Connect with us

Science & Technology

Cyberspace and world politics

Published

on

Politics in the world now refers to merely technical rather than purely political issues. In recent years, cyberspace issues, including cybersecurity, Internet freedom and governance, have quickly become ‘politicised’ and a natural global public issue.

Important signs of the politicisation of the cyber world are the inclusion of cybersecurity on the scenario agenda, as well as the spreading of US policy on the Internet freedom and the promotion of the theory of the IT public domain.

The reason why the issue of cyberspace can rapidly politicise the world is closely related to the intrinsic relevance for the Internet security and the threats posed by politicians and the media regarding active US promotion to maintain hegemony.

Although it is very difficult to politicise technical issues, countries can significantly reduce the negative impact of politicising cyberspace by increasing contacts, building consensus, comparing and learning from experience in dealing with similar issues, and curbing excessive media threats.

In recent years, the international community has witnessed the emergence of three major global public problems: the financial crisis, climate change and the cyberspace issue.

Among these, the cyberspace issue is particularly captivating, as it is a new problem that has quickly entered the international political agenda. Compared to the financial crisis and the problems of climate change, the cybersecurity issue is still in a nascent stage. It is often compared to the Wild West – that is, the lack of international direction and laws that have not yet formed a global basis for consensus and a firmly established international consultation system.

Cyberspace is characterised by the application of electronic technology. It stores, modifies and exchanges data and information through interconnected network systems and physical devices. It is a multidimensional artificial virtual world managed, accessed and generated by computers and it is connected to the existing world, creating a multiverse system in which we are here, but can also go there with the possibility of virtual ubiquity.

Cyberspace can be divided into two types: technical issues and non-technical issues. Non-technical issues are the key research matters of international politics scholars. They mainly comprise three main issues: network security, the Internet freedom and its governance, as mentioned above.

In terms of cybersecurity, scholars are holding a series of discussions on cyberspace with regard to the paradox of cybersecurity. Paradox insofar as there can be no security, according to the old saying: ‘every law has a loophole’: see also the phenomenon of hacking against the Latium Region, as well as the issue of those who design security software, a copy of which they can sell at very high prices to those interested in cracking it to obtain other results beyond the ‘trivial’ money gains. Other security issues are cyber warfare and cyber deterrence.

The Internet freedom is a foreign policy weapon that the United States has vigorously promoted in recent years, and the theory of the Internet public domain is an important theoretical basis for reinforcing this conception of international relations.

Research in this area focuses on the global public domain nature of cyberspace, and on the contradiction between the Internet freedom and cybersecurity.

As cybersecurity problems have increased and the US policy on the Internet freedom has been implemented, the risks of cyberspace have gradually become a severe obstacle to mutual trust and normal exchanges between countries.

For this reason, the Internet governance, including network security measures and the response to cybercrime problems, has also become an important issue of interest to international policy scholars.

The problem of cyberspace is an emerging global public issue. Research on such topics, especially theoretical analysis, is still in a state of rapid growth but development is lagging behind. Taking network security as an example, people have different interpretations of the connotation of the concept of network security and often use it interchangeably with terms such as computer security, network security and information security.

Although various problems of cyber insecurity are widely mentioned in official documents, the media and IT, surprisingly few security research papers clearly explain the combination of security and IT. What does this mean?

It is still very appropriate to use the summary provided by Johan Eriksson’s analysis of the security impact of the information revolution in 2006 to assess today’s computer security research: “Most research is unreliable and the focus is on security issues related to information technology. Most of the IT literature is policy-oriented and rarely related to international relations theory or any other discipline’.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, few scholars are concerned with the reason why the issue of cyberspace can quickly become politicised in the world. In other words, cyberspace is first a technical issue, followed by a domestic political issue, and finally an international political issue.

Global public issues are diverse, but not all of them can become explicit international political issues. The word politicisation has two meanings: one is the process of conferring a political nature and the other is the result of obtaining a political nature. In domestic politics, politicisation is often seen as a continuum of individual political consciousness formation and participation.

Cyberspace consists of a series of interconnected computer devices capable of storing and using information and communicating. It comprises four layers: people, information, logical modules and physical devices. In terms of use or purpose, cyberspace can be used to manipulate, process and develop data and information, and can promote and enhance communication between people and interaction between people and information.

On the one hand, unlike the four natural spaces – terrestrial, marine, atmospheric and ‘sublunar’ – cyberspace is entirely a man-made space, and the digital and virtual are its important features. On the other hand, in contrast to the four natural spaces, cyberspace increasingly shows signs of a neo-politics.

Specifically, the global politicisation of cyberspace is manifesting itself in cybersecurity, which is rapidly becoming part of everyday life.

The fundamental manifestation of the politicisation of the issue is that it has become the content of international negotiations and that the relevant international organisations are gradually taking an interest in the problem.

Since the new century, the cybersecurity issue has become an important topic of the United Nations. The United Nations has adopted a number of resolutions to promote the international community’s attention to cybersecurity threats and cooperation.

General Assembly’s Resolution 55/63 of January 22, 2001 suggests that countries should ensure that their laws and practices can eliminate safe havens for individuals who illegally misuse information technology. When investigating, international cases of illegal misuse of information technology should be prosecuted. Hence the countries concerned should cooperate with the coordination of law enforcement agencies. In the fight against the illegal misuse of information technology, countries should exchange information on the most severe problems. General Assembly’s Resolution 60/45 of January 6, 2006 requests the UN Secretary-General to appoint an intergovernmental expert group to continue research on possible cooperation on potential information security threats and requires the group to submit a report.

Although these resolutions and recommendations are far from the standards of an international convention on information security, they do mean that information security issues – as an emerging problem – are receiving worldwide attention.

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr. Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “International World Group”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France. “

Continue Reading
Comments

Science & Technology

First Quantum Computing Guidelines Launched as Investment Booms

Published

on

National governments have invested over $25 billion into quantum computing research and over $1 billion in venture capital deals have closed in the past year – more than the past three years combined. Quantum computing promises to disrupt the future of business, science, government, and society itself, but an equitable framework is crucial to address future risks.

A new Insight Report released today at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2022 provides a roadmap for these emerging opportunities across public and private sectors. The principles have been co-designed by a global multistakeholder community composed of quantum experts, emerging technology ethics and law experts, decision makers and policy makers, social scientists and academics.

“The critical opportunity at the dawn of this historic transformation is to address ethical, societal and legal concerns well before commercialization,” said Kay Firth-Butterfield, Head of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning at the World Economic Forum. “This report represents an early intervention and the beginning of a multi-disciplinary, global conversation that will guide the development of quantum computing to the benefit of all society.”

“Quantum computing holds the potential to help solve some of society’s greatest challenges, and IBM has been at the forefront of bringing quantum hardware and software to communities of discovery worldwide,” said Dr. Heike Riel, IBM Fellow, Head of Science and Technology and Lead, Quantum, IBM Research Europe. “This report is a key step in initiating the discussion around how quantum computing should be shaped and governed, for the benefit of all.”

Professor Bronwyn Fox, Chief Scientist at CSIRO, Australia’s science national agency said, “the Principles reflect conversations CSIRO’s scientists have had with partners from around the world who share an ambition for a responsible quantum future. Embedding responsible innovation in quantum computing is key to its successful deployment and uptake for generations to come. CSIRO is committed to ensuring these Principles are used to support a strong quantum industry in Australia and generate significant social and public good.”

In adapting to the coming hybrid model of classical, multi-cloud, and soon quantum computing, the Forum’s framework establishes best-practice principles and core values. These guidelines set the foundation and give rise to a new information-processing paradigm while ensuring stakeholder equity, risk mitigation, and consumer benefit.

The governance principles are grouped into nine themes and underpinned by a set of seven core values. Themes and respective goals defining the principles:

1. Transformative capabilities: Harness the transformative capabilities of this technology and the applications for the good of humanity while managing the risks appropriately.

2. Access to hardware infrastructure: Ensure wide access to quantum computing hardware.

3. Open innovation: Encourage collaboration and a precompetitive environment, enabling faster development of the technology and the realization of its applications.

4. Creating awareness: Ensure the general population and quantum computing stakeholders are aware, engaged and sufficiently informed to enable ongoing responsible dialogue and communication; stakeholders with oversight and authority should be able to make informed decisions about quantum computing in their respective domains.

5. Workforce development and capability-building: Build and sustain a quantum-ready workforce.

6. Cybersecurity: Ensure the transition to a quantum-secure digital world.

7. Privacy: Mitigate potential data-privacy violations through theft and processing by quantum computers.

8. Standardization: Promote standards and road-mapping mechanisms to accelerate the development of the technology.

9. Sustainability: Develop a sustainable future with and for quantum computing technology

Quantum computing core values that hold across the themes and principles:

Common good: The transformative capabilities of quantum computing and its applications are harnessed to ensure they will be used to benefit humanity.

Accountability: Use of quantum computing in any context has mechanisms in place to ensure human accountability, both in its design and in its uses and outcomes. All stakeholders in the quantum computing community are responsible for ensuring that the intentional misuse of quantum computing for harmful purposes is not accepted or inadvertently positively sanctioned.

Inclusiveness: In the development of quantum computing, insofar as possible, a broad and truly diverse range of stakeholder perspectives are engaged in meaningful dialogue to avoid narrow definitions of what may be considered a harmful or beneficial use of the technology.

Equitability: Quantum computing developers and users ensure that the technology is equitable by design, and that quantum computing-based technologies are fairly and evenly distributed insofar as possible. Particular consideration is given to any specific needs of vulnerable populations to ensure equitability.

Non-maleficence: All stakeholders use quantum computing in a safe, ethical and responsible manner. Furthermore, all stakeholders ensure quantum computing does not put humans at risk of harm, either in the intended or unintended outcomes of its use, and that it is not used for nefarious purposes.

Accessibility: Quantum computing technology and knowledge are actively made widely accessible. This includes the development, deployment and use of the technology. The aim is to cultivate a general ability among the population, societal actors, corporations and governments to understand the main principles of quantum computing, the ways in which it differs from classical computing and the potential it brings.

Transparency: Users, developers and regulators are transparent about their purpose and intentions with regard to quantum computing.

“Governments and industries are accelerating their investments in quantum computing research and development worldwide,” said Derek O’Halloran, Head of Digital Economy, World Economic Forum. “This report starts the conversation that will help us understand the opportunities, set the premise for ethical guidelines, and pre-empt socioeconomic, political and legal risks well ahead of global deployment.”

The Quantum Computing Governance Principles is an initiative of the World Economic Forum’s Quantum Computing Network, a multi-stakeholder initiative focused on accelerating responsible quantum computing.

Next steps for the Quantum Computing Governance Initiative will be to work with wider stakeholder groups to adopt these principles as part of broader governance frameworks and policy approaches. With this framework, business and investment communities along with policy makers and academia will be better equipped to adopt to the coming paradigm shift. Ultimately, everyone will be better prepared to harness the transformative capabilities of quantum sciences – perhaps the most exciting emergent technologies of the 21st Century.

Continue Reading

Science & Technology

Closing the Cyber Gap: Business and Security Leaders at Crossroads as Cybercrime Spikes

Published

on

The global digital economy has surged off the back of the COVID-19 pandemic, but so has cybercrime – ransomware attacks rose 151% in 2021. There were on average 270 cyberattacks per organization during 2021, a 31% increase on 2020, with each successful cyber breach costing a company $3.6m. After a breach becomes public, the average share price of the hacked company underperforms the NASDAQ by -3% even six months after the event.

According to the World Economic Forum’s new annual report, The Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2022, 80% of cyber leaders now consider ransomware a “danger” and “threat” to public safety and there is a large perception gap between business executives who think their companies are secure and security leaders who disagree.

Some 92% of business executives surveyed agree that cyber resilience is integrated into enterprise risk-management strategies, only 55% of cyber leaders surveyed agree. This gap between leaders can leave firms vulnerable to attacks as a direct result of incongruous security priorities and policies.

Even after a threat is detected, our survey, written in collaboration with Accenture, found nearly two-thirds would find it challenging to respond to a cybersecurity incident due to the shortage of skills within their team. Perhaps even more troubling is the growing trend that companies need 280 days on average to identify and respond to a cyberattack. To put this into perspective, an incident which occurs on 1 January may not be fully contained until 8 October.

“Companies must now embrace cyber resilience – not only defending against cyberattacks but also preparing for swift and timely incident response and recovery when an attack does occur,” said Jeremy Jurgens, Managing Director at the World Economic Forum.

“Organizations need to work more closely with ecosystem partners and other third parties to make cybersecurity part of an organization’s ecosystem DNA, so they can be resilient and promote customer trust,” said Julie Sweet, Chair and CEO, Accenture. “This report underscores key challenges leaders face – collaborating with ecosystem partners and retaining and recruiting talent. We are proud to work with the World Economic Forum on this important topic because cybersecurity impacts every organization at all levels.”

Chief Cybersecurity Officers kept up at night by three things

Less than one-fifth of cyber leaders feel confident their organizations are cyber resilient. Three major concerns keep them awake at night:

– They don’t feel consulted on business decisions, and they struggle to gain the support of decision-makers in prioritizing cyber risks – 7 in 10 see cyber resilience featuring prominently in corporate risk management

– Recruiting and retaining the right talent is their greatest concern – 6 in 10 think it would be challenging to respond to a cybersecurity incident because they lack the skills within their team

– Nearly 9 in 10 see SMEs as the weakest link in the supply chain – 40% of respondents have been negatively affected by a supply chain cybersecurity incident

Training and closing the cyber gap are key solutions

Solutions include employee cyber training, offline backups, cyber insurance and platform-based cybersecurity solutions that stop known ransomware threats across all attack vectors.

Above all, there is an urgent need to close the gap of understanding between business and security leaders. It is impossible to attain complete cybersecurity, so the key objective must be to reinforce cyber resilience.

Including cyber leaders into the corporate governance process will help close this gap.

Continue Reading

Science & Technology

Ethical aspects relating to cyberspace: Self-regulation and codes of conduct

Published

on

Virtual interaction processes must be controlled in one way or another. But how, within what limits and, above all, on the basis of what principles? The proponents of the official viewpoint – supported by the strength of state structures – argue that since the Internet has a significant and not always positive impact not only on its users, but also on society as a whole, all areas of virtual interaction need to be clearly regulated through the enactment of appropriate legislation.

In practice, however, the various attempts to legislate on virtual communication face great difficulties due to the imperfection of modern information law. Moreover, considering that the Internet community is based on an internal “anarchist” ideology, it shows significant resistance to government regulations, believing that in a cross-border environment – which is the global network – the only effective regulator can be the voluntarily and consciously accepted intranet ethics based on the awareness of the individual person’s moral responsibility for what happens in cyberspace.

At the same time, the significance of moral self-regulation lies not only in the fact that it makes it possible to control the areas that are insufficiently covered, but also in other regulatory provisions at political, legal, technical or economic levels. It is up to ethics to check the meaning, lawfulness and legitimacy of the remaining regulatory means. The legal provisions themselves, supported by the force of state influence, are developed or – at least, ideally – should be implemented on the basis of moral rules. It should be noted that, although compliance with law provisions is regarded as the minimum requirement of morality, in reality this is not always the case – at least until an “ideal” legislation is devised that does not contradict morality in any way. Therefore, an ethical justification and an equal scrutiny of legislative and disciplinary acts in relation to both IT and computer technology are necessary.

In accordance with the deontological approach to justifying web ethics, the ethical foundation of information law is based on the human rights of information. Although these rights are enshrined in various national and international legal instruments, in practice their protection is often not guaranteed by anyone. This enables several state structures to introduce various restrictions on information, justifying them with noble aims such as the need to implement the concept of national security.

It should be stressed that information legislation (like any other in general) is of a conventional nature, i.e. it is a sort of temporary compromise reached by the representatives of the various social groups. Therefore, there are no unshakable principles in this sphere: legality and illegality are defined by a dynamic balance between the desire for freedom of information, on the one hand, and the attempts at restricting this freedom in one way or another.

Therefore, several subjects have extremely contradictory requirements with regard to modern information law, which are not so easy to reconcile. Information law should simultaneously protect the right to free reception of information and the right to information security, as well as ensure privacy and prevent cybercrime. It should also promote again the public accessibility of the information created, and protect copyright – even if this impinges on the universal principle of knowledge sharing.

The principle of a reasonable balance of these often diametrically opposed aspirations, with unconditional respect for fundamental human rights, should be the basis of the international information law system.

Various national and international public organisations, professionals and voluntary users’ associations define their own operation principles in a virtual environment. These principles are very often formalised in codes of conduct, aimed at minimising the potentially dangerous moral and social consequences of the use of information technologies and thus at achieving a certain degree of web community’s autonomy, at least when it comes to purely internal problematic issues. The names of these codes do not always hint at ethics, but this does not change their essence. After all, they have not the status of law provisions, which means that they cannot serve as a basis for imposing disciplinary, administrative or any other liability measures on offenders. They are therefore enforced by the community members who have adopted them solely with goodwill, as a result of free expression based on recognition and sharing of the values and rules enshrined in them. These codes therefore act as one of the moral self-regulating mechanisms of the web community.

The cyberspace codes of ethics provide the basic moral guidelines that should guide information activities. They specify the principles of general theoretical ethics and are reflected in a virtual environment. They contain criteria enabling to recognise a given act as ethical or unethical. They finally provide specific recommendations on how to behave in certain situations. The rules enshrined in the codes of ethics under the form of provisions, authorisations, bans, etc., represent in many respects the formalisation and systematisation of unwritten rules and requirements that have developed spontaneously in the process of virtual interaction over the last thirty years of the Internet.

Conversely, the provisions of codes of ethics must be thoroughly considered and judged – by their very nature, code of ethics are conventional and hence they are always the result of a mutual agreement of the relevant members of a given social group – as otherwise they are simply reduced to a formal and sectorial statement, divorced from life and not rule-bound.

Despite their multidirectionality due to the variety of net functional abilities and the heterogeneity of its audience, a comparison of the most significant codes of ethics on the Internet shows a number of common principles. Apparently, these principles are in one way or another shared by all the Internet community members. This means that they underpin the ethos of cyberspace. They include the principle of accessibility, confidentiality and quality of information; the principle of inviolability of intellectual property; the principle of no harm, and the principle of limiting the excessive use of net resources. As can be seen, this list echoes the four deontological principles of information ethics (“PAPA: Privacy, Accuracy, Property and Accessibility”) formulated by Richard Mason in his article Four Ethical Issues of the Information Age. (“MIS Quarterly”, March 1986).

The presence of a very well-written code of ethics cannot obviously ensure that all group members will act in accordance with it, because – for a person – the most reliable guarantees against unethical behaviour are his/her conscience and duties, which are not always respected. The importance of codes should therefore not be overestimated: the principles and actual morals proclaimed by codes may diverge decisively from one another. The codes of ethics, however, perform a number of extremely important functions on the Internet: firstly, they can induce Internet users to moral reflection by instilling the idea of the need to evaluate their actions accordingly (in this case, it is not so much a ready-made code that is useful, but the very experience of its development and discussion). Secondly, they can form a healthy public in a virtual environment, and also provide it with uniform and reasonable criteria for moral evaluation. Thirdly they can  become the basis for the future creation of international information law, adapted to the realities of the electronic age.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

East Asia11 mins ago

The American politicization of the Beijing Winter Olympics, and the “post-truth era” theory

Since the Egyptian researcher has begun her academic major in “contemporary Chinese political affairs and contemporary communist studies”, I have...

Southeast Asia2 hours ago

Spreading Indonesia’s Nation Branding Through “Kopi Kenangan”

Consuming coffee has become a public trend in daily life, especially among the young generation. Where almost every coffee shop...

East Asia4 hours ago

The role of China in fighting of fascism and racism

Not only did China’s distortion and damage to its interests in the field of sports and the politicization of world...

Middle East6 hours ago

Embarking on Libya’s Noble Foray Into the Future

On Saturday the 22nd of January, activists from across the civil society spectrum in Libya gathered over Zoom with one...

china bicycle china bicycle
East Asia8 hours ago

“Post-Communism Era”, “Post-Democracy Era”, in the face of “authoritarian liberalism”

According to my understanding and analysis of the current appropriate Chinese confrontation mechanisms in the face of American boycott of...

Eastern Europe10 hours ago

The Stewards of Hate

A big bear is rattling the open door of his cage.  He cannot abide a NATO spear in his belly. ...

International Law12 hours ago

Psychology of Political Power : Does Power Corrupt or is Magnetic to the Most Corruptible?

Last week I attended a conference on ‘Political Power, Morality and Corruption’. A Socratic dialogue with fellow scholars led me...

Trending