2 Comments

1. 

   Roxanne van der Puil on 2024-07-03 at 10:28

   Dear Prof. Royakkers,

   Thank you for your presentation, I enjoyed watching the video. I have some questions about the strategies to mitigate cyber conflict. One strategy is to come to a new set of norms to govern cyber conflict. You point out that consensus is challenged due to geopolitical divisions and differing perspectives on the right to retaliate following a cyber attack. My question is, is it possible to come to universal norms that can guide actions for cyber attacks that vary in their severity and take place in different geopolitical circumstances? Second, is it desirable to push forward so to speak, to come to an agreement, even if not everyone agrees? Who should decide and how? You also note that citizens have a role in recognizing disinformation. What do you think is their role? Do you think citizens have a responsibility to recognize disinformation?

   Reply
2. 

   Anne Marte Gardenier on 2024-07-03 at 10:34

   Dear Prof. Royakkers,

   Thank you for your presentation. I agree with you that de-escalation is the necessary strategy to deal with cyber-attacks. In one of your strategic approaches, you argue that the government has the responsibility to provide transparency about their cyber strategies and to facilitate public discussions about the matter. I agree that this democratization of cyber security issues could increase cyber resilience of the public and provide the government with essential input to inform their strategies.

   Yet, cyber security on the geopolitical level is partly handled by organizations like the secret intelligence (AIVD/MIVD). I believe that these organizations do not prefer their strategies to be known, let alone be discussed by the public. Moreover, they prefer to work independently from the government (as far as this is possible). How do you see this tension and how do you think meaningful transparency and public discussions could be organized?

   Reply