As of late, psychological warfare has turned out to be one of the greatest dangers to the survival of humanity on the planet (Heinl and Tan, 2016). Nigeria has had their own particular offer of the impacts of this danger (Oluwafemi et al., 2013). It is obviously a test to national security, (Hansen and Nissen baum, 2009) a beyond any doubt foe to national improvement. Almost certainly, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has invaded each aspect of human undertaking (Kott, 2010; Fischer, 2016: Oluwafemi et al., 2013), and psychological militant gatherings too are exploiting its possibilities to enlist, engender their promulgation, prepare its individuals, impart and plan, and even to fund-raise. Putting security measures to every ICT systems would be a good strategy for protecting private transactions such as; in the government, school, business, and etc (Heinl and Tan, 2016).
In the Philippine Government, (Kott, 2010) enforcing the law with the use of the existing guidelines embodied in the Revised Penal Code, as amended, may not work for cybercrime. Unlike the traditional and terrestrial crimes which deal with corporeal evidence, cybercrime involves more electronic data which are intangible evidence (Fischer, 2016). In order to cope with the daunting problem of cybercrime, the Department of Justice (DOJ) created the Task Force on E-Government, Cyber-security and Cybercrime in 2007 to deal with cyber-security issues in relation to legislation and investigation (Kott, 2010). It was created to pursue the e-government agenda, institutionalize a cyber-security regime and implement laws. The said task force worked closely with the Council of Europe, a private organization, and local experts composed of IT practitioners and other stakeholders (Kott, 2010; Hansen and Nissen baum, 2009). On the other field, it was discovered that the internet could quick turn into the greatest promoter of psychological warfare in Nigeria, and tragically, the legislature does not have the essential digital capacities to handle this in the nation (Oluwafemi et al., 2013). To thwart this, (Oluwafemi et al., 2013) feature the need to see the security of the nation’s the internet as the trigger point in creating successful against and counter-psychological oppression procedures, and therefore, set up essential cybersecurity measures to this impact. According to (Fischer, 2016), the act of protecting ICT systems and their contents has come to be known as cybersecurity. However, cybersecurity can be an important tool in protecting privacy and preventing unauthorized surveillance, (Heinl and Tan, 2016) and information sharing and intelligence gathering can be useful tools for effecting cybersecurity. Given the importance of cyber security to the digital economy, countries should come together to face these challenges and create a new paradigm for building secure (Kott, 2010) and resilient systems. Moreover, the study of (Heinl and Tan, 2016) is devoted to an analysis of cyber security, a concept that arrived on the post-Cold War agenda in response to a mixture of technological innovations and changing geopolitical conditions. (Heinl and Tan, 2016) found out that the applicability of the theoretical framework is then shown through a case-study of what has been labeled the first war in cyber space against Estonian public and commercial institutions in 2007.
The challenge of controlling transnational cybercrime requires a full range of responses, including both voluntary and legally mandated co-operation (Oluwafemi et al., 2013). The government must actively pursue transnational initiatives, either voluntary, informal exchange of information, or multilateral treaties to establish a common (Kott, 2010; Fischer, 2016; Hansen and Nissen baum, 2009) and substantial degree of co-operation in the investigation and prosecution of cybercrime offences, since at present, there are widespread disparities among states, in the legal, regulatory, or policy environment concerning cybercrime. In short, addressing the cyber security threats of tomorrow will require a fundamental realignment of how government has approached this problem until now, (Heinl and Tan, 2016) as well as strong leadership to overcome existing market and government failures and navigate the barriers that have impeded progress in the past.