Yesterday, Amelia participated in the Cybersecurity forum - an event organized by the Security and Defense platform; a military think-tank here in Brussels. The main topic for the evening was simple - how to demystify security as a topic and how to attract new specialists. Everyone has its own view where the problem might be. Four guests - Patryk Pawlak from EUISS, br. gen Bruce T. Crafword from US European Command, the deputy assistant secretary for emerging security challenges of NATO, Jamie Shea, and our MEP Amelia Andersdotter - exchanged their opinions.Â
Both guests from the military sector (ie. Mr. Crawford as well as Mr. Shea) mentioned in their speeches out the current problem of security: it is simply not "hip". In order to decide for a career in the cybersecurity, one must show his overall interest in the topic - and perhaps the military does a poor job in addressing as well as in looking for people, who'd like to participate in this.Â
Amelia however presented a totally different view on the topic. The current cyberspace is pretty much a permanent battlefield; otaining data in any possible way can be much more effective than protecting them, so more and more efforts are invested again into invasive technologies; snooping, security breaching etc. Only a small part of our means can be reserved for security - and if so, how can we be sure that everything is properly protected?
It is hard to imagine that we would purchase a piece of software that has loopholes and vulnerabilities in real world, yet in cyberspace this is possible. Companies making software do produce it with security flaws, thus creating vulnerabilities and thus supporting the "need" for security industry. This need is backed by political establishment and military, who are constantly pointing fingers on countries of the former Cold war East, despite a fact that Berlin wall is gone and new generations are unaffected by the Cold war thinking.Â
The system is vulnerable indeed - and the vulnerability is created by the system itself. One can hardly become an cybersecurity expert when governments have capabilities to breach in pretty much every software and communication (as has Snowden revealed). The need for security is created artificially. How can we change this?Â
Â
The security and defence org. funds should be spent helping their "customers" to harden their systems, thus locking them self out of those systems. Until today i have not heard of one single event when org. like that have recommended state administration, banks or sensitive private companies from using systems or cloud computing controlled by foreign powers. On the contrary, they are probanly helping them to keep using those very systems by offering advice on how to better use them.
This is not about security, this is about control, expand the security complex and keeping jobs within that complex, the only time it about security it is about imperial security. Just walk in at any police station or any political office, they are using droves of closed source software that no one is allowed to scrutinize, even using the game platform windows for gods sake! You do not need any more proof than this.
Right. I don't disagree with this. I think the entire debate was filmed - hopefully my staff will be able to put it online somewhere and one can see better what happened during the debate.
I think a big part of the problem is popularising the issue of control - why are our main public security agencies (law enforcement, militaries and security agencies) sponsoring an "insecurity industry"?
I was greatly dissatisfied that I forget to mention during the debate that the NATO guy description of the friendly community of security workers exchanging confidential information in one big happy family actually also means that its at the military's discretion who gets to be secure and who doesn't get to be secure - the problem of these institutions is that unless you're on personally friendly terms with at least one military guy you're not going to have anything even remotely similar to a standing chance of a secure system. Normally we associate that type of ethical, political and economical control focalized in the military with dictatorship, authoritarian rule and arbitrariness. What is it that makes us unable to have the same insight when it comes to online markets?
Its a tough nut to crack.
Just look at your self, what computing platforms are you using in your work as a MEP, and what are you doing about it? I guess that you at least talk about it from time to time, but among politicians you are very very lone. The problem is so deep and widespread, and knowledge about these issues is close non existent, that it would need a very grave catastrophe for people to wake up, a pill that no one of us are willing to swallow.
Add new comment