Discussing cyber(SEE)curity: global issues in regional context
Cybersecurity is a global problem; however, every region and every country have their own particular struggles. What are the most important issues for cybersecurity in SEE? How can they be built into European and global agenda? Join the discussion and have your say!
Security, cybersecurity, human rights, cybercrime, capacity building
Cybersecurity is a complex issue with many dimensions – technical, legal, regulatory to name but a few. While safeguarding cybersecurity is a global challenge, every region has its very own particular struggles. The goal of the session is to discuss the issues raised in the proposals submitted for SEEDIG, such as cybersecurity and human rights, capacity building, empowerment and trust, strategies and legal frameworks, in the regional context.
What is the specific regional dimension of cybersecurity challenges? It’s up to the audience and resource people to decide and discuss! We assume it might be awareness issues, multi-stakeholder approaches, missing legal and regulatory frameworks, cooperation on the regional level. However, we will ask for the input from all the participants and shape the discussion based on two overarching themes that are relevant for any cybersecurity issues: capacity building and human rights. We hope the session will contribute to on-going discussions on how to build multistakeholder approaches to cybersecurity in the region and how to strengthen and encourage national and regional mechanisms and cooperation in SEE and beyond.
This interactive session will engage all the participants into the discussion on cybersecurity issues. In the beginning, after the moderators frame the discussion, the floor will be given to the audience and anyone can make statements concerning regional dimension of cybersecurity issues and regional cybersecurity challenges. After the first round of the statements from the floor, we expect the 3-4 resource persons/key participants to make short statements to address the issues raised by the audience. Further discussion will involve the audience, remote participants and resource persons with fair distribution of time and will be guided by a strict moderation. We will ask for contributions on twitter before the session and monitor twitter feed during the session. The aim is to get the discussion as interactive as possible.
Axel Pawlik, Managing Director of the RIPE Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC)
Desiree Miloshevic, Afilias
Milan Sekuloski, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF)
- Vladimir Radunović, DiploFoundation, Serbia
- Tatiana Tropina, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Germany/Russian Federation
Remote moderator: Radoslav Rizov, Microsoft, Bulgaria
Rapporteur: Fotjon Kosta, Ministry of Energy and Industry, Albania
- There are differences in understanding what cybersecurity is among different stakeholders, be they public or private. This lack of harmonised approaches to the cybersecurity definition is combined with the lack of clarity concerning the role of different stakeholders, such as state, private sector, and civil society. Thus, a dialogue between different stakeholders has to be based on clear understanding of the definition and possible roles.
- The role of various stakeholders in protecting cybersecurity will continue to be shaped by the major shift from the concept of security as the duty of the state, to cybersecurity and protection of individuals as a shared responsibility. The distribution of duties and responsibilities among different stakeholders in the South Eastern European region is not established yet, and has to be figured out taking into account rule of law, human rights, and the balance between public and private interests. Governments and other stakeholders have to work together to find the best mechanisms for safeguarding cybersecurity and for a more balanced cyber environment.
- Accountability of all players, especially governments and security services, is a precondition of any working multistakeholder solution.
- Since many of the cybersecurity strategies in the region do not include human rights issues, more attention and awareness is needed to develop the approaches that will implement human rights ‘by design’.
- The rule of law is very important, especially when it comes to protecting humans rights and conducting criminal investigations in the digital environment. However, the law on paper is not enough – legal frameworks should be operational and functional.
- Governments are expected to play a vital role in protecting critical infrastructure, combating cybercrime, contributing to education (including through public-private partnerships), and protecting human rights. However, users should take their part of responsibility in protecting the security of their data and/or devices (for example through using end-to-end encryption), and not only rely on governments and private companies.
28, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 – See full list of proposals
- Vladimir Radunović, DiploFoundation, Serbia (focal point)
- Tatiana Tropina, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Germany/Russian Federation (focal point)
- Fotjon Kosta, Ministry of Energy and Industry, Albania
- Radoslav Rizov, Microsoft, Bulgaria
- Matthew Shears, Center for Democracy & Technology, United Kingdom
- Predrag Tasevski, Cybersecurity.mk, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
- Contact point from SEEDIG’s executive committee: Aida Mahmutović