The fear of "Cyberterrorism" in the U.S. has been fueled by warnings from numerous law enforcement agencies that terrorists sitting at computer terminals half a world away can easily wreak havoc with the nation's infrastructure and threaten the lives of its citizens.

When the U.S. House of Representatives was considering the Cyber Security Enhancement Act (HR3842) last year, Texas Congressman Lamar Smith, sponsor of the bill, proclaimed that: "Until we secure our cyber infrastructure, a few keystrokes and an Internet connection is all one needs to disable the economy and endanger lives."

Allegedly included in the Cyberterrorist's bottomless bag of tricks are: using a computer to alter railroad signals and cause collisions by placing two trains going in opposite directions on the same track; poisoning the water supply by increasing chlorination to toxic levels; and hacking into any computer — private or governmental — to make data useless by deleting and/or scrambling it.

But after closely studying the likelihood of such an Armageddon, many security experts are now revising their cyberthreat estimates sharply downward. While acknowledging that destructive cyberterrorism is theoretically possible, most are now convinced that the techniques are infinitely more complex and not nearly as "cost effective" as many once feared.

Last July, Gartner (www.gartner.com), a technology research and advisory firm based in Stamford, Conn., together with the U.S. Naval War College (www.nwc.navy.mil) hosted a three-day war game called Digital Pearl Harbor (DPH).

Gartner analysts and national security strategists joined with business and IT leaders at the War College in Newport, R.I., to determine how easily terrorists could disrupt key segments of the U.S. economy. The games involved attacks on telecommunications, the Internet, financial services and electrical utilities. By the end of the exercise the participants had concluded that damage was possible, but that to achieve significant levels of destruction required a minimum of $200 million in funding, high-level intelligence and five years of preparation. They also determined that although an attack could cripple communications in a heavily populated urban area, it would not result in deaths or other catastrophic consequences.

In an article, "What Are the Real Risks of Cyberterrorism?" written for ZDNet (www.zdnet.com/), Robert Lemos, a technology guru and attorney, wrote: "While warnings pervade government and the media, doomsday scenarios of cyberterrorism that result in massive deaths or injury remain largely the stuff of Hollywood scripts or conspiracy theory." Lemos concludes that "... the hyperbole about an Internet attack frequently overshadows common sense."

Another authority on the subject who questions the imminence of cyberterrorism is Mark M. Pollitt, Chief of the FBI Laboratory's Computer Analysis Response Team (CART).

In a paper titled "Cyberterrorism — Fact or Fancy?" Pollitt wrote: "The fear of random, violent victimization segues well with the distrust and outright fear of computer technology. Both capitalize on the fear of the unknown. It is easy to distrust that which one is not able to control."

But he adds that: "The impact of this risk to the physical health of mankind is, at present, indirect. Computers do not, at present, control sufficient physical processes, without human intervention, to pose a significant risk of terrorism in the classic sense."

But just in case he's wrong, don't wait too long to send your comments and suggestions to harper.d@att.net.