Magnus

Wakander (m) http://wakander.blogspot.com

A different view on the evolution of security

Magnus Wakander systems analyst and liberal conservative politician (m) in Sweden. Security few words spawns such a variety of emotions and opinions. Its a short word that today encompasses a wide variety of things, from national security to roaming security guards at your school. Its most basic definition is the protection of something valuable from something bad happening to it, normally called threats. Security is polarizing given that it always divides the world into the good, the trusted, and the bad, the threats. As such it inflict friction in all systems, in one way or another. The national and corporate security paradigms and structures that were living with today is the children of geographical factors and always revolve around nations as the basic setter of boundaries, loyalties and hierarchies. The transformation that modern societies currently are undergoing is transforming our nations from mechanical societies into information societies. The consequences of this transformation have already become profound, but it can be argued that weve hardly seen anything at all. The old world had some defining traits, such as: - The world was geographical and the nation was a natural key player in distributing work and reward. - The loyalties lasted a lifetime. - Hierarchies require that you do specific tasks in order to be rewarded. - The world was cognitively manageable by us humans. - National hierarchies such as politician, large corporate leaders, journalists and the church, defined the truth and it lasted. - You do not get to choose your manager or co-workers. - The nation can order you to sacrifice yourself for the greater good. - Your position in the national food chain, hierarchy, is important which makes the number one goal to climb the ladder and be awarded a certain title. This prestige creates politics and makes people careful in sharing knowledge and information. Your colleague is a competitor. The new world that which we are moving into has also some defining traits, such as: - The world is abstract and revolves around networks of people where the nation is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The network is becoming the source for all distribution of work and reward. - The loyalties are diffuse and temporary, if they exist at all. - You reap what you saw; no one is directing your work. If you want reward, you must find a way to earn it day by day. - You can define your own reality or consume a reality provided by someone that you think is relevant. The national reality is becoming increasingly irrelevant for the citizens. - Your network is of your making and it contains only people that you think are relevant. Energy thieves and such are easy to avoid. - The network cannot order you to do anything.

Magnus Wakander (m) http://wakander.blogspot.com - - The world is becoming more complex by the second and no mans cognitive capabilities are enough. Your position is on the same level as everyone else there exist no hierarchy and therefore no prestige, as you do not compete with the others in the network. It makes you share freely which creates a relaxed and dynamic environment where you celebrate each others achievements.

The lists can be made infinitely long. The important thing is to understand that the nation is struggling to remain relevant. This also means that those that were tasked to protect the nation will end up in a confusing world. The current national construct, as a unifying entity, is a thing of the past, which means that its keepers and stewards are becoming increasingly irrelevant as well. This is true if they do not adjust to the transformation that were experiencing. Remember, the national construct is not a law of nature. It is something man-made and can therefore be replaced. If a nations core value and strength is derived from its innovative capabilities then the networks become one of the most important things to protect. Sweden, being one of the leaders within innovation on a global scale, needs to reflect upon this and do some really deep thinking whether it is the old national security functions or something new that is needed. Considering the destructive effects that national hierarchies have on innovation and creativity, it is probable that some real adjusting will have to take place for them to remain relevant. Today a Fortune 500 corporation lasts 15 years on average, just a couple of decades ago that number was 75. As nations, large classic corporations are struggling to be competitive. Another part of this perspective is the different strands of evolution that is going on. Some examples are given below. Today security on the Internet and The World of Things is managed by the client, i.e. your smart phone or similar. The user has both the freedom and responsibility that this leads to. Tomorrow the network will assume control over the security. The network will reach into your mobile device through hardware. This is a consequence of the fact that the user peripherals no longer can be trusted at the same time that the majority of all the traffic on Internet is filled with malice or plain junk. This, together with clouds being used more and more, means that the user is about to loose all control over his/her own information and the associated flows. This will give nations a drastically increased possibility to control the peoples networks and thus imposing the old national boundaries onto the networks. This would be a radical anti-liberal move, should that happen. At the same time, this is probably the only way to protect the users and their life within the information domain. It, however, requires that the nation have good intentions. Intentions, then, can be derived from how security functions are organized and what tasks and mandates they have. In order to remain a protector of liberal values, the nation need to ensure increased openness in this domain. Research organizations have become increasingly good at reading brains and fuse man- made technology with organic entities. This research is believed to make it possible to extend human brain capabilities as well as curing illnesses. One example of current DARPA research is to, through the use of brain implants (braincomputer interfaces BCIs), make it possible for soldiers to communicate brain-to-brain, as it were. This

Magnus Wakander (m) http://wakander.blogspot.com project is called silent talk. Such systems can be exploited and therefore need to have protective mechanisms. As the competence to exploit brains increases it might become required that everyone has brain security implants, at one point or another. Sounds like ScFi, but it is very much real and it is happening. Complex systems for cyber intelligence, such as Autonomy and MarkLogic, make it possible for organizations to analyze huge amounts of data, from all thinkable sources and on all languages, and derive meaning from it. These systems are not commonplace today because the commercial (open source solutions exists) technology costs a lot of money, making it impossible for the average user to obtain this capability. Moreover, the knowledge required to integrate well-functioning systems are scarce. As these technologies become more widely available the competence base will widen and this will drastically shift the power of information to the average user. This will lead to a transformation that further shift power from the national construct to the networks. And again, this is happening and the technology and competence is mainly under the control of the networks. The nation will of course continue to exist, as it is the only keeper of territory and the ruler of law, something that wont be going anywhere real soon. The politicians currently struggle to fuse global security and defence politics with the citizens liberalization onto the global Internet and the new ways of interaction that this system of systems provides for. Fusing a physical world with many abstract ones is difficult. One can, therefore, argue that asking someone, today and tomorrow, to prove something or provide some form of widely accepted truth within the area of security is nave. Rather, what we need is a living dialogue concerning how we best provide the nation and citizens with security tomorrow. Here, thoughts and perspectives are more important than old dogmas or standards for operations. Learn from the past, but understand that we dont have all of the solution for tomorrow. For some, this will be scary and unsettling whereas others will thrive in the situation. It can therefore not be avoided that well soon see a battle of minds across the board as different perspectives are being pitted against each other. At the heart of this are two worlds: one that says that I cannot succeed without someone else failing, and another that has found a way to make everyone a winner. The first world requires less of your constructive social capabilities whereas the second revolves around your social capabilities and your ability to establish chains of trust on a personal level. It is not difficult to see that the predatory behaviour that old hierarchies lead to will also lead to the structures being populated by people that the networks arent interested in. This is probably one of the main challenges to overcome: networks eliminate national and market boundaries but create new ones, as there are types of personalities that the networks just arent interested in. No matter where you stand, I think we all can agree that the coming decade will be extremely exciting. Lets just agree on making it an even more liberal and safe decade, full of ideas and dynamics. In the end, this is what will make your network or nation relevant and therefore competitive.