Should Cybersecurity Corps be National, North American or Global?
As we begin to build our new Cybersecurity Corps (modeled after the Peace Corps) to help mobilize cybersecurity, digital privacy and related experts to help safeguard our community, our industries and our public, an issue arose. Should each country have its own, dedicated to their own national security and interests? Should the US and Canada create a joint-Cybersecurity Corps to address both countries' needs? Or, should the Cybersecurity Corp be global and address the needs of the global public and industries, without regard to national security interests?
For decades, as I work to make the digital world safer, more secure and more private, I never noticed borders. Everyone, everywhere is entitled to being safe, secure and private. The "others" are criminals, terrorists, malicious hackers, trolls, radical groups and those engaged in digital abuse, manipulations and fraud. Wherever located, I fight to stop them, address the risks they pose and to empower the public. But, national security and cybersecurity are closely aligned. At what point should work be directed at benefiting one country, instead of the world?
Should certain activities be directed at worldwide participation and collaboration? Strengthening industry is something we all have in common. But is protecting national grids something only allied nations should cooperate on strengthening and common strategies? At what point does collaboration to improve cybersecurity on a global basis help nations we are fighting on the ground or politically?
These are troubling times, both within and without the US and North America. Does thinking about our country or North America first mean we are turning our backs on the rest of the world? Or is it common sense? When does thinking about the US or North America first stand for isolation? And when should we think about our nations first?
For now, let's start with the easy question - should Cybersecurity Corps be US, North American or global? One entity or aligned national or regional entities? How are members authenicated and by what standards? If we are building national cybersecurity capacity as one of our top priorities, how does that change the focus of these questions, if at all?
The goal/longer term vision should be to go global and pull us all together to fight the enemy, but in order to achieve the higher vision/goal, starting in a test market then scaling is probably more effective and will give you time to tweak the process and figure out how best to scale. I liked Art Wolinsky's comments about needed both but starting local, as that allows you to test the market and still keep the bigger goal/vision in mind as you build. If successful, I think this could take off and go global pretty quickly, especially given the fact that many industries under attack like financial services, infrastructure companies, pharmaceutical firms, healthcare, retail, etc. are global in nature, so they can help spread the word and evangelize, once you are up and running. Those industries, mostly regulated, could become strong scaling partners.
Retired
7 年There is no doubt in my mind we need both. What you are asking is whether we should think globally and act locally, or act locally and think globally. Both are needed, but in order to build global security, I think you probably have to start locally. A forest can be started by a planting a single seed or by planting thousands of seeds. The process depends on funding and human resources. However, if the soil is poor, both will fail to yield the desired outcome. The analogy lends itself nicely to your question and will ultimately supply the answer to your question.
CEO @ Berkeley Varitronics Systems | Cybersecurity Expert
7 年Great article....I would think US to start. Tricky to go global