Burgess referenced the Optus internet outage last year - which he claimed was likely not a cyber-attack - but without transparency we'll never know.

It's a good point and it raises two issues right off the bat.

First, as you say, why hide the perpetrators? Is it because you don't know who they are or because you don't want to share the information.

If you don't know who they are, then what the fuck are you getting paid for. If you do know who they are, why aren't you telling us. Do you have something to hide?

The other, more tinfoil hat, conspiracy theory question, is twofold.

First, can we ever know? It's digital warfare. It's not like Pearl Harbor getting bombed, and even that has it's conspiracy theories, but at least you can see it. The only evidence we have of an attack is that our phones don't work or we can't access our bank. It's the perfect crime no matter who is committing it.

And is it even an attack? If your phone doesn't work, how is that an attack? It's an attack if we're told it is. Otherwise, it's a technical glitch.

If you can't access your bank or the trains don't work or the electricity goes off, we only know what we're told by the experts. We have no proof whatsoever of what caused it.

That's the scary part of all this. We're totally dependent.

The second, double tinfoil hat question is this --

Every new weapon requires testing. Atomic weapons have been tested extensively, as well as nukes, etc. We have video confirmation of this. We can see it. It leaves traces.

How are the superpowers testing their new cyber weapons? Because they must be! Now! They have to be! No country would launch a cyber war without first testing the weapons.

So how? Well, because they don't cause immediate death and destruction, I can imagine that they consider it OK to test them in the real world, and maybe that's what we're experiencing.

This wouldn't be the first time by a long shot.