cua logo

CPOL 510:  Power and Money: Topics in Global Political Economy

(go back to the course’s main page?)

June 3 – Cybersecurity and Energy 

This week we go lighter on the new material so that you can also spend important time with beginning to develop your paper.

If you like, you might choose to focus on the cybersecurity material or the energy material, or you might choose to give equal amounts of attention to each.  The cyber stuff is more detailed while the energy readings are more long-term.  But I suspect that some of your comments in one of the areas will have certain resonance with comments from your classmates who focused on the other material.


In some ways, everything now is about privacy and data security

Whether we are protecting military codes, patent applications, health records, the integrity of ballot counts, credit card numbers, or what we browse online – how can we enjoy all the benefits of cyber life but avoid the many seen and unseen pitfalls?

There are many reading opportunities here but they are short or easy to read or skim-able.

We start with an outline from Peter W. Singer, author of Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs to Know (2014).  If you want to know what’s going on all around you, this book is a great place to start.  For now, we’ll just do this mini-intro:  the seven deadly sins of cyber security

It’s worth looking at some of this from a “landscape” perspective.  Look at this (you;ll need a big screen, not your phone), beginning on the right – what are the big categories of targets?  And then on the left, what are the threats?

It’s not only your Instagram photos that are vulnerable – in 2018 the GAO pointed out that despite working on this problem for 21 yearsweapons systems are still vulnerable to hacking (click at least the one-page Highlights)

Edward Snowden

You probably know this name.  Just in case, it’s worth considering the stories that came out about US Government surveillance and cooperation with US tech firms.

We start with the two articles from the Washington Post that got this all underway in 2013 – the Guardian was doing this at the same time.  Barton Gellman and Laura Poitras id PRISM and other NSA cooperation with all the big tech companies – Facebook, Google,Microsoft, and more. Start with the graphics: the NSA slides that the Washington Post published (also here: snowden – wapo – slides  ), Next, read the story and watch the interview (6:09) of Gellman at the top of the story.  Two days later we learn about the mysterious source, Edward Snowden: read the storyand watch the Guardian’s interview (12:34) of him.

Intel agencies have said that some of the reporting is not entirely accurate; you can find their Congressional testimony if you are interested

Elections Integrity

How vulnerable are American elections to anonymous outside influence? This can mean different things.  It can mean tampering with voter rolls, or the counting process, or the reporting of the count.  These are not what we’ve been talking about with Russia and the 2016 elections.

If Putin says, Vote for Trump, that’s one thing.  If a Russian government agency – or teenagers in Macedonia – post ads on facebook pretending to be almost anyone else, how much should the US worry?  (Obviously, if a U.S. candidate cooperates with foreign governments or any foreign support, laws and other issues come into play.)

The Washington Post highlighted a Journal of Democracy article on the pros and cons of social media for democracy; it’s followed up by a How Stupid Are We analysis.  A little, sure; but maybe our willingness to be duped is a symptom of our political divisions, more than being duped is a cause of our divisions?

You’ve seen the Mueller indictment (skim this) and the Mueller Report (pdf, read pages 4-10, or if you love this, pages 14-65). These Russian journalists claim that much of that information was published by them (skim this preview to the indictment), months earlier.


We begin with two articles on energy.  Instead of the latest data on US oil production in mbd or WTI prices (for which you should probably do a quick Google News search) we take larger-perspective approaches.

gas prices tomorrowThe first is about World War IV – you know WWI and WWII, and you might guess that WWIII is a poor colloquialism for the Cold War.  But WWIV?  Andrew Bacevich is a career soldier who retired and the pursued academia.  He opposed the 2003+ war in Iraq – and then his son lost his life in combat there.

Bacevich describes a combination of distorted American values and weak American leadership over decades leading since the Carter administration to a global (but esp. Middle Eastern) war for cheap, reliable oil.  You can read The Real World War IV online in the Wilson Quarterly‘s archive.

We take a very different approach with Vaclav Smil, an energy philosopher, if there is such a thing: energy historian, at least. He describes how society moves in very large ways from one way of organizing its energy reliance to another.  You can read about Smil and his ideas here in Science magazine.


If you want to get a little taste of the hyperenergy of Smil and his disdain of our scientific ignorance, try this for at least five minutes (the first minute is black screen, yes)

Optional:  If you just can’t get enough of energy transitions, try this for two hours

Ok, your turn…Part 1

In our last two weeks we really focused on Keynes vs Hayek and attention to specific fiscal and financial considerations.  This week we shift to larger government vs market questions.  We see how “domestic” vs “foreign” policy are more related that we sometimes recognize.

I know you might spend more time with one or the other of these sets of material this week, but at least look at the other material too.  We usually think of trade or tariffs or oil when we think of global political economy.  In what ways can we think about global political economy from these materials?

By Thursday night you want to share your reflections here in about 500 words, and respond to your classmates by Sunday night.

Ok, your turn…Part 2

It’s time to focus on your paper topic.  You should by now have done some thinking about it – probably you and I have Skyped or at least emailed about it.  You want to put your paper topic in the form of a question.  You can find more detailed instructions here – PAPER instructions and guidance-summer2018 – it includes notes specifically for summer-online classes like ours.

By Thursday night you want email me about your paper topic – send me a question you’d like to answer, and tell me how you will start to approach it.

Ok, everyone – semester going fast! – let’s have fun


16 Replies to “510-PAM-sum19-june3”

  1. The Tucker, Theocharis, Roberts and Barbera reading from the Washington Post “This Explains how Social Media can Both Weaken- and Strengthen- Democracy” was a very interesting and very current issue that made me think of social media in a new light. I think in this generation, and this day and age many people think of social media as a product or result of the globalized networks and globalization movement as well as technology and internet boom that has occurred over the last decade. But with anything that progresses society forward, at this fast pace tempo that we are going, it makes sense that there are some major unforeseen consequences- but the question then becomes, is it too late to reverse these consequences? And is it worth it to do so, when balanced with the benefits and positives of social medias place in society?
    From a political system standpoint, the freedom of speech, protest, press and expression are the bedrock rights and fundamental to our freedoms here in the United States and among other democratic systems worldwide. Like every rights, these are not without negative consequences and are not without consequences, however the lack of regulation and government censorship is deemed much more important and thus conflicts and threats can be deemed protected when on social media platforms. In this modern day age though, social media is being seen as fueling the fires between world leaders, especially on platforms such as Twitter. This can be seen as broaching on the outskirts of national security concerns, international law obligations, and such technological social media “wars” have started fueling more alliances to turn on each other and start distancing themselves from the United States.
    True threats and incitement are among some of the few parts of speech deemed unconstitutional due to its connection to potential war, national security concerns and it lacks progression of society forward. However, with the social media platforms, and the different political systems, countries and people participating in social media, control and regulation of such problematic interactions on social media can be tougher in reality.
    Overall, social media contributes to political economy in positive and negative ways. From a positive outlook, it can help advertise, spread the word and share international products, companies’ messages and goods/services and spread awareness of movements or events. This helps the globalized world in a progressive way by connecting cultures, different political/economic and cultural backgrounds with each other. Less government regulation (Hayek) is aiding in free movement and sharing of thoughts, products and connections among the world creating and interconnection of people through a platform online.
    But with anything positive, social media also could be seen as affecting the political economy in a problematic way as well. It can also lead to illegal activity, sharing false news and spreading problematic speech. This means that if a Keynes’ approach to regulation of speech especially across borders can be possibly better to protect consumers, protect citizens, protect safety and remain on notice of anything illegal or suspicious beyond just an innocent social media posting or usage.

    1. acatiggay, your post prompts me to ask the following question: Should any large institution be allowed to run completely unregulated and without accountability to anyone? From our government, which is accountable to its citizens, to churches, which are accountable to both God and parishioners, to corporations which are subject to regulations, and to citizens who are accountable to the law, it seems to me that a reasonable framework is needed to set boundaries upon the darker tendencies of humanity. We would all agree that human trafficking online is egregious and unacceptable. Should it be overlooked in order to maintain absolute liberty? Of course not, the line must be drawn somewhere. I suppose that places me in the Keynes category of thought that you mention in your conclusion. 🙂

      Since you mentioned Twitter, I will express that while it may be an excellent platform for directly reaching a constituency, it is a wholly inappropriate venue for diplomacy, and while it feels strange to actually type those words in a grad school assignment, the unfortunate state of politics today actually makes it relevant.

      1. Hello Jeff and Acatiggay. You raise some interesting questions about accountability. To whom is Facebook accountable? In any typical business relationship, a commercial entity must follow appropriate laws, but they are primarily accountable to their customers. If they do not serve their customers adequately, they will go out of business. (Of course this assumes normal, non-monopolistic market conditions). Facebook presents a different business model. The people they serve — users — do not pay. Advertisers pay for access to the users. While Facebook remains accountable to users in some respect (otherwise they would leave the network), they have to balance that accountability with their accountability to paying “customers.” In a number of circumstances, being accountable to one is in direct conflict with being accountable to the other (e.g., selling personal data to advertisers or other paying customers).

        So, is there a role for the government? Most Americans would be very uncomfortable with the idea of government intervening to tell Facebook what kinds of ideas it could or could not allow on the platform (setting aside those things that are constitutionally prohibited under existing laws). In many ways, Facebook is a virtual town square where people can freely express ideas and share affiliations. This goes to the heart of freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment. And, of course, we must circle back to the title of this class: Power and Money. Facebook and other social media platforms generate billions of dollars’ worth of economic activity. That generates a lot of power to influence policy at home and abroad. What would the cost be to the domestic or global economy by curtailing Facebook’s operations? What would the cost be to core American freedoms? Would they outweigh the benefits of action? What would those benefits be? I think that American constitutional principles are being put to the test like they never have before.

        1. Genevieve, Acatiggay and Jeff –

          I think you really ask important questions. Some people have compared Fb’s responsibilities to those of television or radio stations – each has certain limits and obligations, even while the distinction between broadcast and cable is increasingly archaic. The 1996 Telecommunications Act – 1996! – (there were 20-30 million users globally, virtually no one had Internet access at home, literally no one had broadband, and the iPhone was still more than a decade away) – was an update to the 1934 law – from before there was television. Policy lags technology, huh?

          What regulation would there beof a place that you personally owned, say, a two-acre park in a city, but you privately owned it – where you let anyone come and say anything they want, for free? What regs if advertisers would pay you to (try to) talk to these people based on what they were saying?

  2. This week’s material was densely packed with materials related to two of today’s premier geopolitical fundamentals, cybersecurity and energy. We were reminded of the shocking revelation by Edward Snowden of the NSA’s PRISM program. It has been difficult for me to place Snowden into a narrowly defined context in my mind. I remember hearing or reading him say that he’d be open to going to any country that values personal liberty and affirms free speech, as an almost undercover request for asylum offers. Ironically, he gave the initial interviews in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. While Hong Kong itself perhaps experiences a certain level of autonomy, it is very definitely directly linked to China, a dominant world superpower ascribing to a communist system. Furthermore, the man with a surname suspiciously befitting of Siberia now finds himself, six years later, residing in communist Moscow. It all feels like an episode of FX’s “The Americans.” Nonetheless, his revelation painted a stark picture of the depth of personal intrusion the NSA makes into the lives of all Americans. While the most recent dust-ups I recall on this topic dealt with the mass collection of metadata from America’s online activity, the PRISM surveillance system goes far beyond in what Snowden describes as automated data collection driven by algorithms and keywords. Surely, it is worthy of public debate and legislation.

    In regards to Russia’s efforts to undermine the American elections through social media campaigns, I felt the Washington Post article by Babak Bahador overlooked a couple important concepts. One is the power of the preexisting bias in our populace. There is a longstanding distrust for government, corporations, and large institutions of all sorts; and since social media and search engines use algorithms which factor in our search history and preferences, it is plausible that Russian disinformation reinforcing our personal biases further strengthens those biases. Secondly, the article states the importance of credibility, claiming that social media users don’t trust sources they don’t know, which surely has a great deal of truth to it, however, I don’t believe that people are as discerning when we repost online, so the measure of credibility may actually fall on the re-poster rather than the original poster. For example, if a fake Russian page posts an anti-Hillary meme on Facebook and John Doe thinks it’s funny and reposts, the friends of John Doe may see it in their timeline and assign the credibility to John Doe rather than the Russian page, thereby reinforcing their own bias and perhaps even further propagating Russia’s message by re-posting it themselves.

    Reading the excerpt of the Mueller report made me realize how powerful it would be to have him testify before congress regarding his findings. Even if he only restates what is in his report, as he did in an abbreviated way at last week’s DOJ press conference, it will inherently have a more significant impact on Americans than the written report alone. I contend that people are inherently deterred by the thought of reading a 400-page report and therefore make no attempt at all; however, video of him actually speaking his findings, and the subsequent media snippets that will emerge, will undoubtedly convey the message on a far grander scale. Also, the portion we read, albeit brief, just felt as if its subject was dripping with corruption and crying out for congressional action.

    “The Real World War IV” by Andrew Bacevich was particularly impactful. I was fascinated by the characterization of the Cold War as World War III and the Global War on Terror as World War IV. The timeline Bacevich draws from Carter to Bush-43 was congruous and transcended partisan politics. I enjoyed his unapologetic and academic approach to framing America’s contribution to the existing situation in the Middle East, perhaps summarized in his line, “The United States cannot be held culpable for the maladies that today find expression in violent Islamic radicalism. But neither can the United States absolve itself of any and all responsibility for the conditions that have exacerbated those maladies” (p. 57).

    1. Jeff, you said a lot in your post that I really agree with and had similar thoughts after the readings as well.

      I definitely agree that the Mueller Report being 400 pages long and the inability for most people to actually read a 20 page article let alone something longer is the struggle here. But I do think that unfortunately the visual of him testifying will still have many people saying it’s fake news or those choosing to be “ride or dies” for Trump will still look to it and not be bothered because of the demonizing of the media and the demonizing of Congressional hearings in general that Trump has done over the last 2-3 years. We are living in a dangerous time where anything that would have been of this level of scandal with any other president would not have even reached this point without impeachment processes because before most of what Trump has done and the Mueller report revealed would have been condemned right away. But we seem to be living in a “anything goes” and “everyone is the enemy” type of time where the Mueller report whether read out loud, read in the comforts of one’s home, testified and corroborated via the media is going to be ignored by those who continually to blindly and illogically stay loyal when in the past they would have jumped ship of anyone who has done even half of what Trump has done and the Mueller report reveals. It made me really reflect on the power of hateful, continuous rhetoric, and the easy influence that it has over those who are less educated or worldly. I know that sounds controversial, but as we know a large amount of Trumps base is not thinking with logic or decency and the media has helped spread his message faster and solidify and imprint it into their rhetoric as well.

      What stuck out to me as well in what you were saying is the cyclical problematic place we are at where technology and convenience is conflicting with well-roundness and full understanding in the algorithmic methods that ads, articles, preferences and anything else via social media and search engines are targeted toward certain audiences for profit and are marketed differently based on one’s search history and interests based on such history. I really do agree that whether or not Russia had an impact on the elections, the way that technology algorithms go and social media go, it’s hard to solely blame them for the existence of internet targeting in the first place. The reinforcement of such views is problematic and does come about as the negative consequence to social media and targeted audiences via internet searches. I also think we live in a time and place where it is harder to have discussions across the aisle since everything has become so divisive and has become so connected to labels of “conservative” or “liberal”, “republican” or “democrat”, “millenial” or “baby boomer”, “pro life” or “pro choice”, “blacklivesmatter” or “all lives matter”, “build the wall” or “pro immigrant”, “gun rights” or “gun violence prevention”. These have created divisiveness in the population, and the root has been social media and targeted audiences through algorithms online which has perpetuated our biases and beliefs and is a problem that we are facing in the age of social media, the age of Trump and the age of technology and globalization and the lack of regulation and censorship or control over the free press, free media and the world of the internet.

      1. Jeff and Acatiggay –

        You make me think of something – if we assign the most credibility to online stories to those (re-)posted by our friends, maybe the key to one’s own social media literacy is having more social-media-literate friends.

        From: If our friends post nonsense, we’ll believe it; and if our friends post thoughtful, factual stuff, we’ll believe it. https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/trust-social-media/

  3. Is Cyber the New Oil?

    While there was a lot of interesting material in this week’s reading, one sentence stood out to me in particular. In his article on the seven deadly sins of cybersecurity, Peter Singer wrote: “Never before has a nation been in geostrategic competition with another nation that manufactures substantial parts of both its business and military technology.” Of course, he was talking about the United States’ dependence on China “all the way down to the microchip level.” I am well aware of China’s dominance in the technology industry, but I suppose that I had not previously considered the implication of that dominance from this perspective.

    Pardon me for a moment while I switch gears to the Bacevich article. I promise I will tie it back to China.

    In the 1970s, American dependence on foreign oil made us vulnerable (see e.g., Arab oil embargo). As Bacevich noted, we considered energy independence to be critical to national security because both our economy and our military readiness depended on access to oil. We took action intended to stabilize that access through incentives to increase supply and reduce demand. For example, we invested both in vehicles that were more fuel efficient and in domestic fuel sources. We also determined that we would use any means necessary to ensure access to energy sources. This led to what Bacevich calls World War IV and the Carter Doctrine which pledged military force to protect access to oil in the Persian Gulf.

    Against the backdrop of “World War IV” and decades of U.S. foreign policy and military action focused on protecting access to Middle East oil, difference in the United States’ approach and reaction to Chinese technology dominance and the attendant cybersecurity vulnerabilities is stark. In my opinion, the risk to U.S. national security today, because of dependence on foreign technology, is equal to or greater than the risk posed by dependence on foreign oil. Yet we do not hear calls for independence from foreign technology. We are not clamoring for legislation to invest in domestic industry. There is no Carter doctrine for technology (although that might change if China restricts access to critical rare earth elements necessary for lithium batteries and other devices). Instead, we complain about intellectual property theft and occasionally ban certain Chinese technology (see e.g., https://www.wired.com/story/army-dji-drone-ban/). In essence, we are taking a “patch and pray” approach to dealing with the national security threat from Chinese technology dominance instead of putting the same energy into achieving “technology independence” that we previously put into energy independence.

    The obvious question is: why are we treating cybersecurity differently? I’m not sure I have the answer, but this is certainly something I would like to give more thought (too bad I already have a paper topic!). Could it be because the industry cannot support the high costs associated with domestic production? Is it because they would be unable to compete with Chinese firms on the global market, making domestic production unsustainable? That would leave U.S. government support as the only option for maintaining a domestic industry. That is likely to be extremely expensive and there are reasonable doubts as to whether a government supported tech industry could serve domestic needs.

    1. Hi Genevieve,

      Your mention of Bacevich citing our dependence on oil as crucial to the US economy and military readiness reminded me of another underlying theme he repeatedly touched on throughout the article; the conflation of American freedom with material prosperity. The approach he took drew a direct line from individual Americans’ desire for ever increasing comfort to the ongoing occupation of the Middle East to the attacks of 9/11 to perpetual war. In this way, he reveals that both the power and the burden ultimately lie with the American people. It struck me as a call to retrospect.

      I agree with your assessment that the US would be better off bolstering its own technology production, especially in light of today’s risks. The threat of embedded surveillance capabilities in foreign tech seems plausible enough to raise national security concerns. I am reminded of the charts we saw a couple weeks ago delineating the mutual benefits to nations engaged in trade when exporters focus on producing what they’re good at and importing what is more challenging for them to produce themselves. You make a good point that the US would benefit from investment in tech production from a national security standpoint, and perhaps over time, with some nurturing, we could see economic benefits as well.

    2. Genevieve –

      Ironically, we’ve now got a wealth of fracking production but lack rare earths – US even had its only producer shut down for more than a year. Maybe US needs a cousin to its WWIV Persian Gulf security plan for Brazil and (gulp) Vietnam, who combine for reserves equal to China’s. Maybe a cousin who learns from it’s oil-kin’s mistakes

  4. Hi Jeff. Thanks for your comment. One point of clarification: I am not sure that my position is that the U.S. government should try to create an independent tech industry if it can’t be competitive and economically viable. While the U.S. government has made some game changing technological break throughs in terms of innovation (e.g., the Internet and GPS), the government is not always the best at providing products or services, especially when there are more efficient private suppliers. Rather than advocating for one policy choice or another (because I really don’t know what the answer is!), I was highlighting the urgency with which we treated the energy crisis versus the cybersecurity crisis. Your point is well-taken on energy, material prosperity, and freedom. Certainly, we can draw parallels with the insatiable American appetite for tech and more tech! I suspect that if increased cybersecurity meant less technological innovation or slowed growth in the tech sector, many would not be interested in that trade. One reason might be because the costs (lower grade tech) is tangible and immediately perceived while cyber risks are more intangible and remote.

  5. From EA –

    In this week’s exercise, where we could talk about either cybersecurity or energy or both, I have decided to focus my discussion on cybersecurity. Cybersecurity is a field that I have been fascinated by because it amazes me how powerful the concept is and how extremely relevant it is in the world today.

    The subject of discussion in this exercise is finding out how the global political economy can be thought of with the aid of the materials (on cybersecurity) provided for this exercise. My mind goes first to the fact that not only have the lines of national political borders been blurred through the capabilities of cyber infrastructure and internet of things, nations can now covertly influence the political systems of other nations more easily. An example of this can be seen in the question posed in our material about the integrity and sovereignty of the U.S elections as evidenced by the successful interference by the Russians in the 2016 presidential elections. If an effective cybersecurity measure had been in place, the U.S would have been able to monitor, prevent and effectively counter the actions by the Russians leading up to the election with the hacking of the DNC server.

    Another thing I can draw from the materials is the impact of social media on the political economies of the world. Although free speech and easy access to internet have helped strengthen democracy, there are also instances where it has caused significant damage. For example, the Washington Post article provided in the material showed just how misinformation is easily spread and the ease with which hateful rhetoric and ideologies are spread (Tucker, Theocharis, Roberts, & Barbera, 2017). All these events work to undermine democracy and cause political instabilities around the world.

    Finally, reading these materials, I can really look at the global political economy as a battlefield of disinformation, protection of information, and an attempt to counter information attacks by adversaries. Long gone are the times when the only sensitive discussions between nations were how to engage in bilateral and multilateral trades. The outlook I see now after reading these materials is that policies on managing information and fighting disinformation and cyberattacks have taken a more dominant position in the global political economy arena.
    Just as the introductory paragraph to the material mentions, two of the prevalent discussions in the world today are about privacy and data security. From the issues Facebook has been dealing with in terms of privacy concerns to data breaches that companies like Sony, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016, or the data breach of Equifax in 2017, issues of data breaches and privacy have dominated the discourse for many years now and will continue for many years to come. All these make cybersecurity more relevant than ever before. Singer (2018) noted the steps that President Barack Obama took to institute wide ranging cybersecurity programs that would help eliminate this threat, however, they all did not deliver the necessary outcomes based on a major reason. This reason is the fundamental change in the landscape of the field of cybersecurity (Singer, 2018). This change has made it even more difficult to achieve the desired goals of any of the deterrence programs that were instituted in the cybersecurity field.

    This shift in the cybersecurity landscape can be described under seven fundamental changes. First, the collapse of cybersecurity deterrence where there has been an “utter collapse” of the capabilities of the nation and global norms with respect to cybersecurity (Singer, 2018). Second, influencing the wrong problem is another thing that has become evident in how the U.S has been viewing cybersecurity (Singer, 2018). Rather than seeing the impact that hacking could cause to institutions, democracy and undermining one’s adversaries, the U.S cybersecurity apparatus decided to treat it as a separate field and more of a professional one (Singer, 2018). This influenced the poor organization and level of preparation that the nation has consistently shown towards cyber-attacks.

    Third, there have been increasing numbers of mega-breaches which have seen exposures of 10 million or more identities in single attacks (Singer, 2018). The landscape has seen people now become almost numb to the attacks as they are quickly forgotten after brief news coverages (Singer, 2018). Fourth, there has been a “hybridization” of threats from attackers where we are not only seeing attacks from people seeking recognition, but now we have non-state actors operating on behalf of states (like Russia), and state actors (like North Korea) who now engage in conducting operations that hitherto have been deemed to be criminal in nature (Singer, 2018).

    Fifth, there have been increasing cases of ransomware attacks where attackers keep owners of information away from accessing their information until a ransom is paid (Singer, 2018). Ransomware used to be a minor section of cyber attacks but now it is growing fast, with the costs associated to the breaches growing as well (Singer, 2018). It was shocking to learn the extremely high costs recorded in 2017 with Maersk suffering damages of $200 million, FedEx suffering $300 million in losses, and Merck losing over $310 million in damages (Singer, 2018). Sixth, the belief is that the threats will keep growing thereby increasing the stakes for cybersecurity (Singer, 2018). This means that the need for cybersecurity to be proactive and effective is very important in this era. Seven, subversion has taken a whole new outlook with more fundamental aspects of the internet and digital systems now prone to being compromised by these hackers and cyber threats (Singer, 2018).

    1. EA – lots good here –

      I wonder if there is an analogy here between the globalization of everything else – movies, supply-chains, human trafficking, and everything else – to the globalization of intercept, breach, and destroy. Whether a ship in harbor or a database in the cloud, power and money are timeless motivators

    2. EA,

      I enjoyed your thorough reflection. Indeed, there is a massive number of incidences in the context of cybersecurity problems especially in the area of international relations. But, if we luck at globalization in its totality benefits delivered or provided by the growth of globalization is by far more. In contrast, it seems that a decline in cybercrimes at least in the near future is not predicted.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.