010, Inf. Soc..

[49]  Ardion Beldad,et al.  I trust not therefore it must be risky: Determinants of the perceived risks of disclosing personal data for e-government transactions , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[50]  Blessing Ojuloge,et al.  Web application vulnerability assessment and policy direction towards a secure smart government , 2014, Gov. Inf. Q..

[51]  Lucas M. Venter,et al.  A sustainable information security framework for e-Government – case of Tanzania , 2012 .

[52]  Matthew Stibbe E-government security , 2005 .

[53]  Rodger Jamieson,et al.  Determining Key Factors in E-Government Information System Security , 2006, Bled eConference.

[54]  Shaobo Ji,et al.  E-Government Web Portal Adoption: The Effects of Service Quality , 2015 .

[55]  Paul J Silvia,et al.  Self-awareness, probability of improvement, and the self-serving bias. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[56]  Zhitian Zhou,et al.  Study on the E-government Security Risk Management , 2008 .

[57]  Costas Lambrinoudakis,et al.  Security requirements for e-government services: a methodological approach for developing a common PKI-based security policy , 2003, Comput. Commun..