Cybersecurity: Dancing with the Wolves?

In this digital Wild West, a stark reality emerges: despite its significant impact on society, the technological environment remains surprisingly uncontrolled.

“He carves a piece of wood. And I have the feeling that when he’s finished, something is going to happen.”

When Jason Robards, in the guise of Cheyenne, describes a focused yet unhurried Charles Bronson in Once Upon a Time in the West, you can feel the tension, the uncertainty of the action coupled with the certainty that it will happen — inevitably, unavoidably. Harmonica will act; we don’t know when, we don’t know what he will do, but he will act.

The Wild West, at least in the collective imagination, was like that. A lot of uncertainty, plenty of action, and stakeholders motivated by different causes and shaped by unique contexts, finding themselves on common ground — sometimes collaborating, sometimes inevitably clashing.

In some respects, cybersecurity could resemble this more than one might initially think. Playing the role of the regulatory actor, the sheriff — the institution — tries, as much as possible, to maintain an overall balance. Meanwhile, in the roles of the people on the ground — who clash, tear each other apart, or help and save each other — are private companies from all walks of life.

Take, for instance, the recent European resolutions aimed at establishing a normative framework to protect our data. They took several years to come into effect, and there is always a noticeable lag between the pace of institutions and that of digital players. This lag manifests as much in the form of complementarity as it does in zones of friction. A real western indeed.

Thus, in this digital Wild West, a stark reality becomes apparent: the technological environment, despite its considerable impact on our society, remains surprisingly uncontrolled. As in those wild lands of yesteryear, rules and their enforcement struggle to keep pace with rapid advancements and confrontations.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

One might reduce the topic of cybersecurity to a moral issue: Who protects what, who attacks whom, who has good intentions, and who plays the sheriff? The reality, of course, is more nuanced. The good might be the institution, safeguarding the general interest and justice.

The bad could be the entrepreneur or company driven by economic imperatives, pushing all limits, advancing without looking back or around, and acting in its own interest. The ugly would then be the hacker, exploiting the gray areas of one and the weaknesses of another.

This is obviously reductive, as not all states or institutions are moral, not all hackers are immoral, and not all entrepreneurs are amoral. Moreover, this ambiguity — the sometimes thin line between the roles of different players or even the overlapping of these roles — creates an ever-shifting environment, constantly changing, giving the reality of the day a fundamentally transient dimension.

Geopolitical stakes, international agreements, technological progress, funding rounds, and other disruptions continually destabilize a state of affairs.

For a Few Dollars More

In the digital realm, perhaps more so than anywhere else, the financial stakes are at the heart of the issues, as it is first a significant investment that later becomes a financial windfall. Everyone understands that the initial investment is closely tied to new regulatory constraints that are written daily. How can one not see that the risk is often assumed and largely guaranteed by institutions, while the profit is much less shared?

The state positions itself on long-term investments, but it is not the only one doing so. Subsidized researchers often turn to the private sector once their training is complete or their research is well-advanced.

Institutions are both far ahead (in fundamental research and long-term exploration fields) and behind, as applied research is often the domain of the private sector, which receives most of the financial windfall generated by technological progress. Financial investment drives innovation, and return on investment is a key aspect of this public-private relationship.

The Wild Bunch

The technological field does not have a monopoly on chaos, but lately, we hear more about scandals than virtues. Data leaks and uses that sometimes border on immorality make regulation necessary amid a mess that makes situations increasingly opaque.

Morality is only one aspect of this complex equation. Justice, profit, and freedom are other notions that complement it, making it more complex every day. The relationship between tech actors is not just a matter of right or wrong; it is also a matter of balance, distribution, and sustainability.

Thus, regulation cannot simply come from each actor. They only have a partial and self-interested view of the subject. It is logical and respectable but not enough to ensure a common framework. The absence of a global framework adapted to the scale of technology’s impact on our society creates a dangerous void. Just as a constitution frames a state’s political power, regulating the technological market is imperative for ensuring its sustainability.

The challenge before us is clear: How do we establish a regulatory framework commensurate with the colossal impact of technology on our society? The answer to this question will determine whether our digital Wild West evolves into a harmonious civilization or remains a land of perpetual conflicts.

The existing friction points confirm the relevance of diverse perspectives in creating a consensus between unbridled progress and a coherent societal organization. In this new reality with shifting boundaries, aligning complementary interests and concerted actions may allow us to move from a Western to a more balanced and sustainable genre yet to be defined.

source : silicon