India has a solid and well-deserved reputation as one of the leaders in the global IT industry. This makes it all the more surprising that, until recently, Indian authorities had paid relatively little attention to introducing cyber technologies in the country’s governance system and using them to combat cyber threats posed by hackers acting out of personal, economic, and political motives.
A lackadaisical cyberwar
There are several reasons for this. The main factor is that India’s leadership has underestimated the scale of confrontation in cyberspace, believing that other great powers limit themselves to negligible operations that aim to collect information at best.
Serious difficulties have emerged due to the specific features of Indian governance as such; it is characterized by an extreme abundance of red tape and inertia in areas that are not considered a priority. While India’s bureaucracy exhibits its best qualities in priority areas such as ensuring the rapid concentration of resources, personnel mobilization and motivation, minimizing expenses, and a high level of oversight, thus making it possible to achieve outstanding successes with minimal expenses (India’s space program is a prime example), areas believed to be of secondary importance are plagued by chronic problems.
Until recently, cybersecurity was not one of the Indian government’s top priorities, and consequently, the relevant departments in state agencies were, as a rule, staffed residually. Since work in this area was not considered important or prestigious, employees working in IT security were paid relatively little and their in-house status was lower than those of employees working in other departments. As a result, these positions were filled with underqualified and poorly motivated people. A positive discrimination system intended to advance members of lower castes had an adverse effect in this regard; underqualified employees hired to fill the quotas were placed with cybersecurity departments.
Consequently, many agencies outsourced their cybersecurity while hiring specialized organizations to handle those matters. Since India does not have enough specialized organizations, foreign organizations were brought in, in particular, American ones, which, for obvious reasons, was not conducive to strengthening cyber protection. Since Pakistan and China were traditionally considered to be India’s principal adversaries on the cyber front, this state of affairs was considered acceptable.
The American challenge
India’s first serious attempt to respond to challenges in cybersecurity date back to 2012. At the Munich Security Conference, Indian specialists stated they were working on creating their own microprocessors and planning to cut imports of military software, instead of channeling money into domestic R&D (the share of imported military software in India is currently about 70%). Additionally, in the same year, a proposal was made to create a command and control center to monitor critical infrastructure and eliminate breaches in cybersecurity.
The next year, the situation began to change significantly. The necessary impetus came from actions of the U.S., which had previously stated on multiple occasions that it wanted to cooperate with India in cybersecurity. After 2013, when Edward Snowden publicized documents demonstrating that U.S. secret services were surveilling foreign citizens around the world, politicians in New Delhi were amazed to find out that U.S. secret services had been waging cyber warfare not only against their country’s probable adversaries, but also against countries they believed to be allies or at least friendly powers, and that included India: the NSA conducted cyber ops against India to learn more about its principal strategic and commercial interests. This revelation generated public outrage, and India hastily adopted its National Cyber Security Policy, which was developed by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology. The policy provided a clear definition of cyberspace and formulated the ultimate objective: protecting the personal information of India’s citizens as well as financial and bank information and data that are of critical significance for state governance and security against theft and cyberattacks. It required the creation of a reliable cyber ecosystem in the country and reliable work among IT systems that were being introduced on a large scale in all economic sectors; this, in turn, required creating a consistent mechanism to assess threats and risks in cybersecurity and ensuring an appropriate response. To meet the demand for the necessary personnel, plans were made to train 500,000 professionals within the next 5 years.
However, this did not happen. This is partly attributable to the fact that a year later, the Indian National Congress lost the elections, Manmohan Singh’s government resigned, and Narendra Modi’s new government focused on handling internal economic objectives. It was also partly due to the fact that there were no mechanisms to implement the program and it was clearly not feasible in such a short period.
To date, the situation has not changed. The networks of both public and private organizations are extremely vulnerable, there are no DLP systems in place, and users and administrators themselves often turn off firewall and antivirus software. It is common for IT department employees to be absent from their work stations with doors to their rooms left open. It is quite a telling fact that only 8% of Indian IT managers consider their employees to be sufficiently competent to combat threats in cybersecurity. Overall, Indian IT specialists in relevant departments spend about one-third of their work time combating cyber threats; the results, however, are still quite modest due to insufficient funding as well as a lack of qualified personnel and cutting-edge technologies. About 81% of Indian IT department heads believe that the funds their organizations allocate to combat cyber threats are not sufficient.
The situation is somewhat more optimistic in cyber offensives. Nearly all Indian secret services, including foreign intelligence and domestic security agencies, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the executive office of the National Security Advisor, and the military intelligence have departments that engage in cyber ops. Their effectiveness is hard to assess; it is known, however, that they face the same problems in ensuring cybersecurity as do other governmental agencies. Moreover, high-ranking Indian officials in general mistrust new computer technologies, including work on artificial intelligence. In May 2018, Chair of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) S. Christopher said that particular caution should be taken when developing AI technologies since “the cure may be worse than the disease.”
The Indian defense
In July 2018, it was announced that a military agency on cybersecurity was being formed; the agency will be working in close cooperation with the executive office of the National Security Advisor (a position that was established in 2015). Plans for the agency call for over providing some 1,000 experts who will ensure the cybersecurity of the military, the navy and the air force as well as conducting offensive operations in cyberspace. In the future, this agency should be transformed into a full-fledged cyber command.
The newly-created body was called the Defence Cyber Agency (DCA). Rear Admiral Mohit Gupta was appointed as its commander. At present, its head and his executive office are working on developing a cyber ops doctrine. Thus far, it is hard to say how effective the DCA will be, given the traditional autonomy of the navy, the air force, and the military, which are reluctant to share operational information with each other and the difficulties of developing their own software. A previous attempt to introduce a specialized operating system called Bharat Operating System Solutions (BOSS), which was developed by the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing, ended in failure and the Indian military was forced to go back to using Windows OS.
Given the absence of the requisite products created by governmental organizations, the Indian authorities will have to turn to private firms. Back in 2018, the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and the Border Security Force (BSF) signed a contract with Innefu, a start-up headquartered in New Delhi. This company’s products had previously passed a test of sorts: the company was given about 1,500 documents, including social media profiles of protesters and posts about planned actions. Based on this data, Innefu managed to trace connections between protesters, determine the nature of their interaction, and predict possible actions very soon.
Innefu now offers a complete set of ready-to-use solutions called Prophecy. It includes several tools that monitor social media, which provide big data analytics, facial recognition, and object identification, and detect faces and objects in real-time.
Thus, Indian IT specialists have created a product that may be used to process massive amounts of information for the purposes of intelligence and counter-intelligence. It has already been tested: according to the Indian media, police used it to successfully prevent several protests by analyzing the social media activity of certain individuals and to find roughly 3,000 children missing in New Delhi. There are plans to complete the development of a new cybersecurity strategy by 2020; it is intended to ensure the protection of important data given the introduction of 5G technology which, according to Lt. Gen. Rajesh Pant, the National Cyber Security Coordinator on the National Security Council, will radically change the state of affairs in this regard.
A war on three fronts
Now India’s leadership has acknowledged possible threats and is developing the necessary response means that take into account the realities of cyber warfare that is being conducted without regard for existing borders and for pacts and treaties regulating military action; cyber warfare also allows states to conceal their complicity in a cyberattack against another state. The Indian authorities are paying more and more attention to conducting defensive and offensive operations in cyberspace while striving to reduce the country’s dependence on tools developed aboard and giving preference to forward-looking India-made products.
At present, Pakistan, China, and the U.S. are India’s key adversaries in cyberspace. Pakistan’s capabilities for waging cyberwar are fairly limited: as a rule, Pakistani secret services either hack the websites of Indian agencies and companies connected with the government (such operations cause relatively little damage), or they pose on the Internet as young girls wishing to meet young officers in order to recruit current employees of Indian law enforcement, military, and secret services.
China is conducting large cyber operations against India which have reached such a scale that some analysts characterize them as a full-fledged cyberwar. This war takes on various forms: from hacking Indian networks to providing various rebel groups with hosting services on China’s servers; nonetheless, the large-scale cyber ops have not prevented Beijing and New Delhi from strengthening their political and military relations.
Relations with the U.S. are complex. On the one hand, Washington publicly calls India its key partner in the Indian Ocean region; on the other hand, U.S. secret services continue to conduct cyber ops that threaten India’s national security.
Russia is one of the few great powers that has interests in the region and does not attack India in cyberspace. This is due primarily to the fact that there is no conflict between the two countries as well as Russia’s general interest in establishing cooperation with Eurasian states to form a common trade space. Thus, Russia currently has a favorable opportunity to bolster its interaction with India in this regard and conclude a cyberspace non-aggression pact and, in the future, coordinate efforts with New Delhi to this end.
From our partner RIAC
Coronavirus: Bioterrorism or Not, Who Is the Winner?
Authors: Sajad Abedi and Mohammad Amin Zabihi*
It has been so long since the early instances of using toxins, chemicals, and diseases as agents of assassinations and/or even mass murder. There are numerous historical and even modern instances of using toxins in assassinations, or using contagious diseases in warfare without even knowing about the bacteria or virus. For example, (allegedly) the first registered event of such method goes back to 14th century when Tatar army, desperate to win after three years of siege, threw corpses of plague victims to the Caffa city, causing an outbreak of this disease within the city. But the most important part happened afterwards; some soldiers could manage to escape on boats – Caffa was a port city on the Crimea Sea – to Italy, unaware of the fact that they were already infected. Nevertheless, most of them died along the way, but infected rats and remaining bodies caused one the major waves of plague pandemic all over the Europe.
The paramount point is that in our modern world, it is just a matter of hours to leave New York and land somewhere else, thousands of miles away, even before the first symptoms of your disease manifest itself. In fact, the most horrifying factor of any contagious disease could be its latent period.
On the other hand, considering the unprecedent pace of ever-growing biological technologies, many developed countries possess the ability to develop an intelligent virus equipped with customized features in order to remain unnoticed on the victim’s (vector’s) body for quiet a time, and only manifest itself after it infected a considerable number of surrounding people. More interestingly, such customized virus can be planned whether to disable a specific organ or to metastasize within the whole system of the host. Even more, it can be planned according to the genetic map of people within a given region.
Looking at the whole picture with broader perspective, it does not matter whether the agent is toxic, chemical, or biological. The capability to produce and employ a virus, bacteria, or toxin by malicious actors, namely terrorists or criminals, could bring disastrous results.As we witnessed such case during 1990s in Japan – the Aum Shinrikyo Cult.
In fact, if we are going to prevent such disasters, first we should find the potential actors who may resort to such actions, investigate the probable ways, and also understand the costs, benefits, motives, and risks of which for these potential actors.
Of course, terrorists and criminals are the first probable examples which may pop up in our minds, but looking more rigorously, state actors are also among the potential cases. In the case of Coronavirus outbreak, if one considers it as an instance of bioterrorism/biological-war act, the probability of participation of terrorist or criminal organizations seems to be low, due to the complexity of production process and the highly advanced technologies required to produce such virus at the first place. On the other hand, a terrorist organization typically claims the responsibility of such attack in order to earn the reputation, and a criminal organization may demand ransom prior to release the virus – otherwise it would not be beneficial, unless they already have the cure (vaccine/antidote) ready to sell. In any case, it doesn’t seem probable.
Considering the fact that, in the case of a pandemic, finding the main cause and the zero patient in this complex, interconnected world is significantly difficult (if possible), state actors may resort to such options due to multiple reasons. They may try to initiate a hidden biological war against another country (countries), in order to cause economic interruptions, socio-political chaos, create power vacuum in a specific area, forcing another actor to leave a region, or just simply to enjoy the economic benefits of selling the vaccine or antidote to victims. Obviously, there will be some serious prosecutions and consequences in the case that some concrete evidence shows any tracks of participation of an actor – whether a sovereign state or even a pharmaceutical company; but in such cases, states usually start to throw allegations at each other anyway.
We are living in a world that any kind of news affect the open markets immediately; the more important the news is, the deeper it affects the markets. In this case – Coronavirus – we witnessed a serious drop in international stock markets –especially oil markets – all over the world, which coincided with Russia’s ambivalence approach regarding the cutting supply decision made by OPEC – and also Saudi Arabia’s reaction to the whole story. Altogether, these factors caused a serious drop in different markets which, in fact, started with the news of Coronavirus outbreak at the first place. Who gets the best use of such scenario? The oil and gas producers are the main victims, obviously; but if one (the alleged perpetrator) knows the whole story before it happens, he would sell at the highest price and buy at the lowest price again – after the price crash, president Trump ordered to stock up the US oil reserves.
Although it seems pretty convincing, but is it really rational? What are the risks and costs? In reality, the pandemic of a dangerous virus – one like Coronavirus – equipped with a two-week latent period, in a high-populated country like China can cause sever problems in almost every corner of the planet; in fact, the bigger economy you have, the deeper your challenge would be. The implications of such outbreak are considerably wide: (1) it causes decrease in oil prices which will result in budget deficits in oil-dependent countries – like Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia; (2) it interrupts the production process and consequently the sale chains – like China; (3) reduces the tourists travels which will consequently result in budget deficits in tourist-dependent countries – like Turkey and most of EU; (4) it causes sever socio-economic costs, especially for populated countries – like China, US, and Russia.
Altogether, if one state actor decides to initiate a biological war against another state, using a virus agent which has the potential to cause a global pandemic, it should consider the possibility of backfiring the same gun inside its own country in numerous ways. In an interconnected world like the one we are living in, such actions cause gargantuan reactions in different ways, one may not be able to predict all of them. Considering such costs and also the risk of being traced back and accused of committing such horrifying act, the possibility of state-sponsorship in these cases will be considered relatively low (but still possible). It is not like creating a computer virus – like Stuxnet – that may or may not blow back to your face; it is the matter of people’s lives.
Amin Zabihi, MSc. Regional Studies, Allameh Tabatabaei University
 Nowadays it is Feodosia, Ukraine
Also known as Black Death
The Prospect of Bioterrorism: The Threat of Pathogen, Biting Insects and Dirty Bomb in Europe and UK
The recent coronavirus attacks authenticate my postulation of the intensification of bioterrorism in Europe and Asia in 2020. The blame game between Washington and China further prompted misunderstanding about the hegemonic role of the US army that it wants to mitigate the future role of nuclear weapons and missile technology in peace and war. Chinese Ambassador was summoned in Washington when Foreign Ministry in Beijing tweeted that the deadly coronavirus was seeded in Wuhan by the US military. US President Donald Trump also called Covid-19 a “Chinese” and “foreign” virus, earning condemnations not only from Beijing but also from much of the mainstream media. However, China categorically stated that the coronovirus attack was a hybrid war against its economy and industry. Moreover, initially, Iranian officials also declared that the coronavirus was a biological weapon created in US military laboratories. Some state in Europe demonstrated weakness in fighting the Coronavirus war against their population.
Italy and France have been irritated in overcoming the death rate from the disease, while the British Prime Minister become frustrated in changing his controversial approach to the pandemic spread across the country. On 22 March 2020, the Guardian newspaper reported frustration of Downing Street about the shameless statement of controversial adviser to the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Dominic Mckenzie Cummings, who argued in a private meeting that the government’s strategy towards the coronavirus was “herd immunity, protect the economy and if some pensioners die”. The allegations, which were widely circulated online widely criticised that the government response to the Coronavirus was initially too weak, frustrated and controversial based on a notion that rather than limiting its spread, enough people could be allowed to contract it to give population-wide “herd immunity”. Dominic Mckenzie Cummings was born 25 November 1971 is a British political strategist who has been serving as Chief Adviser to Prime Minister Boris Johnson since July 2019.
Since 9/11, the threat of nuclear and biological terrorism has been at the forefront of the international security agenda. Bio terror experts have stressed the need on prevention of terrorist groups operating in Europe and the UK from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction and from perpetrating atrocious acts of biological terrorism. Recent events in Europe have raised the prospect of extremist and jihadist groups using biological, radiological and chemical attacks against civilian and military installations. The greatest threat to the national security of Europe and the UK stems from smuggling of material of dirty bomb, pathogen and smuggling of biting insects. As international media focused on the looming threat of chemical and biological terrorism in Europe, extremist and jihadist groups are seeking these weapons to inflict fatalities on civilian population.
Bioterrorism is terrorism involving the intentional release or dissemination of biological agents. These agents are bacteria, viruses, fungi, or toxins, and may be in a naturally occurring or a human-modified form, in much the same way in biological warfare. Biological agents are used by the terrorists to attain their social or political goals and are used for killing or injuring people, plants and animals. Response of Europe to the threat of future bioterrorism seems limited due to political and economic reservations of some member states. The approach to searching for biological agents at airports and shipping container entry points, and promoting bio-hazard awareness raised several important questions. Biological terrorism can be loosely categorised based on the agent used. The virus threat including smallpox, influenza, dengue fever, yellow fever, Rift Valley fever, and haemorrhagic fevers like Lassa, Ebola, and Marburg. Smallpox spreads directly from person to person. The third category of bio-threat is ‘bacteria’, which includes anthrax, plague, and cholera. There are numerous reports on the genetically development of viruses by some states to use it and achieve their political and economic goal.
One of these reports on insect war is the investigative report of Bulgarian investigative journalist and Middle East correspondent Dilyana Gaytandzhieva (12 September 2018), who published a series of reports. Her current work focuses on war crimes and illicit arms exports to war zones around the world. The Alternative World Website and Zodlike Productions, a news forum has published her fresh analysis of future insect war. She has painted a consternating picture of US insect war in her investigative report, and warns that the prospect of biological terrorism is consternating:
“Pentagon’s scientists have been deployed in 25 countries and given diplomatic immunity to research deadly viruses, bacteria and toxins at US military offshore biolaboratories under a $2.1 billion DoD program. The US Embassy to Tbilisi transports frozen human blood and pathogens as diplomatic cargo for a secret US military program. Internal documents, implicating US diplomats in the transportation of and experimenting on pathogens under diplomatic cover were leaked to me by Georgian insiders. According to these documents, Pentagon scientists have been deployed to the Republic of Georgia and have been given diplomatic immunity to research deadly diseases and biting insects at the Lugar Center–the Pentagon biolaboratory in Georgia’s capital Tbilisi. In 2014, The Lugar Center was equipped with an insect facility and launched a project on Sand Flies in Georgia and the Caucasus. In 2014-2015 sand fly species were collected under another project “Surveillance Work on Acute Febrile Illness” and all (female) sand flies were tested to determine their infectivity rate. A third project, also including sand flies collection, studied the characteristics of their salivary glands. Sand flies carry dangerous parasites in their saliva which they can transmit to humans through a bite”.
With the establishment of Islamic State ISIS in Syria and Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and its secret networks in Europe, international community has now focused on the proliferation and smuggling of chemical and biological weapons in the region. Recent debate in Europe-based think tanks suggests that, as the group retrieved nuclear and biological material from the Mosul University in Iraq, it can possibly make Nuclear Explosive Devices (NED) with less than eight kilogrammes plutonium. The debate about bioterrorism and bio-defence is not entirely new in the military circles of Europe; the involvement of ISIS in using biological weapons against the Kurdish army in Kobane is a warning for the UK and European Union member states to deeply concentrate on the proliferation of these weapons in the region.
As Islamic State ISIS now controls parts of Iraq and Syria and has carried out successful attacks in France, Germany, UK and Brussels, the group now wants to expand its terror networks to the borders of Russia and China. According to some confirmed reports, hundreds of Pakistanis have joined the army of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, while a women brigade of the ISIS army is operating in Pakistan. The problem of nuclear and biological terrorism deserves special attention from the EU and UK governments because experts warned that the army of ISIS has retrieved capabilities to develop a dirty bomb in which explosives can be combined with a radioactive source like those commonly used in hospitals or extractive industries. The use of this weapon might have severe health effects, causing more disruption than destruction.
In Europe, there is a general perception that ISIS has already used some dangerous gases in Iraq, and it could use biological weapons against civilian populations in UK and EU. If control over these weapons is weak, or if their components are available in the open market, there would be huge destruction in the region. In July 2014, the government of Iraq notified that nuclear material had been seized by the ISIS army from Mosul University. The ISIS published a 19-page document in Arabic on how to develop biological weapons, and a 26-page religious fatwa that allows the use of weapons of mass destruction. “If Muslims cannot defeat the kafir (non-believers) in a different way, it is permissible to use weapons of mass destruction,” warns the fatwa.
The effects of biological weapons are worse as they cause death or disease in humans, animals or plants. The fatalities of dengue and ebola viruses in West Africa are the worst forms of bioterrorism. There are speculations that, in future, measles, dengue, polio and the ebola viruses can be used as weapons of bioterrorism in Europe and the UK. Some states might use drones for the purposes of bio-war against their rival states. In 2013, writing in the Global Policy journal, Amanda M Teckman warned that ISIS might possibly use ebola as a weapon against the civilian population: “It remains to be seen if a terrorist group like ISIS, which has demonstrated a willingness to engage in large scale mass murder, including the uninhibited murder of civilians, has the capability to produce a weaponised version of ebola.”
Debate among the European Union intelligence experts normally starts with the assumption that without a professional intelligence analysis on law enforcement level, prevention of bioterrorism is impossible. In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Brussels, security experts raised the question of intelligence-sharing failure, which caused huge infrastructural destruction and the killings of innocent civilians. Terrorists killed more than 34 innocent people and injured over 200 in Brussels. The failure of French and Brussels intelligence agencies to tackle the menace of extremism and the exponentially growing networks of the Islamic State (ISIS) prompted a deep distrust between the law enforcement agencies and civil society of the two states. The French and Belgium intelligence infrastructure also suffered from a lack of check and balance. This huge intelligence gap has badly affected the intelligence cooperation with other EU member states. The Belgian Foreign Minister warned that more intelligence on home-growing extremism was a must after the EU secret agencies came under heavy criticism immediately after they failed to share intelligence with France about the Paris attackers. French Interior Minister complained that no information about possible attacks was provided by EU secret agencies.
Cybercrime effecting banking sector/economy of Pakistan
Cyber-crime is not a conventional offence as its ramifications transcend borders. It affects a society in different ways. The term “cybercrime” denotes any sort of illegal activity that uses a computer, cell phone or any other electronic device as its primary means of commission. The computer and electronic devices serve as the agents and the facilitator of the crime. Cyber criminals take full advantage of obscurity, secrecy, and interconnectedness provided by the internet and are able to attack the foundations of our modern information society. Breaching of cyber space is an issue of utmost concern for the banks and financial institutions. The menace of data theft is growing in magnitude with huge financial impact. As custodian of highly valuable customer information, banks have always been the favorite target of the cyber-attacks.
Moreover it is estimated that banks are more frequently targeted by the hackers than any other business organization. IT based financial solutions of the banks such as ATMs, mobile banking and internet banking are exposed to various forms of frauds including skimming and phishing etc. Affected banks may also witness decline in their share prices. Banking industry is more susceptible to the breach of cyber security due to its financial lure for the transgressors. In Pakistan, banking is increasing its user base at a brisk pace; the resulting threats are also multiplying. Financial services in Pakistan i.e. credit cards, accounts information and other, can also be acquired for theft or fabrication. During last few years Pakistan faced some serious cyber breaches in the banking sector. In 2018 it lost US $6 million in cyber-attacks as online security measures failed to prevent breach of security in which overseas hackers stole customer’s data.Data from 19,864 debit cards belonging to customers of 22 Pakistani banks has been put on sale on the dark web, according to an analysis conducted in year 2018 by Pakistan’s Computer Emergency Response Team, PakCERT.
However Cyber breaches of January 24 and January 30, 2019 included such data in large quantities pertaining to bank Meezan Bank Ltd. Gemini Advisory; a body that provides guidance with addressing emerging cyber threats stated that the compromised records posted between January 24 and January 30, 2019 is associated with a compromise of Meezan Bank Limited’s internal systems. Cyber security company “Group-IB”on a February 22,2019 in advisory stated that money mules use the fake cards, to either withdraw money from ATMs or buy goods” that are later resold by fraudsters. Despite efforts of banks to eliminate ATM card fraud, criminals still find ways around security measures to acquire card data at the point of sale.
The impact of a single, successful cyber-attack can have far-reaching implications including financial losses, theft of intellectual property, and loss of consumer confidence and trust. The overall monetary impact of cyber-crime on society and government is estimated to be billions of dollars a year. While, the banks in Pakistan claim that they have insurance policies, they do not seem much interested in securing their system and the public remains highly affected by such attacks. There is growing sense of distrust in the online banking. Several banking organizations fail to provide proper insurance to their customer. That is why people are more comfortable in keeping their money and reserves at home rather than banks. This is one of the major factors that add to country’s severe economic decline.
Pakistan needs to develop its cyber capabilities infrastructure and should invest in the youth to build a cyber security force of young experts. Simultaneously, there is a need to focus on artificial intelligence, block chains and software robots as suggested by Chief Technology Officer Huawei (Middle East and European Union) Jorge Sebastiao in the recent international seminar on Global Strategic Threat and Response (GSTAR). Establishing a stronger cyber infrastructure will provide stronger security guarantees to the IT enabled services especially to the banking systems of Pakistan. This will in turn enhance the economic growth and security. Furthermore, the transnational nature of cyber-crime makes cyber-security a global challenge and, hence, demands collective and collaborative measures at the international level with flawless and strong legal and cyber policy framework.
In this regard, Pakistan’s cyber-law provides for ‘international cooperation.’ It has the membership of the International Multilateral Partnership against Cyber Threats (ITUIMPACT) and participates in Asia Pacific Security Incident Response Coordination Working Group (APSIRC-WG). However, cyber-security does not appear to be a priority on the country’s agenda for international dialogue and agreements. Pakistan needs to review the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill which will contribute mainly to increase the security of banking systems.
Harmonizing and Improving Statistics in West Africa
The Board of the World Bank Group has allocated today a total of $379 million in International Development Association (IDA)*...
The reforms and the current situation of the State budget and accounts
As we have all realized, since the COVID-19 epidemics broke out the number of regulations enacted – especially by the...
Covid-19 crisis and Earth Hour: An opportunity to reflect on the deteriorating health of the planet
Earth Hour 2020 on Saturday 28 March presents a unique opportunity this year: shining a light on biodiversity loss and climate change during the coronavirus outbreak. All of us will be...
Battery Storage Paves Way for a Renewable-powered Future
Battery storage systems are emerging as one of the key solutions to effectively integrate high shares of solar and wind...
The rapport between Iran and Turkey over Syria: Liaisons or tussle?
The two powers of Iran and Turkey constitute a crucial feature on the map of the Middle East. The influence...
The Thucydides’ Trap: the Avoidable Destiny Between the US and China
The controversial “Thucydides trap” argument has sparked a heated debate since 2013, when President Xi Jinping of China told a...
Somalia to Receive Debt Relief under the Enhanced HIPC Initiative
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank’s International Development Association have determined that Somalia has taken the necessary...
Terrorism2 days ago
Covid-19 and Threat of Bio-War
Southeast Asia3 days ago
In the midst of a pandemic, the EU must suspend its proposed palm oil ban
Defense2 days ago
Dynamics of Escalation in South Asia and Pakistan’s Nuclear Threshold
Europe2 days ago
The Covid-19 epidemics and the issue of Italy’s public debt
International Law1 day ago
China’s aggressive moves in South China Sea
Americas3 days ago
Why the Justice Department Dropped Charges Over “Russian Interference”
South Asia2 days ago
SAARC against COVID-19: Is everybody in?
Newsdesk3 days ago
OECD Secretary-General: Coronavirus “war” demands joint action