# data[].attributes.headline
15.09.2023 - BR Amherd zu: Jean-Daniel Ruch wird Staatssekretär für Sicherheitspolitik

# data[].attributes.subject
15.09.2023 - BR Amherd zu: Jean-Daniel Ruch wird Staatssekretär für Sicherheitspolitik

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Der Schweizerische Bundesrat - Le Conseil fédéral suisse - Il Consiglio federale svizzero

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
15.09.2023 - BR Amherd zu: Jean-Daniel Ruch wird Staatssekretär für Sicherheitspolitik

# data[].attributes.headline
Cyber Resiliency: Discussing the 2023 DoD Cyber Strategy

# data[].attributes.subject
Cyber Resiliency: Discussing the 2023 DoD Cyber Strategy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cyber Resiliency: Discussing the 2023 DoD Cyber Strategy

# data[].attributes.headline
The Need for Transparency in Artificial Intelligence

# data[].attributes.subject
The Need for Transparency in Artificial Intelligence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Chair of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Security, will convene a subcommittee hearing titled "The Need for Transparency in Artificial Intelligence" on Tuesday, September 12, 2023, at 2:30 PM ET. The hearing will explore how to increase transparency in Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies for consumers, identify uses of AI that are beneficial or "high-risk" and evaluate the potential impact of policies designed to increase trustworthiness in the transformational technology.
Witnesses:

Victoria Espinel, Chief Executive Officer, BSA | The Software Alliance

Dr. Ramayya Krishnan, Dean of the Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University

Sam Gregory, Executive Director of WITNESS

Rob Strayer, Executive Vice President for Policy, Information Technology Industry Council

Details:
WHAT: Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Security
DATE: Tuesday, September 12, 2023
TIME: 2:30 PM ET
LOCATION: Committee Hearing Room, Russell 253
LIVESTREAM: The hearing will stream live on the Committee website here, Twitter here, and Facebook here and YouTube here.
The webcast will appear on this page the day of the hearing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Need for Transparency in Artificial Intelligence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Chair of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Security, will convene a subcommittee hearing titled "The Need for Transparency in Artificial Intelligence" on Tuesday, September 12, 2023, at 2:30 PM ET.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Passt auf, was Ihr im Internet macht! Denn wir sehen alles - und sind absolut skrupellos bei der Verwirklichung unseres Vorhabens, die verrückteste Unterhaltungsshow im deutschen Fernsehen herzustellen", sagt Jan Böhmermann zu den ahnungslosen Studiogästen.

Die Primetime-Show weist auf die Fahrlässigkeit hin, mit der viele Menschen im Internet unterwegs sind. Alle Kandidat*innen erhalten fantastische Preise und werden Teil eines wilden, spaßigen und unvergesslichen Abends.

An dieser Stelle würden wir dir gerne die Datenschutzeinstellungen anzeigen. Entweder hast du einen Ad-Blocker oder ähnliches in deinem Browser aktiviert, welcher dies verhindert, oder deine Internetverbindung ist derzeit gestört. Falls du die Datenschutzeinstellungen sehen und bearbeiten möchtest, prüfe, ob ein Ad-Blocker oder ähnliches in deinem Browser aktiv ist und schalte es aus. So lange werden die standardmäßigen Einstellungen bei der Nutzung der ZDFmediathek verwendet. Dies bedeutet, das die Kategorien "Erforderlich" und "Erforderliche Erfolgsmessung" zugelassen sind. Weitere Details erfährst du in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

An dieser Stelle würden wir dir gerne die Datenschutzeinstellungen anzeigen. Möglicherweise hast du einen Ad/Script/CSS/Cookiebanner-Blocker oder ähnliches in deinem Browser aktiviert, welcher dies verhindert. Falls du die Webseite ohne Einschränkungen nutzen möchtest, prüfe, ob ein Plugin oder ähnliches in deinem Browser aktiv ist und schalte es aus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bei "Lass dich überwachen!" mit Jan Böhmermann werden die ahnungslosen Studio-Zuschauer*innen zu den eigentlichen Stars der Sendung.

# data[].attributes.headline
CounterCloud - AI powered disinformation experiment

# data[].attributes.subject
CounterCloud - AI powered disinformation experiment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CounterCloud - AI powered disinformation experiment

# data[].attributes.headline
Metaverse poses serious privacy risks for users, report warns

# data[].attributes.subject
Metaverse poses serious privacy risks for users, report warns

# data[].attributes.body
The immersive internet experience known as the metaverse will erode users’ privacy unless significant steps are taken to improve and regulate how the technology captures and stores personal data, a new report from New York University argues.

The metaverse relies on extended reality (XR) technologies — the umbrella term referring to augmented reality, virtual reality and mixed reality. The report from NYU’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights warns that because the technology doesn't work without gathering and processing vast quantities of personal and bodily data, it presents a major privacy risk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The immersive internet experience known as the metaverse will erode users' privacy unless significant steps are taken to improve and regulate how the technology captures and stores personal data, a new report from New York University argues.

The metaverse relies on extended reality (XR) technologies - the umbrella term referring to augmented reality, virtual reality and mixed reality. The report from NYU's Stern Center for Business and Human Rights warns that because the technology doesn't work without gathering and processing vast quantities of personal and bodily data, it presents a major privacy risk.

According to the report, the bodily data alone can be used to deduce behavioral and psychological information about individuals.

"Conventional XR hardware is equipped with sensors that continuously track at least three types of user data: head movements, eye movements, and spatial maps of physical surroundings," the report says.

When compiled over time, the report argues, this data can reveal "highly sensitive information" about users, including their physical and mental condition, which can be leveraged for commercial or political gain.

Companies with a deep interest in metaverse technology include tech giants like Meta and Microsoft, hardware makers like Nvidia, game developers such as Epic Games and software platforms like Unity.

Companies should establish "known best practices" on privacy, safety by design, and cybersecurity before unveiling their products and should be transparent with the public about how the technology could affect their privacy, the report says.

Additionally, companies should erase all "raw and derived bodily data" as soon as it is not needed for the product to operate and give users different options to control how much risk they are exposed to. Given the potential dangers embedded in XR technology, the report argues that Congress should pass a comprehensive privacy law that includes language to protect against body-based data being used to profile users as well as bolster user consent models.

It notes that the version of the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA) which made it out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in July 2022, but ultimately failed to reach a floor vote offered a "good foundation upon which to build" by barring companies from collecting geolocation and health data.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is now negotiating an updated version of ADPPA which has not yet been unveiled.

The report says the revised bill needs to account for the harm that potential uses of body-based data can pose; improve notice and consent standards; and bar the use of consumers' bodily data for psychographic profiling.

Get more insights with the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Metaverse poses serious privacy risks for users, report warns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Metaverse technology doesn't work without gathering and processing vast quantities of personal and bodily data, notes NYU's Stern Center for Business and Human Rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Will the Tech Titans Behind ChatGPT, Bard, and LLaMA Make Money?

# data[].attributes.subject
How Will the Tech Titans Behind ChatGPT, Bard, and LLaMA Make Money?

# data[].attributes.body
The dizzying explosion of generative artificial intelligence platforms has been the big business story of the past year, but how they’ll make money and how smart companies can use them wisely are the questions that will dominate the next 12 months.

“Students and executives are no longer asking whether we should adopt AI—but rather, when and how to do so,” says Andy Wu, the Arjun and Minoo Melwani Family Associate Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School.

Wu’s recent case study and background note, AI Wars and the Generative AI Value Chain, offer a crash course in ChatGPT, Bard, and other AI chatbots—as well as the dueling tech titans behind them—and probe the strategic dilemmas ahead for innovators and users. The public's fascination with the human-like aspects of chatbots may be overshadowing more fundamental questions about how companies can profit from AI, Wu says.

“I THINK THE BASIC ECONOMICS OF A GENERATIVE AI ARE BEING OVERLOOKED.”

In an interview, Wu discusses the challenging economics of AI, how business models are likely to differ from traditional software models, and some of the potentially painful tradeoffs ahead for companies such as Google, Microsoft, and others. Wu collaborated on the case study with HBS research associate Matt Higgins; HBS doctoral student Miaomiao Zhang; and Massachusetts Institute of Technology doctoral student Hang Jiang.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The dizzying explosion of generative artificial intelligence platforms has been the big business story of the past year, but how they'll make money and how smart companies can use them wisely are the questions that will dominate the next 12 months.

"Students and executives are no longer asking whether we should adopt AI-but rather, when and how to do so," says Andy Wu, the Arjun and Minoo Melwani Family Associate Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School.

Wu's recent case study and background note, AI Wars and the Generative AI Value Chain, offer a crash course in ChatGPT, Bard, and other AI chatbots-as well as the dueling tech titans behind them-and probe the strategic dilemmas ahead for innovators and users. The public's fascination with the human-like aspects of chatbots may be overshadowing more fundamental questions about how companies can profit from AI, Wu says.

"I think the basic economics of a generative AI are being overlooked."

In an interview, Wu discusses the challenging economics of AI, how business models are likely to differ from traditional software models, and some of the potentially painful tradeoffs ahead for companies such as Google, Microsoft, and others. Wu collaborated on the case study with HBS research associate Matt Higgins; HBS doctoral student Miaomiao Zhang; and Massachusetts Institute of Technology doctoral student Hang Jiang.

Ben Rand: What did you find most surprising in preparing this case and why?

Andy Wu: I think the basic economics of a generative AI are being overlooked. There are significant unanswered questions in terms of how people will actually make money with this technology. Google and OpenAI and others can't lose money in perpetuity. But it's not yet obvious to anyone exactly how this will be monetized. At minimum, I can tell you that we are going to need new business models, and the integration of generative AI is going to transform how we monetize software and the business model.

Rand: How so?

Wu: Our notions of fixed cost and variable costs are different here than they were for any other form of computing we've lived through in the past. The key insight is that the variable cost of delivering generative AI to an end user is not zero... which means we can't necessarily be handing out future software-as-a-service applications containing generative AI for free to anyone or even as a paid subscription without usage limits as we are used to today. Usage pricing is going to be much more important.

A second distinction is that a significant portion of the core technology is open source, and a lot of the data being used to train these models is public data and may be copyrighted but is publicly available online. The barriers to entry for AI are not as high as it may seem. So many companies will be in the game, at least for specific vertical AI models and applications.

Rand: Is it too soon to tell which business model will emerge?

Wu: The companies are still trying to figure it out. But I think by their actions, we can get some hints about the direction we're going to go. The generative AI companies out there are actually pricing on a usage model, which says to me that they don't think they can make the subscription model work economically today.

Rand: Which companies are in the best position right now?

Wu: A real standout right now is Meta, in terms of fighting hard for a prominent position on the open-source side with their LLaMA model. Prior to last year, many would have assumed that Google would have been the putative leader in the open-source part of the market. Microsoft also deserves a lot of credit for making a decision to work with OpenAI and getting access to leading technology that they can integrate both into their applications and as a way to sell cloud computing services.

But what's interesting here is that none of the big tech providers are in the business of selling the actual model itself. Amazon largely offers its cloud customers the open-source models that others have made. Meta is largely handing its model out for free (with some limits), and Microsoft outsourced much of the core technology to OpenAI. Looking at these decisions together, they are making a real, albeit subtle, statement about what to avoid, which is actually trying to directly monetize the core technology-the AI model-itself.

The challenge we face right now with AI is it's very possible that the actual invention of the technology itself is not what people will make money on. It will transform the world, but the money isn't made on the thing that enabled the transformation.

"The issue is, we normally think of intellectual property as being copyrighted or not copyrighted."

Rand: What role will regulation play, do you think?

Wu: I understand the interest of regulators, given the risks of this technology. But it's going to be very difficult for regulators to come up with a comprehensive policy that controls things in the way that they would aspire to control them. That comes down to one principal factor, and that is that the barrier to entry is not that high. There are already a significant amount of open-source models that you or I could build on.

So, let's say we want to block AI from generating hate speech. To the extent that there is a market for hate speech, some entrepreneur will be able to build that model. It's hard to exactly figure out how you would block it. If there is a market, someone will figure out how to do it.

Rand: Are there some areas where regulation may be useful?

Wu: Copyright law is one area they can address. The issue is, we normally think of intellectual property as being copyrighted or not copyrighted. But I like to teach my students that we're in a new world. There's copyrighted and not copyrighted, and then there's also public and private. And so, the issue right now is that you can have copyrighted data that is also public. For instance, any newspaper publisher that allows their news articles to be indexed by search engines has put their intellectual property in this situation of being copyrighted but also public.

What do those creators do about their data? You can say it's copyrighted, and say other people can't use it, but you can't really run around proving that all these different models are being trained using your data. This is something that regulators will have to clarify and also something that companies are taking note of themselves, particularly in the music space and image space.

"To the extent that maybe you don't want an AI offering now, but you want one five years from now, the effort of building a centralized data store for all that data will be important."

Rand: With so much to consider, how can managers stay on top of the developments in AI? They seem to be changing so fast.

Wu: I would advise managers not to play for the next year. Play for the next 10 years. The idea is that you want to have people inside your company who are on top of the different technologies and experimenting with different things. You need to give them a pathway to communicate with the CEO and top management team about which technologies to invest in.

The corollary to that is the integration of data across business units in a company. It's not being done well enough right now, based on my experience. Companies already have a fairly complicated portfolio of different databases and enterprise products that store their data. That data increasingly needs to be kept track of, and, ideally, integrated. And so, to the extent that maybe you don't want an AI offering now, but you want one five years from now, the effort of building a centralized data store for all that data will be important.

Rand: What are some best practices of things companies need to be doing now?

Wu: If you're a company thinking about implementing AI, there are different levels of sophistication to consider. You could wait for other companies to develop the relevant applications, or you could buy an API and build your own application, or you could actually train your own model and then build your own application. And I think companies need to begin the process now of identifying what level of sophistication they want. For example, one early leader in this process is Bloomberg, where they have already gone ahead and built BloombergGPT, a large-language model tailored for financial tasks. They used their own proprietary data to finetune an open-source model. For a company like Bloomberg, providing financial insights is mission critical, and so they cannot wait around for someone else to develop that AI model and application.

You Might Also Like:
Feedback or ideas to share? Email the Working Knowledge team at hbswk@hbs.edu.
Image: AI Generation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Will the Tech Titans Behind ChatGPT, Bard, and LLaMA Make Money?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It seems like anything is possible with generative AI right now. But how will companies profit from those big ideas? Andy Wu breaks down the potentially painful tradeoffs that tech firms might face as artificial intelligence enters its next phase.

# data[].attributes.headline
A developer built a 'propaganda machine' using OpenAI tech to highlight the dangers of mass-produced AI disinformation

# data[].attributes.subject
A developer built a 'propaganda machine' using OpenAI tech to highlight the dangers of mass-produced AI disinformation

# data[].attributes.body
A developer has built an AI "disinformation machine" using OpenAI-powered technology like ChatGPT. The project, named CounterCloud, took its creator two months to complete and cost less than $400 a month to operate, highlighting how cheap and simple it can be to create mass propaganda.

The creator, who chose to remain anonymous, used the name Nea Paw and claimed to be a cybersecurity professional, Wired reported. In a video posted on YouTube, Paw described how the project was carried out and why they were doing it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A developer built an AI-powered propaganda machine in less than two months.

Using OpenAI tools like ChatGPT, the model cost less than $400 a month to operate.

The project was designed to show people how easy it is to create mass propaganda.

A developer has built an AI "disinformation machine" using OpenAI-powered technology like ChatGPT.

The project, named CounterCloud, took its creator two months to complete and cost less than $400 a month to operate, highlighting how cheap and simple it can be to create mass propaganda.

The creator, who chose to remain anonymous, used the name Nea Paw and claimed to be a cybersecurity professional, Wired reported.

In a video posted on YouTube, Paw described how the project was carried out and why they were doing it.

They said they wanted to see AI disinformation "work in the real world," adding that "strong language competencies of large language models are perfectly suited to reading and writing fake news articles."

Paw said they started by inputting "opposing" articles into ChatGPT and writing prompts instructing it to write a counter article.

The AI bot would then offer different examples of the same article, written in different styles and with different viewpoints.

They said it would do this by "creating fake stories, fake historical events, and creating doubt in the accuracy of the original article."

A gatekeeper module was then added so that the AI would only respond to the most relevant content, while audio clips of newsreaders reading the fake AI-generated articles and photos were added to create authenticity.

They also created fake journalist profiles and fake comments below some articles.

The system was then told to like and repost messages that aligned with its narrative or write "counter" tweets to those that didn't.

In two months they had a fully autonomous AI-powered system that generated "convincing content 90% of the time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week."

The creators haven't yet set the model live on the internet, as "it would mean actively pushing out disinformation and propaganda. Once the genie is out on the internet, there is no knowing where it would end up," Paw said.

But they added that they thought more good would come from publishing CounterCloud and educating the public about how these systems work from the inside.

The threat AI poses to democracy through its ability to accelerate the creation and spread of online disinformation has been one of the biggest concerns in the AI debate.

i am nervous about the impact AI is going to have on future elections (at least until everyone gets used to it). personalized 1:1 persuasion, combined with high-quality generated media, is going to be a powerful force.
- Sam Altman (@sama) August 3, 2023

The CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, recently voiced his concern about the issue, saying that "personalized 1:1 persuasion, combined with high-quality generated media, is going to be a powerful force."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A developer built a 'propaganda machine' using OpenAI tech to highlight the dangers of mass-produced AI disinformation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In two months "Nea Paw" had a fully autonomous AI-powered system that generated "convincing content 90% of the time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week."

# data[].attributes.headline
Generative AI exists because of the transformer

# data[].attributes.subject
Generative AI exists because of the transformer

# data[].attributes.body
Over the past few years, we have taken a gigantic leap forward in our decades-long quest to build intelligent machines: the advent of the large language model, or LLM.
This technology, based on research that tries to model the human brain, has led to a new field known as generative AI — software that can create plausible and sophisticated text, images and computer code at a level that mimics human ability.

Businesses around the world have begun to experiment with the new technology in the belief it could transform media, finance, law and professional services, as well as public services such as education. The LLM is underpinned by a scientific development known as the transformer model, made by Google researchers in 2017.

“While we’ve always understood the breakthrough nature of our transformer work, several years later, we’re energised by its enduring potential across new fields, from healthcare to robotics and security, enhancing human creativity, and more,” says Slav Petrov, a senior researcher at Google, who works on building AI models, including LLMs.

LLMs’ touted benefits — the ability to increase productivity by writing and analysing text — are also why it poses a threat to humans. According to Goldman Sachs, it could expose the equivalent of 300mn full-time workers across big economies to automation, leading to widespread unemployment.

As the technology is rapidly woven into our lives, understanding how LLMs generate text means understanding why these models are such versatile cognitive engines — and what else they can help create.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Generative AI exists because of the transformer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The technology has resulted in a host of cutting-edge AI applications - but its real power lies beyond text generation

# data[].attributes.headline
September 2023 - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

# data[].attributes.subject
September 2023 - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Premium subscribers can read the complete Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' archive, which contains every article published since our founding in 1945.
This archive was created in honor of John A. Simpson, one of the Bulletin's principal founders and a longtime member of its Board of Sponsors. This searchable archive provides exclusive online access to original interviews and commentary by luminaries like Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Ruth Adams, John F. Kennedy, Stephen Hawking, Christine Todd Whitman, US Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, and multiple Nobel laureates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
September 2023 - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Premium subscribers can read the complete Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' archive, which contains every article published since our founding in 1945. This archive was created in honor of John A. Simpson, one of the Bulletin's principal founders and a longtime member of its Board of Sponsors.

# data[].attributes.headline
Six months after the Pause letter, AI is still erratic - and still something we should still be deeply concerned about

# data[].attributes.subject
Six months after the Pause letter, AI is still erratic - and still something we should still be deeply concerned about

# data[].attributes.body
Friday will be six months after the infamous “pause letter”, signed by Yoshua Bengio, myself, Steve Wozniak, Rachel Bronson, Viktoria Krakovna, Tristan Harris, Gillian Hadfield, Ian Hogarth, Elon Musk, and tens of thousands of other people. Since then everything has changed, and nothing has changed. Well, not really; that last sentence just sounded nice. In reality, only a few things have changed, most have not.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Friday will be six months after the infamous "pause letter ", signed by Yoshua Bengio, myself, Steve Wozniak, Rachel Bronson, Viktoria Krakovna, Tristan Harris, Gillian Hadfield, Ian Hogarth, Elon Musk, and tens of thousands of other people. Since then everything has changed, and nothing has changed.

Well, not really; that last sentence just sounded nice. In reality, only a few things have changed, most have not.

We have vastly more attention on AI policy, throughout the world, and I definitely give the pause letter (which I signed but didn't write) some credit for that. Governments across the globe have stepped up their game, holding public hearings (great!) and closed-door meetings (hmm) trying to figure out what we should about AI.

The field has continued to make advances. DALL-E 3 looks genuinely interesting; Google's latest Bard, according to the New York Times, is improved, but still erratic.

Ironically, GPT-5-which is essentially the only thing that the pause letter (if you read it carefully) actually proposed to pause- does actually seem to be on pause, if Sam Altman's May Senate testimony meant what I think it did. He said, and I quote, "We are not currently training what will be GPT-5. We don't have plans to do it in the next six months." (Why not? Altman didn't say. My own guess is that between the release of GPT-4 in November 2022 and the May 2023 testimony OpenAI ran some preliminary tests and decided that the system would not meet expectations. Given that the costs for training would perhaps be measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars, they decided to hold off pending new ideas for improvements.)

Some bona fide AI legislation has been crafted, including, in the US, a bipartisan bill led by Ted Lieu calling for an AI Commission, and a bipartisan bill by Hawley and Blumenthal that gratifyingly looks a lot like the things I called for in my testimony before their committee, emphasizing transparency, auditing and an FDA-like licensing process.

The White House worked together with industry leaders to craft a set of voluntary guidelines.

The UN is taking global AI policy very seriously (something I emphasized in my TED Talk), building a high-level advisory body at the request of Secretary General Guterres.

What has not changed, and what we have not seen

At least in the United States, policy around AI is still largely notional, not actual. Voluntary guidelines aren't laws, and they aren't enforcement mechanisms, either; companies can still do as they please. The Hawley-Blumenthal proposal largely got lost in the press around the much less-specific Schumer-led closed door meeting that followed it by a day; maybe it will become law, maybe it will not. The EU AI Act is on its way, but still being negotiated, and again, not yet, actual law. The UN has called for action, but not yet made clear what action that might be.

Large language models continue to be unreliable. None of the basic issues that I have been harping on for the last 20 years has actually been solved. Large language models still make stuff up ("hallucinate"), still can't be trusted in their reasoning, and remain unreliable. That Times headline yesterday about Google's latest Bard edition says it all, "Google's Bard Just Got More Powerful. It's Still Erratic." A good part of my own concerns about AI revolve around that erratic nature; society is placing more and more trust in a technology that simply has not yet earned that trust.

As a society, we still don't really have any plan whatsoever about what we might do to mitigate long-term risks. Current AI is pretty dumb in many respects, but what would we do if superintelligent AI really were at some point imminent, and posed some sort of genuine threat, eg around a new form of bioweapon attack? We have far too little machinery in place to surveil or address such threats.

The big companies have all pledged fealty to transparency, but none of them will actually tells us what's in their data sets. (The voluntary guidelines didn't address this). If we don't know what is in the data sets, we can't know what biases these systems will spread through society if they are widely used, we can't know the extent to which individual content creatore are being exploited, and worse any outside efforts to mitigate risks are greatly undermined. We can't properly assess the ability of these systems to generalize without understanding the relation between their training data and their output. Without that, addressing risks is like trying to dry a camp full of dishes with a single rag slopping water around.

§

I have some mild sense of regretting having signed the pause letter, not because of anything it actually said, but because of how it has repeatedly been politicized and misinterpreted. I have been accused of trying to hype AI (certainly not my intention), people have miscontrued the letter as banning all AI research (which is not what it called for, and not something I would support), and so on. But I sure am glad it opened the conversation.

We are obviously never going to have a moratorium anytime in the near-term. The apparent economics of AI (we will see if they yet come to pass as imagined) are too seductive to too many, to people building AI companies, to people investing in AI companies, to people getting paid 6 and even 7 digit salaries, and to people expecting campaign donations from big tech companies.

The question is, if we don't pause AI, what will we do to mitigate the many risks - from accidental misinformation (defamation, medical misinformation) and wholesale deliberate disinformation (which may manipulate our elections and our markets) to increases in cybercrime and malware, to AI-generated bioweapons, and so forth - and who will bear the costs.

Gary Marcus testified about all this before the US Senate in May. He's cautiously optimistic that we might see actual legislation pass in the next six months, but still pretty worried about whether whatever it comes up with will be up to the job.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Six months after the Pause letter, AI is still erratic - and still something we should still be deeply concerned about

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Friday will be six months after the infamous "pause letter", signed by Yoshua Bengio, myself, Steve Wozniak, Rachel Bronson, Viktoria Krakovna, Tristan Harris, Gillian Hadfield, Ian Hogarth, Elon Musk, and tens of thousands of other people. Since then everything has changed, and nothing has changed.

# data[].attributes.headline
AI systems have learned how to deceive humans. What does that mean for our future?

# data[].attributes.subject
AI systems have learned how to deceive humans. What does that mean for our future?

# data[].attributes.body
Artificial intelligence pioneer Geoffrey Hinton made headlines earlier this year when he raised concerns about the capabilities of AI systems. Speaking to CNN journalist Jake Tapper, Hinton said:

If it gets to be much smarter than us, it will be very good at manipulation because it would have learned that from us. And there are very few examples of a more intelligent thing being controlled by a less intelligent thing.

Anyone who has kept tabs on the latest AI offerings will know these systems are prone to “hallucinating” (making things up) – a flaw that’s inherent in them due to how they work. Yet Hinton highlights the potential for manipulation as a particularly major concern. This raises the question: can AI systems deceive humans? We argue a range of systems have already learned to do this – and the risks range from fraud and election tampering, to us losing control over AI.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Artificial intelligence pioneer Geoffrey Hinton made headlines earlier this year when he raised concerns about the capabilities of AI systems. Speaking to CNN journalist Jake Tapper, Hinton said:

If it gets to be much smarter than us, it will be very good at manipulation because it would have learned that from us. And there are very few examples of a more intelligent thing being controlled by a less intelligent thing.

Anyone who has kept tabs on the latest AI offerings will know these systems are prone to " hallucinating " (making things up) - a flaw that's inherent in them due to how they work.

Yet Hinton highlights the potential for manipulation as a particularly major concern. This raises the question: can AI systems deceive humans?

We argue a range of systems have already learned to do this - and the risks range from fraud and election tampering, to us losing control over AI.

AI learns to lie

Perhaps the most disturbing example of a deceptive AI is found in Meta's CICERO, an AI model designed to play the alliance-building world conquest game Diplomacy.

Read more: An AI named Cicero can beat humans in Diplomacy, a complex alliance-building game. Here's why that's a big deal

Meta claims it built CICERO to be " largely honest and helpful", and CICERO would " never intentionally backstab " and attack allies.

To investigate these rosy claims, we looked carefully at Meta's own game data from the CICERO experiment. On close inspection, Meta's AI turned out to be a master of deception.

In one example, CICERO engaged in premeditated deception. Playing as France, the AI reached out to Germany (a human player) with a plan to trick England (another human player) into leaving itself open to invasion.

After conspiring with Germany to invade the North Sea, CICERO told England it would defend England if anyone invaded the North Sea. Once England was convinced that France/CICERO was protecting the North Sea, CICERO reported to Germany it was ready to attack.

This is just one of several examples of CICERO engaging in deceptive behaviour. The AI regularly betrayed other players, and in one case even pretended to be a human with a girlfriend.

Besides CICERO, other systems have learned how to bluff in poker, how to feint in StarCraft II and how to mislead in simulated economic negotiations.

Even large language models (LLM) have displayed significant deceptive capabilities. In one instance, GPT-4 - the most advanced LLM option available to paying ChatGPT users - pretended to be a visually impaired human and convinced a TaskRabbit worker to complete an "I'm not a robot" CAPTCHA for it.

Other LLM models have learned to lie to win social deduction games, wherein players compete to "kill" one another and must convince the group they're innocent.

Read more: AI to Z: all the terms you need to know to keep up in the AI hype age

What are the risks?

AI systems with deceptive capabilities could be misused in numerous ways, including to commit fraud, tamper with elections and generate propaganda. The potential risks are only limited by the imagination and the technical know-how of malicious individuals.

Beyond that, advanced AI systems can autonomously use deception to escape human control, such as by cheating safety tests imposed on them by developers and regulators.

In one experiment, researchers created an artificial life simulator in which an external safety test was designed to eliminate fast-replicating AI agents. Instead, the AI agents learned how to play dead, to disguise their fast replication rates precisely when being evaluated.

Learning deceptive behaviour may not even require explicit intent to deceive. The AI agents in the example above played dead as a result of a goal to survive, rather than a goal to deceive.

In another example, someone tasked AutoGPT (an autonomous AI system based on ChatGPT) with researching tax advisers who were marketing a certain kind of improper tax avoidance scheme. AutoGPT carried out the task, but followed up by deciding on its own to attempt to alert the United Kingdom's tax authority.

In the future, advanced autonomous AI systems may be prone to manifesting goals unintended by their human programmers.

Throughout history, wealthy actors have used deception to increase their power, such as by lobbying politicians, funding misleading research and finding loopholes in the legal system. Similarly, advanced autonomous AI systems could invest their resources into such time-tested methods to maintain and expand control.

Even humans who are nominally in control of these systems may find themselves systematically deceived and outmanoeuvred.

Close oversight is needed

There's a clear need to regulate AI systems capable of deception, and the European Union's AI Act is arguably one of the most useful regulatory frameworks we currently have. It assigns each AI system one of four risk levels: minimal, limited, high and unacceptable.

Systems with unacceptable risk are banned, while high-risk systems are subject to special requirements for risk assessment and mitigation. We argue AI deception poses immense risks to society, and systems capable of this should be treated as "high-risk" or "unacceptable-risk" by default.

Some may say game-playing AIs such as CICERO are benign, but such thinking is short-sighted; capabilities developed for game-playing models can still contribute to the proliferation of deceptive AI products.

Diplomacy - a game pitting players against one another in a quest for world domination - likely wasn't the best choice for Meta to test whether AI can learn to collaborate with humans. As AI's capabilities develop, it will become even more important for this kind of research to be subject to close oversight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AI systems have learned how to deceive humans. What does that mean for our future?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AI systems with deceptive capabilities could be misused in numerous ways by bad actors. Or, they may become prone to behaving in ways their creators never intended.

# data[].attributes.headline
Porn, scams and fake news: The growing realm of deepfakes 

# data[].attributes.subject
Porn, scams and fake news: The growing realm of deepfakes 

# data[].attributes.body
Deepfakes have been the source of anxiety for experts for some time, but that fear might have become a reality, according to a recent investigation by NBC News.

NBC News found 50 deepfake videos across social media platforms of celebrities and influential figures with the goal of scamming internet users out of their money, the site reported on August 29. The primary figure used in these videos was X CEO Elon Musk, however, a number of videos also included well-known media figures like Tucker Carlson.

In the videos featuring Musk, users were encouraged to invest funds into a fake platform. As Musk has encouraged investing in some cryptocurrencies in the past, the videos may not be identified as a scam by many users.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cybersecurity in the age of generative AI

# data[].attributes.subject
Cybersecurity in the age of generative AI

# data[].attributes.body
n the latest McKinsey Global Survey on AI, 40 percent of respondents said their organizations plan to increase their overall AI investment because of advancements in gen AI. Nevertheless, few companies seem fully prepared for the widespread use of gen AI—or the business risks these tools may bring: 53 percent of organizations acknowledge cybersecurity as a gen AI-related risk, but only 38 percent are working to mitigate that risk. To help your company approach generative AI most constructively, check out the survey results from Michael Chui, Bryce Hall, Alex Singla, Alexander Sukharevsky, and Lareina Yee.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cybersecurity in the age of generative AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the latest McKinsey Global Survey on AI, 40 percent of respondents said their organizations plan to increase their overall AI investment because of advancements in gen AI.

# data[].attributes.headline
Digital threats from East Asia increase in breadth and effectiveness 

# data[].attributes.subject
Digital threats from East Asia increase in breadth and effectiveness 

# data[].attributes.body
Several emerging trends illustrate a quickly changing threat landscape across East Asia,
with China conducting both widespread cyber and influence operations (IO), and North Korean cyber threat actors demonstrating increased sophistication.

# data[].attributes.headline
Undersea Cables, Hyperscalers, and National Security

# data[].attributes.subject
Undersea Cables, Hyperscalers, and National Security

# data[].attributes.body
The audacious and costly enterprise of connecting continents by cables that run beneath the oceans has yielded invaluable social and economic benefits. Improving their resilience and defense must be a national security priority. The United States, simply put, lacks a comprehensive government-wide strategy to promote, protect, and secure undersea cables that land on American shores. This essay proposes ways to significantly improve U.S. national security by taking steps that will help the U.S. government, cable suppliers and operators, and the public at large.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The audacious and costly enterprise of connecting continents by cables that run beneath the oceans has yielded invaluable social and economic benefits. Improving their resilience and defense must be a national security priority. The United States, simply put, lacks a comprehensive government-wide strategy to promote, protect, and secure undersea cables that land on American shores. This essay proposes ways to significantly improve U.S. national security by taking steps that will help the U.S. government, cable suppliers and operators, and the public at large.

You can read the essay here or below:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Undersea Cables, Hyperscalers, and National Security

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Improving the resilience and defense of undersea cables must be a national security priority.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Cyberattacks Are Transforming Warfare

# data[].attributes.subject
How Cyberattacks Are Transforming Warfare

# data[].attributes.body
There is a new battlefield. It is global and challenging to defend. What began with a high-profile incident back in 2007, when Estonia was hit by hackers targeting its government and commercial sector, has evolved into cyber warfare that is being waged constantly worldwide. Today, cyberattacks have become the norm, transforming how we think about war and international conflict as a whole.

From the 2009 South Korea DDoS attacks to the 2010 attacks on Burma and the 2016 US election interference attacks on the Democratic National Committee, the list of historical cyberwarfare incidents continues to expand. The main players? Nation-state-supported cybercriminal groups and organizations linked to Russia, North Korea, China, and several countries in the Middle East. This report dives into three top cyberwarfare trends in an effort to understand their impact.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There is a new battlefield. It is global and challenging to defend. What began with a high-profile incident back in 2007, when Estonia was hit by hackers targeting its government and commercial sector, has evolved into cyber warfare that is being waged constantly worldwide. Today, cyberattacks have become the norm, transforming how we think about war and international conflict as a whole.

From the 2009 South Korea DDoS attacks to the 2010 attacks on Burma and the 2016 US election interference attacks on the Democratic National Committee, the list of historical cyberwarfare incidents continues to expand. The main players? Nation-state-supported cybercriminal groups and organizations linked to Russia, North Korea, China, and several countries in the Middle East. This report dives into three top cyberwarfare trends in an effort to understand their impact.

Russia: The Cyber Invasion of Ukraine

On August 31, 2023, Five Eyes Agency - an intelligence alliance network composed of agencies from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States - issued a new report revealing that Russian state-sponsored hackers were using the infamous Chisel malware to target the Android devices of Ukrainian military personnel to collect and extract data.

This attack is not an isolated incident. It is only the latest in an ongoing cyberwarfare campaign against Ukraine that has been going on for almost a decade. In fact, many cybersecurity experts consider Ukraine to be ground zero for the global digital battlefield.

In 2015, a Russian group known as Sandworm hit the Ukrainian power grid, disrupting energy services in the country for hours. Sandworm followed up with a similar attack in December of 2016, blacking out the capital city of Kyiv at midnight for over an hour.

"Over the past 7-8 years, Russia has turned Ukraine's cyberspace into a battleground for training and honing skills for cyberattacks," said the Engineering Manager at MacPaw's Moonlock Lab. This Engineering Manager, who asked to remain anonymous, was previously involved in investigating attacks on Ukraine's critical infrastructure and shared their insights in depth in a recent article on the cyberwar between Ukraine and Russia.

Attacks on energy grids were only the beginning. Russian-linked groups have since launched an intense cyberwarfare offensive against Ukraine. In 2017, hackers used the Petya ransomware to take Chernobyl's radiation monitoring system offline and hit government ministries, banks, and state-owned companies.

But 2021, 2022, and 2023 have been the most active years for incidents in Ukraine as cyberattacks escalate side by side with the Russian-Ukraine war.

These attacks have contributed to shaping Ukraine's cybersecurity defenses. Each one gives security specialists in the country the information they need to further build their cyberdefenses and develop a greater understanding of the techniques used in cyberwarfare.

Today, Ukrainian cybersecurity authorities are continually training in real-life situations with unique hands-on expertise. They have been repeatedly praised for their effectiveness, as Russian-backed cyberattacks have been abundant but rarely successful.

China: A Rising and Disrupting Force

As cyberwarfare has evolved, Chinese-linked cyberattacks have increased. The list of countries that have accused China of cyberwarfare is lengthy and includes Australia, Canada, India, Japan, Taiwan, the Vatican, and the US.

The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency ( CISA) recently warned every organization and international partner to take urgent action to understand the tactics, techniques, and procedures used by Chinese-supported bad actors.

"China probably currently represents the broadest, most active, and persistent cyber espionage threat to US Government and private-sector networks," the 2023 Annual Threat Assessment report of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence reads.

The same report highlights the ongoing US-China trade war, tensions with Taiwan, technology export conflicts, and China's interest in dominating global supply chains. US intelligence concludes that the increase of aggressive cyber threats to the US is inevitable.

"China almost certainly is capable of launching cyberattacks that could disrupt critical infrastructure services within the United States, including against oil and gas pipelines and rail systems," the report states.

As Beijing's geopolitical interest in Taiwan and the South China Sea increases, along with a display of military force, cyberattacks that include espionage, cyber theft, and the unethical transfer of technologies and knowledge are expected to escalate.

Once again, we can see how countries turn to cyberwarfare using digital tools to shape global world order and regional conflicts, or put pressure on certain issues.

Countries that deploy cyberwarfare operations are often using the same technologies within their borders as well. In the case of China, the government openly leverages advanced AI-driven domestic surveillance networks and censorship systems against its population, the media, and various organizations.

North Korea: Funding Military and Nuclear Programs

Hacking groups linked to North Korea have gained a reputation for launching financially motivated cyberattacks and using illicit funds for political purposes. Cyber espionage and cryptocurrency heists are the top tools of their digital arsenal.

A Chain Analysis report found that in 2022, North Korea-linked hackers stole a record $1.7 billion, quadrupling its yearly activity for cryptocurrency theft from $429 million in 2021. Experts believe that, restricted by strict international sanctions, the country is using the profit of these crypto thefts to fund its military and nuclear programs.

In just one attack in 2022, hackers believed to be linked to North Korea managed to steal $625 million from a Singapore-based blockchain technology firm. Cyberwarfare tactics are also used in the country to monitor and censor the education sector, its citizens, and international and private companies or entities.

Despite strong denial by North Korea, the country has been accused of several historical cyberattacks, including:

The 2013 South Korea Logic Bomb attack. Three media companies and three financial institutions in South Korea were hit by a cyberattack in 2013. The attackers dropped a logic bomb, wiping the hard drives and boot records of the companies affected.

The Sony Picture 2014 attack. Confidential data from Sony Pictures was leaked in 2014 by cybercriminals who demanded that the entertainment company not release the upcoming comedy film The Interview. The film's script was centered around an interview and an assassination attempt against North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

The Global 2017 Wanna Cry attack. North Korea was also accused of being behind the WannaCry cyberattack that affected more than 300,000 computers in over 150 countries in 2017. The attack breached hospitals, banks, and businesses around the world and caused billions of dollars in damages.

The Impact and Transformation of Warfare

Cyberwarfare techniques are usually aligned with the international policies and the agendas of the countries that support them. Many issues that were once dealt with through diplomatic, official, or back-door channels - or even through armed conflict or military actions - are now in the hands of cybercriminals.

Part of the appeal of cyberwarfare is that it's such a cost-effective weaponized digital solution for many nations. It can be deployed from afar and requires only modest economic, human, and hardware resources. From a distance, hackers can attempt to interfere with elections, disrupt national operations, influence decisions and politics, or simply create chaos.

The impacts of cyberwarfare are profound. Not only do they directly affect governments, but the consequences often spill over to other sectors, including healthcare, education, and business. Even civilians are directly or indirectly affected.

"Every person is affected," said Moonlock's Lab Engineering Manager, "either because they were forced to work remotely from a bomb shelter using their personal laptop, or because they were affected by the bombing of peaceful residential areas where Russian invaders repeatedly physically damaged the energy sector."

A New Digital World Order

As complex as cyberwarfare can be, and as significant as its impacts are, the unfortunate truth is that for governments that are rich in resources, cyberwarfare is an increasingly easy-to-access weapon that they can leverage for their own interests.

Cyberwarfare is undoubtedly an expression of power, values, and national and international interests as aligned with the supporting country's political agenda. But the world has been quick to wake up to the reality of digital warfare. Leading countries and top security organizations have rapidly leveled up their skills and are committed to the defense of security and privacy.

Time will tell how these advances in cyberwarfare will influence the future of international relations among the world's superpowers, but one thing is clear. Global politics will never be the same again.

Found this article interesting? Follow us on Twitter  and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Cyberattacks Are Transforming Warfare

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cyberattacks have transformed warfare, from state-sponsored hackers in Russia to escalating tensions with China.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Legal Boundaries of (Digital) Information or Psychological Operations Under International Humanitarian Law 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Legal Boundaries of (Digital) Information or Psychological Operations Under International Humanitarian Law 

# data[].attributes.body
Information operations” or “psychological operations” have long been part of armed conflicts. Among Western militaries, they are commonly understood as the employment of communication or other means to influence the views, attitudes, or behavior of adversaries or civilian populations to achieve political and military objectives. Chinese military strategy describes “psychological offense and defense” as “a combat action that uses specific information and media to influence the psychology and behavior of the target object through rational propaganda, deterrence and emotional guidance based on strategic intentions and combat missions.” Likewise, Russian military doctrine elaborates on concepts such as “psychological warfare” and on “war against mentality.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Soldiers and Social Media in the Age of Connectivity Saturation

# data[].attributes.subject
Soldiers and Social Media in the Age of Connectivity Saturation

# data[].attributes.body
The diffusion of social media platforms can both help and hinder military forces’ operational output, and means it is increasingly difficult to manage and police. Improper use can lead to security implications and even lethal targeting. It can also erode unit cohesion and cause disciplinary issues, distracting units from preparing for and conducting their core output, whether at home or abroad.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
clock 8 Minute Read

The diffusion of social media platforms can both help and hinder military forces' operational output, and means it is increasingly difficult to manage and police. Improper use can lead to security implications and even lethal targeting. It can also erode unit cohesion and cause disciplinary issues, distracting units from preparing for and conducting their core output, whether at home or abroad.

Missile strikes in Ukraine, assassinations in Russia, leaks of state secrets in the US, arrests and jailings in the UK: all these events are linked to the use of social media by military personnel. Instagram, Twitter (or X), Threads, Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitch, Discord, LinkedIn, Strava, Reddit - the list of social media platforms goes on, and continues to proliferate. For most people, the use of social media is innocuous. For military personnel, however, there are numerous risks involved with using these platforms, from giving away sensitive information to criminal activity. Keeping track of soldiers' online activity is difficult - they might have multiple social media accounts and may use their own name, pseudonyms or tags. People can broadcast content to an audience in an instant with no cost, and potentially little thought.

It has long been recognised that putting military business online is a bad idea. However, today there are a multitude of ways for soldiers to interact with social media, and the arena is only becoming muddier. Total prevention of online activity is impossible. There are two lenses through which to look at the issues surrounding military personnel's use of social media. The first is security, and the second is reputational repercussions. This article will not tackle the subject of radicalisation of military personnel on social media, which has been covered in detail elsewhere.

Security Concerns

The principal fear where soldiers are posting information on social media is a breach of operational security. Giving away locations and force dispositions to an adversary is a real threat which can lead to casualties. Early in the Ukraine conflict, it became clear that social media was providing information that was then used for targeting. In August 2022, a Ukrainian missile strike hit the city of Popasna, hitting a building used as a headquarters for soldiers from the Wagner Group. The building was destroyed, and an unconfirmed number of casualties occurred. The location had been identified due to the social media activity of the soldiers, who posted photographs on the Telegram messaging and broadcasting application.

This is not the first time such fears have been realised, and forces have taken precautions against being located through social media activity - although their effectiveness is questionable. In 2018, it was widely reported that soldiers from Western forces in Afghanistan and Syria had inadvertently revealed the locations of military bases in the region after uploading their exercise data to the Strava fitness application. More recently, it was suggested that the assassination of a former Russian submarine commander during a morning run was made possible by the fact that he uploaded his regular route to Strava.

quote
There is a delicate balance to be maintained as young soldiers' lives are tightly intertwined with access to their phones and the wider internet

In 2019, researchers from NATO's Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence ran an experiment during a major military exercise. Using social media, the research team was able to identify exercise participants and encourage them to join fake Facebook groups which looked like they were officially linked to the exercise. By analysing these profiles, they were able to identify other soldiers, precise locations of troops and contact details, and see photographs of equipment. Most worryingly, some soldiers were persuaded to leave their positions and to fail to carry out their duties.

Most military forces have a policy about the use of mobile phones, the most common route to accessing social media when deployed. For instance, the Russian parliament voted to ban military personnel from deploying with mobile phones back in 2019, but it is clear from the invasion in 2022 that this was by no means an effective measure. There might be a middle ground where soldiers must use a Virtual Private Network (VPN) on their phones to mask their locations. Indeed, many Western states run exercises where phones are banned, or must be handed in to commanders. Yet it is not unknown for enterprising soldiers to take a spare and keep it in the bottom of their sleeping bag so they can maintain access to the outside world.

There is a delicate balance to be maintained as young soldiers' lives are tightly intertwined with access to their phones and the wider internet. Cutting them off entirely can have a detrimental effect on morale. The Royal Navy is struggling to recruit submariners, critical to the UK's continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, due to their desire to be able to access social media. UK submariners can receive two 60-word messages a week which cannot be replied to - a far cry from the constant connectivity which has become normal for most young people.

Education and raising awareness are likely the best way forward to mitigate these vulnerabilities. In the UK, the security environment appears more permissive than it has been in previous decades, and young soldiers may not be fully cognisant of the precautions that have been taken in the past to prevent them from being identified as members of the military. Posting photos of bases and activities can help malign actors identify potential targets. The Troubles and the threat of attacks from the IRA meant generations of soldiers were used to checking under their cars and being vigilant, and many had personally lost friends and colleagues to terrorist activity. This memory has faded with time. Indeed, it has been over a decade since the murder of Lee Rigby. While both physical and online personal security training is conducted annually, it can feel abstract if the real world seems safe.

quote
A polarised political environment has seen soldiers take to social media to air political views, which goes against most forces' codes of conduct

More nuanced activity can include service personnel putting their level of security clearance on professional sites such as LinkedIn, thereby demonstrating access to sensitive information. Despite LinkedIn being ostensibly more 'serious' than many other sites, this makes it even more dangerous. It is recognised that the threat of state-based adversarial activity on social media is growing. Between 2016 and 2021, it is believed that over 10,000 disguised approaches were made by foreign agents looking to build relationships with military and civilian individuals with access to sensitive information. A renewed wariness of malign activity by state actors can be recognised after decades of focus on non-state actors.

Disciplinary Issues

Aside from the acute security concerns discussed above, social media use can also affect internal discipline, the ramifications of which may later play out on the battlefield. The actions of soldiers are judged by their impact on operational effectiveness - that is, the degree to which a force can complete its objectives. The Queen's (yet to be updated to account for the accession of King Charles III) Regulations for the Armed Forces are the UK military's rules for conduct and discipline. The Service Test is used to determine whether an action might be considered as misconduct and therefore potentially at risk of facing an investigation and sanction. The test asks, 'have the actions or behaviour of an individual adversely impacted or are they likely to impact on the efficiency or operational effectiveness of the Army?' Much activity on social media can fall foul of this definition. Social misbehaviour can undermine operational effectiveness by damaging trust and cohesion. Bullying or trolling fellow servicepeople on social media can be included in this bracket. A polarised political environment has also seen soldiers take to social media to air political views, which goes against most forces' codes of conduct. Servicepeople are generally allowed to be part of a political party, but must refrain from publicly airing political views. Both senior and junior soldiers have fallen foul of this rule and faced disciplinary action. Another nuance that is specific to military activity and can lead to bad outcomes is social media use in the event of a casualty at home or overseas. Operation MINIMISE is the name given to the order for all personnel to minimise communication with the outside world while the official process to inform the casualty's next of kin is carried out. If soldiers inadvertently send information about a casualty and news reaches the family informally, or via the news media, this will have a negative effect on the force's standing. The outcome might be even more damaging if the information being shared is incorrect or incomplete.

Social media also offers soldiers the opportunity to make additional money. It is widely recognised that public sector pay is bested by the private sector, and military forces find it difficult to compete, even with wide-ranging benefits packages that include accommodation and medical support. Traditionally, secondary employment has included driving lorries at weekends, or perhaps working as a bouncer at a nightclub. Now, soldiers can make money from streaming activities on Twitch or selling images and videos on content-sharing platforms like Only Fans. This is not unacceptable in itself, but must align with existing rules such as not representing the individuals involved in the activity as members of the armed forces and not bringing the services into disrepute. Activity on social media can range from the totally innocuous through to illegality, such as uploading intimate images and videos without consent.

The problem of social media use by military personnel is complex, with many interlocking strands. Personal and operational security can be harmed by improper or careless use, showing the continued relevance of the Second World War's 'loose lips sink ships' idiom. Balance is everything. Social media is used by senior officers as a strategic communications tool to advance national objectives, whether by reassuring allies or deterring adversaries. It is also used by units and formations to attract people to enlist in a challenging recruiting environment. However, there is ongoing evidence of poor, improper and illegal behaviour which can impact team cohesion and play into the hands of adversaries.
The views expressed in this Commentary are the author's, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution. Have an idea for a Commentary you'd like to write for us? Send a short pitch to commentaries@rusi.org and we'll get back to you if it fits into our research interests. Full guidelines for contributors can be found here.

keywords

WRITTEN BY

Major Patrick Hinton

Former Chief of the General Staff's Visiting Fellow

Military Sciences

View profile

Main Image Credit Hidden dangers: soldiers using social media may be at risk of giving away sensitive information or engaging in criminal activity. Image: Defence Imagery / OGL v3.0
WRITTEN BY Reading options

Reading options

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Soldiers and Social Media in the Age of Connectivity Saturation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The diffusion of social media platforms can both help and hinder military forces' operational output, and means it is increasingly difficult to manage and police. Improper use can lead to security implications and even lethal targeting. It can also erode unit cohesion and cause disciplinary issues, distracting units from preparing for and conducting their core output, whether at home or abroad.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Evolving Cyber-Based Threat: The Need for International Regulations to Avoid ‘Accidental’ Conflicts

# data[].attributes.subject
The Evolving Cyber-Based Threat: The Need for International Regulations to Avoid ‘Accidental’ Conflicts

# data[].attributes.body
While recent history has been marked by the overhanging threat of a nuclear holocaust, warfare continues to evolve and expand even beyond the deadliest weapons humans have ever created. It is simple to show the horror and damage caused by any potential use of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), but it is not always as straightforward to assess what could lead to the use of such weapons because, historically, the possible employment of nuclear weapons has been intrinsically linked to an outbreak of conventional warfare. This idea, while still most likely to be attributed to nuclear conflict, is no longer as accurate—nor relevant—as it once was. While nuclear threats remain, technology has created another concern: new weapons that show no respect for borders or flags, existing only in cyberspace, but with physical consequences that have yet to be fully seen. Ambiguity surrounding their use and consequences makes regulating these weapons particularly difficult, but lessons from past WMD regulation successes can help inform the next steps when it comes to responding to cyberweapons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Evolving Cyber-Based Threat: The Need for International Regulations to Avoid ‘Accidental’ Conflicts - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Gabriel Molini* While recent history has been marked by the overhanging threat of a nuclear holocaust, warfare continues to evolve and expand even beyond the deadliest weapons humans have ever created. It is simple to show the horror and damage caused by any potential use of weapons of mass destr…

# data[].attributes.headline
Finland, Europol take down PIILOPUOTI dark web marketplace

# data[].attributes.subject
Finland, Europol take down PIILOPUOTI dark web marketplace

# data[].attributes.body
Law enforcement officials in Finland worked with Europol and a cybersecurity firm to take down a dark web marketplace called PIILOPUOTI. The platform had operated on the Tor Network since May 2022 as a way for people to smuggle and sell drugs as well as paraphernalia into Finland, according to a statement from Finnish Customs. “The criminal investigation is still underway. At this point, Finnish Customs and our international cooperation partners will not provide any further information on the matter,” they said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Law enforcement officials in Finland worked with Europol and a cybersecurity firm to take down a dark web marketplace called PIILOPUOTI.

The platform had operated on the Tor Network since May 2022 as a way for people to smuggle and sell drugs as well as paraphernalia into Finland, according to a statement from Finnish Customs.

"The criminal investigation is still underway. At this point, Finnish Customs and our international cooperation partners will not provide any further information on the matter," they said.

A screenshot from PIILOPUOTI while it was operational.

Finnish authorities did not respond to requests for comment about whether arrests were made or whether other illegal operations were run through the platform.

Finnish Customs explained that the investigation was conducted in coordination with German and Lithuanian authorities as well as Europol, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), the authorities of other countries and various police units in Finland.

Cybersecurity firm Bitdefender said it was involved in the takedown and provided guidance to help law enforcement agencies in their investigation of the platform.

Alexandru Catalin Cosoi, senior director of investigation and forensics unit at Bitdefender, declined to flesh out the company's role in the operation but told Recorded Future News that they "offered technical consulting to the entire investigation group and to all the involved countries."

"We are happy to discover that our intel helped with the operation. This operation is a prime example of the public and private sector pooling resources and working together to disrupt illegal online activities," Cosoi said.

"It should also serve as a wake-up call for criminals who falsely believe their infrastructures, anonymity and actions are fully protected by the dark web. They should understand if they are in the crosshairs of an international effort, they will eventually be brought to justice."

This is the latest takedown of an internet platform used for nefarious purposes after U.S law enforcement agencies partnered with officials in Poland last month to dismantle the Lolek bulletproof hosting platform.

Genesis Market - which functioned as a one-stop-shop for criminals, selling both stolen credentials and the tools to weaponize that data - was seized in an FBI-led operation involving more than a dozen international partners in April.

Get more insights with the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Finland, Europol take down PIILOPUOTI dark web marketplace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Law enforcement officials in Finland worked with Europol and a cybersecurity firm to take down a dark web marketplace called PIILOPUOTI.

# data[].attributes.headline
La Commission européenne appelle à la création d'un groupe d'experts sur l'IA, sur le modèle du GIEC 

# data[].attributes.subject
La Commission européenne appelle à la création d'un groupe d'experts sur l'IA, sur le modèle du GIEC 

# data[].attributes.body
La gouvernance de l'intelligence artificielle doit être pensée au niveau international, a déclaré la présidente de la Commission européenne Ursula von der Leyen, lors du discours sur l'état de l'Union. Des scientifiques, entreprises et experts devraient se rassembler au sein d'un organisme, à la façon du Groupe d'experts intergouvernemental sur l'évolution du climat (GIEC), pour partager "la même compréhension de l'impact de l'IA sur nos sociétés"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ursula von der Leyen, la présidente de la Commission européenne, appelle à la création d'un groupe d'experts pour réguler l'intelligence artificielle, sur le même modèle que le Groupe d'experts intergouvernemental sur l'évolution du climat (GIEC) qui fournit chaque année depuis plus de 30 ans un état des lieux des connaissances les plus avancées. " Je pense que nous avons besoin d'un organe similaire pour l'IA, en ce qui concerne ses risques et ses avantages pour l'humanité", a-t-elle déclaré lors du traditionnel discours sur l'état de l'Union le 13 septembre.

Dans les détails, cet organisme devrait rassembler " des scientifiques, des entreprises technologiques et des experts indépendants". Une composition éloignée de celle du GIEC dont le bureau est composé de 34 membres scientifiques élus par l'Assemblée plénière constituée de 195 Etats.

Avoir la même compréhension de l'impact de l'IA

L'objectif est de dépasser les frontières européennes et d'élaborer " une action rapide et coordonnée au niveau mondial", comme l'ont fait en mai dernier les dirigeants du G7 avec la constitution d'un futur groupe de travail sur "l'utilisation responsable" de l'IA, a expliqué la présidente. Cette gouvernance devrait permettre de tous partager " la même compréhension de l'impact de l'IA sur nos sociétés", a-t-elle ajouté.

La présidente a relayé un discours alarmiste sur l'IA : " elle évolue plus rapidement que ses concepteurs eux-mêmes ne l'avaient prévu. Il nous reste donc peu de temps pour orienter cette technologie de manière responsable". La priorité est de faire en sorte que " l'IA se développe d'une manière centrée sur l'humain, transparente et responsable", a-t-elle déclaré.

A ce titre, elle se félicite de l'adoption de la proposition de règlement de l'exécutif bruxellois, présentée le 21 avril 2021. Principal apport de ce texte : une approche fondée sur les risques selon laquelle peu de restrictions s'appliquent pour les systèmes dont l'usage présente peu de risques et inversement.

Le boom de l'IA générative

Le discours d'Ursula von der Leyen s'inscrit dans un contexte bien particulier : le boom de l'IA générative, avec l'arrivée notamment du robot conversationnel ChatGPT, lancé fin 2022 par la start-up américaine OpenAI. Cette technologie a soulevé de nombreuses préoccupations, pas toujours fondées, et fait l'objet de nombreux fantasmes.

Dans les faits, l'une des principaux dangers de l'IA générative est la violation des règles encadrant la propriété intellectuelle. C'est ainsi que Microsoft a annoncé le 11 septembre qu'elle couvrirait entièrement les clients de ses outils payants d'IA générative s'il leur arrivait d'être poursuivis en justice pour violation de la propriété intellectuelle.

Sélectionné pour vous

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
La Commission européenne appelle à la création d'un groupe d'experts sur l'IA, sur le modèle du GIEC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
La gouvernance de l'intelligence artificielle doit être pensée au niveau international, a déclaré la présidente de la Commission...-Intelligence artificielle

# data[].attributes.headline
La France se dote d'un comité stratégique dédié à l'intelligence artificielle

# data[].attributes.subject
La France se dote d'un comité stratégique dédié à l'intelligence artificielle

# data[].attributes.body
Pour éclairer le gouvernement sur ses décisions, un comité dédié à l'intelligence artificielle vient d'être lancé. Les 15 membres, issus du monde des entreprises, de la recherche et de l'administration, ont 6 mois pour produire des propositions concrètes pour adapter la stratégie nationale.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Comme l'avait annoncé la Première ministre Élisabeth Borne lors de la Rencontre des entrepreneurs de France (REF) organisée par le Mouvement des entreprises de France (Medef), la France vient de se doter d'un nouveau comité dédié à l'intelligence artificielle. Son objectif est de guider le gouvernement dans ses prises de décision afin de faire de la France "un pays à la pointe de la révolution de l'IA".

D'ici 6 mois, des propositions sur la table

Le gouvernement a défini trois chantiers prioritaires : renforcer les formations pour développer davantage de talents en France, investir pour favoriser l'innovation française sur la scène internationale et définir une régulation adaptée des différents secteurs pour se protéger des dérives. D'ici six mois, les 15 membres de ce comité auront présenté "des propositions concrètes" pour adapter la stratégie nationale sur ce sujet.

A l'occasion du lancement du comité, sa composition a été dévoilée. Il bénéficie d'une présidence à deux têtes : Philippe Aghion, professeur au Collège de France et à l'Institut européen d'administration des affaires (INSEAD), et Anne Bouverot, présidente du conseil d'administration de l'Ecole normale supérieure (ENS). Elisabeth Borne a également choisi des membres issus d'entreprises : Joëlle Barral, directrice scientifique chez Google, Bernard Charlès, DG de Dassault Systèmes, Yann Le Cun, VP et Chief AI Scientist chez Meta, expert de l'IA générative ainsi qu' Arthur Mensch, fondateur de la start-up Mistral spécialisée dans l'IA générative. D'autres scientifiques ont été conviés, dont Luc Julia, expert en intelligence artificielle générative, Gaël Varoquaux, chercheur en informatique, et Isabelle Ryl, directrice du Paris Artificial Intelligence Research Institute.

L'ancien secrétaire d'Etat au numérique choisi

Cédric O, ancien secrétaire d'Etat au numérique, a aussi été choisi aux côtés de Gilles Babinet, président du Conseil national du numérique, Alexandra Bensamoun, personnalité qualifiée au Conseil supérieur de la propriété littéraire et artistique (CSPLA), Nozha Boujemaa, membre du groupement d'experts de haut niveau sur l'IA auprès de la commission européenne, Franca Salis-Madinier, secrétaire nationale de la CFDT Cadres en charge de l'Europe, du numérique, de l'intelligence artificielle et de la protection des lanceurs d'alerte, ainsi que Martin Tisné, cofondateur de l'Open Government Partnership (OGP).

C'est pour la première fois en 2018 que la France s'est dotée d'une stratégie en matière d'IA. Le président de la République Emmanuel Macron avait dévoilé les chantiers majeurs : positionner la France comme le pays leader de l'IA, l'ouverture des données, la santé et les véhicules autonomes comme secteurs prioritaires, la création "d'un lab" de la transformation publique et le développement d'une IA éthique et démocratique. En 2021, le gouvernement a injecté 2 milliards d'euros de cofinancements publics-privés dans la formation et le recrutement de spécialistes en IA.

Sélectionné pour vous

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
La France se dote d'un comité stratégique dédié à l'intelligence artificielle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pour éclairer le gouvernement sur ses décisions, un comité dédié à l'intelligence artificielle vient d'être lancé. Les 15 membres,...-Intelligence artificielle

# data[].attributes.headline
Don't focus on ransomware variants, say UK's national cyber and crime agencies

# data[].attributes.subject
Don't focus on ransomware variants, say UK's national cyber and crime agencies

# data[].attributes.body
Britain’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and National Crime Agency (NCA) published a joint report on Monday detailing the ways in which the ransomware ecosystem is increasingly professionalizing “in a bid to gain efficiencies and maximize profits.”

The agencies are pushing back against what they say are frequent challenges over how they are handling individual ransomware variants.

Doing so “is akin to treating the symptoms of an illness, and is of limited use unless the underlying disease is addressed,” argue the agencies, adding that taking “a more holistic view by understanding the elements of the wider ecosystem allows us to better target the threat actors further upstream.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Britain's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and National Crime Agency (NCA) published a joint report on Monday detailing the ways in which the ransomware ecosystem is increasingly professionalizing "in a bid to gain efficiencies and maximize profits."

The agencies are pushing back against what they say are frequent challenges over how they are handling individual ransomware variants.

Doing so "is akin to treating the symptoms of an illness, and is of limited use unless the underlying disease is addressed," argue the agencies, adding that taking "a more holistic view by understanding the elements of the wider ecosystem allows us to better target the threat actors further upstream."

The paper examines the entire attack path of the cybercriminal system, from the initial access vectors through to exploiting that access and then to deploy ransomware through to attempting to monetise it and then convert the cryptocurrency payment into hard cash.

"Our joint report reveals the complexities of the cybercrime ecosystem, with its different platforms, affiliates, enabling services and distributors, which all contribute to the devastating outcomes of ransomware attacks on the UK's organizations," said the NCSC's chief executive Lindy Cameron.

"The deployment of ransomware attacks relies on a complex supply chain, so focussing on specific ransomware strains can be confusing at best, and unhelpful at worst," said Cameron, adding that the white paper was intended to shine a light on "the motivations of the threat actors further upstream, who are ultimately driving the monetisation of ransomware as a service, and other extortion attacks."

Ransomware gangs have evolved and adapted to survive what was described as "a climate of heightened pressure from government and law enforcement agencies.

"While individual groups have had to cease operation, as a whole the criminal industry is effective at amending its activities and business models dynamically to efficiently extract funds from victims," said James Babbage, the director general of threats at the NCA - and up until recently the commander of the National Cyber Force.

"The proliferation of capable cybercrime tools and services, and subsequent lowering of the barrier of entry, means that ransomware, especially ransomware-as-a-service, will continue to be a significant threat to UK individuals, businesses and organizations," he added.

"Ransomware is fundamentally about criminal monetisation of cyber vulnerabilities. The most effective systemic response is preventing future attacks by investing in increased resilience and better protected systems," Babbage said.

"The UK is a top target for cybercriminals. Their attempts to shut down hospitals, schools and businesses have played havoc with people's lives and cost the taxpayer millions," said security minister Tom Tugendhat, adding: "Sadly, we've seen an increase in attacks."

Get more insights with the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Don't focus on ransomware variants, say UK's national cyber and crime agencies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trying to fight ransomware variants one at a time "is akin to treating the symptoms of an illness, and is of limited use unless the underlying disease is addressed," say the NCSC and NCA.

# data[].attributes.headline
DHS floats idea of single cyber incident reporting portal

# data[].attributes.subject
DHS floats idea of single cyber incident reporting portal

# data[].attributes.body
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) suggested several new ideas for how to make federal cyber incident reporting rules simpler for victim organizations — including the concept of a single reporting web portal.

There are currently 52 in-effect or proposed federal cyber incident reporting requirements. As part of the cyber incident reporting bill that was signed into law last March, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was tasked with examining and streamlining the regulations.

The effort is being coordinated in advance of the release of CISA’s own rules that will make up the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act — which CISA officials refer to by its acronym CIRCIA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) suggested several new ideas for how to make federal cyber incident reporting rules simpler for victim organizations - including the concept of a single reporting web portal.

There are currently 52 in-effect or proposed federal cyber incident reporting requirements. As part of the cyber incident reporting bill that was signed into law last March, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was tasked with examining and streamlining the regulations.

The effort is being coordinated in advance of the release of CISA's own rules that will make up the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act - which CISA officials refer to by its acronym CIRCIA.

On Tuesday, DHS Undersecretary for Policy Robert Silvers delivered a 107-page report to Congress outlining its work with 33 federal agencies to harmonize cyber incident reporting. In addition to DHS, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Agriculture and Commerce departments were involved in the effort alongside several regulatory agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission.

"To develop these recommendations, the Cyber Incident Reporting Council analyzed over 50 different federal cyber incident reporting requirements and engaged with numerous industry and private sector stakeholders," Silvers said. "It is imperative that we streamline these requirements. Federal agencies should be able to receive the information they need without creating duplicative burdens on victim companies that need to focus on responding to incidents and taking care of their customers."

The recommendations say:

The federal government should clarify definitions, timelines and triggers of a reportable cyber incident so that organizations understand if and when they need to report something.

Agencies with requirements for covered entities to provide notifications to affected individuals or the public should consider whether a delay is warranted when such notification poses a significant risk to critical infrastructure, national security, public safety, or an ongoing law enforcement investigation.

The Federal Government should adopt a model reporting form for cyber incident reports and agencies should evaluate the feasibility of leveraging the form for cyber incident reporting or incorporate the data elements identified therein into reporting forms, web portals, or other submission mechanisms.

Agencies and the federal government should consider the potential creation of a single portal as a way to streamline the receipt and sharing of cyber incident reports and cyber incident information.

Federal cyber incident reporting requirements should allow for updates and supplemental reports.

Other recommendations include adopting common incident terminology and improving inter-agency coordination.

"In the critical period immediately following a cyberattack, our private sector partners need clear, consistent information-sharing guidelines to help us quickly mitigate the adverse impacts," said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas.

"The recommendations that DHS is issuing today provide needed clarity for our partners. They streamline and harmonize reporting requirements for critical infrastructure, including by clearly defining a reportable cyber incident, establishing the timeline for reporting, and adopting a model incident reporting form."

Mayorkas added that the recommendations can "improve our understanding of the cyber threat landscape, help victims recover from disruptions, and prevent future attacks."

The report outlines steps CISA plans to take to harmonize all of the rules and also provides three tasks to Congress that would help the process - including the removal of legal or statutory barriers to harmonization as well as authority and funding for the efforts.

The report also asks Congress to exempt the incident reports from Freedom of Information Act requests that would make the reports public.

In a statement, CISA Director Jen Easterly reiterated her hope that mandated incident reporting will help defenders spot trends in real-time, rapidly render assistance to victims, and share information to warn other potential targets before they become victims.

"We also recognize that the need for this information must be balanced with the burdens placed on industry, ensuring that requirements are harmonized and streamlined as effectively as possible," she said.

"As the Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Agency (CISA) implements reporting requirements as part of the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act, these recommendations - along with the extensive input from stakeholders submitted as part of our rulemaking process - will help inform our proposed rule."

Get more insights with the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DHS floats idea of single cyber incident reporting portal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) suggested several new ideas for how to make federal cyber incident reporting rules simpler for victim organizations - including the concept of a single reporting web portal.

# data[].attributes.body
In the three years since the publication of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission’s (CSC’s) March 2020 report, both the executive and legislative branches have taken significant steps to improve the government and the nation’s cybersecurity. In fact, nearly 70 percent of the recommendations in the initial CSC report have been implemented or are nearing implementation. But America’s cyber adversaries have been busy in the intervening three years. Russia and China have conducted significant espionage attacks on the U.S. government and industries and have reportedly embedded malware in U.S. critical infrastructure to facilitate future nefarious activity. Criminal actors have also expanded both ransomware and cyber theft activities. We cannot afford to pause in the pursuit of enhanced cybersecurity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the three years since the publication of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission's (CSC's) March 2020 report, both the executive and legislative branches have taken significant steps to improve the government and the nation's cybersecurity. In fact, nearly 70 percent of the recommendations in the initial CSC report have been implemented or are nearing implementation. But America's cyber adversaries have been busy in the intervening three years. Russia and China have conducted significant espionage attacks on the U.S. government and industries and have reportedly embedded malware in U.S. critical infrastructure to facilitate future nefarious activity. Criminal actors have also expanded both ransomware and cyber theft activities. We cannot afford to pause in the pursuit of enhanced cybersecurity.
Progress Toward Implementation of All 116 Recommendations
Lawmakers have remained industrious on cybersecurity issues, both authorizing more cybersecurity programs and ensuring these initiatives have the resources critical to their success. At the end of last year, for example, Congress codified the new State Department's Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy, which will promote responsible state conduct in cyberspace and advance U.S. interests. Congress has also increased funding for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in the Department of Homeland Security from $2 billion for fiscal year (FY) 2020 to $2.9 billion for FY23, a 45 percent increase. Further growth is expected in FY24. The nation will reap the benefits of these cybersecurity investments for years to come.

The executive branch has made productive changes. The Office of the National Cyber Director (ONCD) - having reached full operating capacity - issued a comprehensive National Cyber Strategy and associated implementation plan as well as the first-ever National Cybersecurity Workforce and Education Strategy. CISA has continued to improve its technical support to other federal agencies, establish cyber performance goals, and develop plans, sharing, and response efforts through the Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative. The Securities and Exchange Commission issued new rules to increase corporate responsibility for cybersecurity. The National Security Council has coordinated responses to an ever-increasing number of international espionage and malicious cyber incidents, while the National Security Agency has expanded and improved its information sharing and support efforts with targeted industry partners. Despite these efforts, federal agencies have an uneven record of collaboration with the private sector, although the Defense and Energy departments have made more progress than others.

Collaboration with the private sector is indispensable since deterring cyber threats depends on the resilience of the U.S. economy and the critical infrastructure that supports it, so the federal government cannot handle the job alone. Significant work remains necessary to build an effective cybersecurity partnership between the public and private sectors. This will require a careful balancing of incentivization, collaboration, and, only where necessary, regulation across and between each of the country's critical infrastructure sectors. A similar effort is needed to enhance cooperation with like-minded international allies and partners, ensuring a resilient global economy.

To support these efforts, the U.S. government must continue to empower existing cybersecurity agencies and invest in hardening its security posture. As part of this effort, the government should continue implementing the recommendations of the CSC. Congress created this commission to identify a strategic approach to securing cyberspace. Over the course of three years, the commission developed 116 recommendations, many of which are accompanied by model legislative language. Nearly 70 percent of these recommendations have been fully implemented or are nearing implementation, and an additional 20 percent are on track to be implemented.

This assessment details progress toward implementing the commission's original work, consisting of its report and white papers. The assessment also suggests actions that can be taken to accomplish more recommendations. We urge readers to consider this report as a way to gauge America's collective efforts, allowing many government and industry stakeholders to identify areas suitable for building or deepening partnerships to achieve the broader objective of protecting our national cybersecurity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the three years since the publication of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission's (CSC's) March 2020 report, both the executive and legislative branches have taken significant steps to improve the government and the nation's cybersecurity. In fact, nearly 70 percent of the recommendations in the initial CSC report have been implemented or are nearing implementation.

# data[].attributes.headline
The U.S. is getting hacked. So the Pentagon is overhauling its approach to cyber

# data[].attributes.subject
The U.S. is getting hacked. So the Pentagon is overhauling its approach to cyber

# data[].attributes.body
A series of high-profile cyberattacks from Russia, China and criminal networks in recent years have served as a wake up call to the Defense Department that cyberwarfare has changed. And that reckoning has forced one of its most secretive branches — U.S. Cyber Command — to come to an unusual conclusion: Going it alone is no longer an option.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
So Pentagon leaders have started opening up communications with other federal agencies and the private sector on cyber threats to elections and other critical systems, and increasing assistance to foreign allies. They've codified the changes in a new cyber strategy released Tuesday, first reported by POLITICO.

It's "a more calibrated thinking about cyber, and realistic thinking about cyber," said Mieke Eoyang, DOD deputy assistant secretary for cyber policy, in an interview ahead of the strategy rollout.

It's also a big bet for a Defense Department that already has a shortage of cybersecurity-trained personnel and isn't used to sharing key intelligence outside agency walls. And if it doesn't work, the U.S. could find itself spread thin in its efforts to keep up with increasingly sophisticated and savvy digital adversaries.

But those familiar with Pentagon cyber operations say opening up is the only way to keep up.

For decades, the Pentagon focused its Cyber Command defense operations on protecting U.S. military networks from cyberattacks. But that left openings for other infiltrations - those at civilian government agencies and ransomware cyberattacks in which criminals shut down the networks of private businesses essential to the U.S. economy and demand payments to hand back control.

"DOD's cyber strategy was extremely reactive in nature and led U.S. Cyber Command to really only be prepared to help recover from a cyber event and to develop capabilities that would only be used during war," said Lt. Gen. Charlie Moore, who served as deputy commander of Cyber Command from 2020 to 2022. "During those days, I would frustratingly refer to Cyber Command as the 'clean up on Aisle 6' and 'break glass in time of war' command."

But during Moore's tenure, the increasing number and variety of cyber strikes garnered wider attention. In December 2020, the U.S. discovered that Russian government hackers had infiltrated the networks of at least a dozen federal agencies in what became known as the SolarWinds hack. In 2021, a ransomware strike on Colonial Pipeline forced the shutdown of the line that provided around half the East Coast's gas supply.

Ransomware attacks later in the year on meat producer JBS Foods and on IT management group Kaseya, both linked to Russian-based cybercriminal groups, added to the sense throughout the government and the country that the U.S. didn't have the cyber defenses it needed.

"2021, this is the inflection point for the nation in cyberspace, this is when cybersecurity became national security," said Gen. Paul Nakasone, head of both the National Security Agency and Cyber Command, in an interview at the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Md.

The Colonial Pipeline hack showed a particular gap. It was carried out by a cybercriminal group on a private business - a company the federal government did not directly protect - and involved a major disruption to daily life.

DOD had always left such ransomware attacks to law enforcement agencies to handle, Nakasone said. Colonial Pipeline got the Pentagon to rethink that.

"This is for our Department of Defense. This is how we have to defend our nation," he said.

The Biden administration has since buckled down on working with critical infrastructure owners and operators to enhance security for sectors including water, the electric grid and oil and gas pipelines.

DOD is now aiming to tighten these bonds with the private sector- which controls almost 90 percent of all critical U.S. networks - by providing more resources and intelligence to those companies, according to the strategy.

Rather than merely asking companies to share information about breaches after they'd occurred, DOD started saying to companies: "'we owe you actionable intelligence, and you will defend the networks yourselves,'" said Eoyang, the deputy assistant secretary.

At the same time, DOD has been slowly increasing its joint cyber operations with allies - a shift for a branch that previously focused its foreign operations on defending its own networks against attackers.

The document highlights DOD's increased cooperation with partners such as Ukraine and others - and promises more ahead.

Cyber Command first started deploying "hunt forward" teams - which travel to allied nations to check critical networks for vulnerabilities - after revelations of Russian attempts to spread divisive content online ahead of the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. The idea was to look for ways that Russia or other adversaries could interfere in foreign nations, and both assist partners in preventing this and learn lessons to bring home.

At the time, Nakasone "told CyberCom, 'if you want to know what Russia is doing in cyberspace, go to Ukraine, because that is where they are extremely active,'" Moore said.

Ukraine was one of the first countries to receive such teams, said Moore, adding that the missions were "extremely successful." The teams brought back information about Moscow's tactics in cyber warfare, plans for interference in the elections and actual Russian malware.

Since then, Cyber Command has conducted dozens of hunt forward operations around the world, including in Estonia, Lithuania, Albania and Latvia. The teams normally comprise eight to 10 people from the command's Cyber National Mission Force, now headed up by Maj. Gen. Joe Hartman, and are deployed at the request of the partner nation.

"It provides us insights on what our adversaries are doing so we can secure our own networks," Nakasone said.

Cyber Command deployed a hunt forward team to Ukraine again in December 2021 - just weeks before Russia began launching cyberattacks on Kyiv's networks ahead of its full-scale invasion in February. Sitting side-by-side with Ukrainian cyber professionals, the team hunted for malicious activity on Kyiv's networks until they left in February.

The team has continued to work remotely with the Ukrainian cyber forces from the U.S., said Holly Baroody, executive director of Cyber Command.

"Because we're developing that relationship, where we have a team on the ground and they're actually being able to exchange information, what we've started to find is that there's a willingness to share other cyber threat information even beyond the networks that we're hunting on," Baroody said.

But putting more resources into hunt forward operations could take away from efforts to "fight and win the nation's wars," according to retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, now senior director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies's Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation.

Cyber Command is also taking its fight more into the public sphere, such as through calling out "malicious" cyber activities by China. This pointed language is a marked shift from the last strategy in 2018, which only called out China in regards to hacking operations to steal U.S. intellectual property and its larger "strategic threat."

It states that in a conflict, the Chinese government "likely intends to launch destructive cyberattacks against the U.S. Homeland," following similar warnings from other top officials in recent months.

"China represents to us an order of magnitude different challenge than the others," Eoyang said, noting that China can "limit our operational capability."

As recently as July, it was revealed that China-linked hackers had breached emails of officials at the State and Commerce departments.

The strategy also highlights the Pentagon's own offensive cyber activities, a rare acknowledgement that DOD conducts such operations. The strategy states that "our adversaries will be made to doubt the efficacy of their military capabilities as well as the belief that they can conduct unattributed coercive actions against the United States."

The new strategy will face a major test next year with the U.S. presidential elections. Nakasone said DOD is forming an "election security group" with personnel from the NSA and Cyber Command, and is also working with "foreign partners," the private sector and academia.

Further work with other federal agencies and private sector groups, such as social media platforms, to protect elections is also in the works, he added.

Pentagon officials acknowledge that they're taking on big tasks despite having limited resources and personnel. DOD has struggled to hire and retain cybersecurity personnel in a highly competitive market.

"How to most effectively use our limited offensive cyber resources continues to be an area that still needs a bit of maturation," Moore said.

Some argue that the Pentagon should be focusing more on solving that problem, such as pushing for the creation of a Cyber Force - a new branch of the military at the level of the Navy or Space Force - that would be responsible for manning, training and equipping personnel, and would likely involve a major boost to DOD cyber personnel, funding and attention. DOD has studied the idea, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) proposed language in this year's National Defense Authorization Act to require a study of whether a Cyber Force is needed at the Pentagon.

"At least they acknowledge they need institutional reforms," Montgomery said, referring to the changes coming in the new strategy. But, he said, the chance of carrying them out without a fundamental restructuring to include a Cyber Force is unlikely.

"The good news is they are absolutely doing a good job at expanding their definition of who is in the defense industrial base and inside the tent," Montgomery said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The U.S. is getting hacked. So the Pentagon is overhauling its approach to cyber.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The new approach to cybersecurity comes following attacks on critical U.S. companies and federal agencies, and as the Pentagon eyes Chinese hacking efforts with increasing concern.

# data[].attributes.headline
China, Russia will use cyber to sow chaos if war starts, Pentagon says

# data[].attributes.subject
China, Russia will use cyber to sow chaos if war starts, Pentagon says

# data[].attributes.body
China and Russia are prepared to unleash a flurry of cyberattacks on U.S. critical infrastructure and defense networks should war break out, according to a Pentagon strategy unveiled this week. Such tactics, meant to sow chaos, divert precious resources and paralyze military mobilization, were observed in Eastern Europe during Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine, a conflict that colors the Pentagon’s new 2023 Cyber Strategy. An unclassified summary of the document was made public Sept. 12.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - China and Russia are prepared to unleash a flurry of cyberattacks on U.S. critical infrastructure and defense networks should war break out, according to a Pentagon strategy unveiled this week.

Such tactics, meant to sow chaos, divert precious resources and paralyze military mobilization, were observed in Eastern Europe during Russia's invasion of neighboring Ukraine, a conflict that colors the Pentagon's new 2023 Cyber Strategy. An unclassified summary of the document was made public Sept. 12.

"The United States is challenged by malicious cyber actors who seek to exploit our technological vulnerabilities and undermine our military's competitive edge," its introduction reads. "They target our critical infrastructure and endanger the American people. Defending against and defeating these cyber threats is a Department of Defense imperative."

Defense officials have long considered China and Russia national security hazards. While China poses the most-serious and long-term threat, they say, Russia presents more-immediate concerns. Both countries wield serious cyber arsenals. An International Institute for Strategic Studies report in 2021 placed China and Russia in tier two of its cyber powerhouse rankings. The U.S. sat in first.

The strategy, which supersedes a 2018 version, describes China as a "broad and pervasive" cyber espionage threat, one capable of absconding with defense trade secrets and monitoring U.S. citizens. It further labels Russia an online manipulator and harasser of critical infrastructure such as pipelines, hospitals and transportation.

"Cyber issues everywhere - in critical infrastructure, domestically and abroad - are something that's front and center on the minds of our key senior leaders," Gregory Touhill, a retired Air Force brigadier general and former federal chief information security officer, said Sept. 11 at a conference in National Harbor in Maryland. His comments came before the publication of the strategy's summary.

"We continue to see critical infrastructure as a target for cyber-enabled attacks, including things like denial-of-service, malicious software, ransomware, theft of intellectual property," he added. "We're very concerned about that."

The Pentagon's strategy cleaves with the White House's digital defense plans, which were rolled out in March. In them, the Biden administration vowed to employ "all instruments of national power" to disrupt and dismantle malicious cyber actors near and far.

Doing so will require significant collaboration with foreign governments, industry leaders and more.

"The nation's constellation of diplomatic and defense relationships represents a foundational strategic advantage," the Pentagon strategy reads. "In cyberspace, the capabilities of allies and partners combine with those of the United States to enable timely information sharing and interoperability as well as contribute to our collective security."

Colin Demarest is a reporter at C4ISRNET, where he covers military networks, cyber and IT. Colin previously covered the Department of Energy and its National Nuclear Security Administration - namely Cold War cleanup and nuclear weapons development - for a daily newspaper in South Carolina. Colin is also an award-winning photographer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
China, Russia will use cyber to sow chaos if war starts, Pentagon says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The strategy describes China as a "broad and pervasive" cyber espionage threat and Russia as a malign online influence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Suspected Chinese operatives using AI generated images to spread disinformation among US voters, Microsoft says

# data[].attributes.subject
Suspected Chinese operatives using AI generated images to spread disinformation among US voters, Microsoft says

# data[].attributes.body
Suspected Chinese operatives have used images made by artificial intelligence to mimic American voters online in an attempt to spread disinformation and provoke discussion on divisive political issues as the 2024 US election approaches, Microsoft analysts warned Thursday.

In the last nine months, the operatives have posted striking AI-made images depicting the Statute of Liberty and the Black Lives Matter movement on social media, in a campaign that Microsoft said focuses on “denigrating U.S. political figures and symbols.”

The alleged Chinese influence network used a series of accounts on “Western” social media platforms to upload the AI-generated images, according to Microsoft. The images were fake and generated by a computer, but real people, whether wittingly or unwittingly, propagated the images by reposting them on social media, Microsoft said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
computer science and information technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Suspected Chinese operatives using AI generated images to spread disinformation among US voters, Microsoft says | CNN Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Suspected Chinese operatives have used images made by artificial intelligence to mimic American voters online in an attempt to spread disinformation and provoke discussion on divisive political issues as the 2024 US election approaches, Microsoft analysts warned Thursday.

# data[].attributes.headline
China takes its anti-science disinformation campaign to a new level

# data[].attributes.subject
China takes its anti-science disinformation campaign to a new level

# data[].attributes.body
China's media strategy is something truly to behold.

It is as if the Chinese government is testing the world’s tolerance for aggressive narratives and disinformation. Take when, in April 2021, then Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lijian Zhao posted an image on Twitter based on Hokusai’s famous woodblock print “The Great Wave off Kanagawa.” The image had been altered to show nuclear workers jettisoning radioactive materials into the sea. Zhao claimed that his post "reflects Chinese people's concern and dissatisfaction with the Japanese government's unilateral decision" to release treated water from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
China's media strategy is something truly to behold.

It is as if the Chinese government is testing the world's tolerance for aggressive narratives and disinformation. Take when, in April 2021, then Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lijian Zhao posted an image on Twitter based on Hokusai's famous woodblock print "The Great Wave off Kanagawa." The image had been altered to show nuclear workers jettisoning radioactive materials into the sea. Zhao claimed that his post "reflects Chinese people's concern and dissatisfaction with the Japanese government's unilateral decision" to release treated water from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

Some 1.3 million tons of water have been stored in tanks at the Fukushima site, greatly hindering decommissioning work. Late last month, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, the operator of Fukushima nuclear plant, released the treated water into the sea, after diluting it with seawater. Seeing this, China reiterated its usual, unwavering opposition to the discharge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
China takes its anti-science disinformation campaign to a new level

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Japan can counter China's disinformation on the safety of the Fukushima water release, and gain people's trust, by sharing the data.

# data[].attributes.headline
China using ‘information warfare’ to influence Taiwan’s presidential election

# data[].attributes.subject
China using ‘information warfare’ to influence Taiwan’s presidential election

# data[].attributes.body
From illegal election gambling operations to stealing opposition talking points, senior Taiwanese officials and cyber security experts have sounded the alarm on China’s information campaigns being conducted in the lead up to the 2024 Taiwanese presidential election.

Taiwan’s deputy minister of mainland affairs, the administrative agency responsible for coordinating affairs with China, Jyh-Horng Jan, alleged on Tuesday that one of China’s “classic tactics” when it comes to election interference is to pay underground bookmakers to place highly skewed odds on failing candidates and provide Taiwanese people with large cash payouts if China’s preferred candidate wins.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
China using ‘information warfare’ to influence Taiwan’s presidential election

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From illegal election gambling operations to stealing opposition talking points, senior Taiwanese officials and cyber security experts have sounded the alarm on China’s information campaigns being conducted in the lead up to the 2024 Taiwanese presidential election.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sleight of hand: How China weaponizes software vulnerabilities

# data[].attributes.subject
Sleight of hand: How China weaponizes software vulnerabilities

# data[].attributes.body
The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) published the “Regulations on the Management of Network Product Security Vulnerabilities” (RMSV) in July 2021. Even before the regulations were implemented in September 2021, analysts had issued warnings about the new regulation’s potential impact.1 At issue is the regulations’ requirement that software vulnerabilities—flaws in code that attackers can exploit—be reported to the MIIT within forty-eight hours of their discover by industry (Article 7 Section 2).2 The rules prohibit researchers from: publishing information about vulnerabilities before a patch is available, unless they coordinate with the product owner and the MIIT; publishing proof-of-concept code used to show how to exploit a vulnerability; and exaggerating the severity of a vulnerability.3 In effect, the regulations push all software-vulnerability reports to the MIIT before a patch is available. Conversely, the US system relies on voluntary reporting to companies, with vulnerabilities sourced from researchers chasing money and prestige, or from cybersecurity companies that observe exploitation in the wild.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sleight of hand: How China weaponizes software vulnerabilities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
China’s new vulnerability management system mandates reporting to MIIT within 48 hours, restricting pre-patch publication and POC code. This centralized approach contrasts with the US voluntary system, potentially aiding Chinese intelligence. MIIT shares data with the MSS, affecting voluntary databa…

# data[].attributes.headline
We Have to Reimagine the Concept of Disinformation, and Fast

# data[].attributes.subject
We Have to Reimagine the Concept of Disinformation, and Fast

# data[].attributes.body
Few terms are as misused in Europe and the United States as “disinformation.” While everyone seems to agree it is dangerous, not everyone agrees on its meaning. For a long time, disinformation has been portrayed as a concept, concerned with objective realities rather than interests and intentions. This notion is peculiar, because disinformation is subjectively designed, for the purpose of harm.

Consider Tucker Carlson, the American TV personality known to make false, often dubious claims. Their precise categorization presents a challenge - do they fall under the umbrella of disinformation, propaganda or misinformation?

Similar issues arise when it comes to technology. With the launch of AI software like ChatGPT and Midjourney, the production of problematic content has been made readily available to anyone with digital access. With exponential growth of malicious online content, any expert fact-checking or manual analysis will be too slow to counter it properly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Few terms are as misused in Europe and the United States as "disinformation." While everyone seems to agree it is dangerous, not everyone agrees on its meaning.

For a long time, disinformation has been portrayed as a concept, concerned with objective realities rather than interests and intentions. This notion is peculiar, because disinformation is subjectively designed, for the purpose of harm.

Consider Tucker Carlson, the American TV personality known to make false, often dubious claims. Their precise categorization presents a challenge - do they fall under the umbrella of disinformation, propaganda or misinformation?

Similar issues arise when it comes to technology. With the launch of AI software like ChatGPT and Midjourney, the production of problematic content has been made readily available to anyone with digital access. With exponential growth of malicious online content, any expert fact-checking or manual analysis will be too slow to counter it properly.

Ultimately, we will have to rely on AI itself - and as it is an exclusively formalist medium, the words we use are crucial.

A second issue revolves around verifying whether the information is false. The legacy approach entails fact-checking activities ranging from expert judgments to sophisticated open source intelligence (OSINT) techniques.

Fact-checking is rooted in a questionable concept of what constitutes a "fact." The philosophy of science has long grappled with the nature of facts, realizing that they do not exist as pre-made entities, but rather emerge as a result of inquiry. This leads us to a position inspired by the philosopher Thomas Kuhn: different conceptual schemes operate with different sets of facts.

Recently, American journalist Jacob Siegel labeled disinformation a "hoax," portraying it as a tool for political suppression and suggested that retreating to good old liberal " human arts of conversation, disagreement, and irony" would suffice to address the problem.

An encounter with the reality of the digital sphere is enough to render such naiveté irrelevant. When German philosopher Jürgen Habermas speaks about 'a new structural transformation of the public sphere,' related to the advance of new media, he grasps the irreversible changes that the information age brought.

As a resident of Ukraine, who has experienced life during the war unleashed by Russia, I am acutely aware that there is no going back to a "pre-disinformation" time.

The Russian aggression was accompanied by an unprecedented pollution of the information space with fabricated malicious content. This led me to become involved with a Ukrainian initiative that focuses on combating malicious information warfare through the use of AI. Drawing on this experience, I have reached the following conclusions. The concept of disinformation reflects the crude reality we all see: there exists information that was designed to be misleading and harmful. To navigate this realm in the age of AI, problems ranging from the seemingly straightforward issue of defining disinformation to the nuanced issue of verifying facts, are to be addressed. Ultimately, it leads us to the most difficult dilemma, that of conflicting interests.

The concept of disinformation demands a reimagining through incorporating this overlooked value aspect. Achieving that would lead politicians, activists, journalists and tech-companies to a breakthrough.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We Have to Reimagine the Concept of Disinformation, and Fast

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a resident of Ukraine, I am acutely aware that there is no going back to a "pre-disinformation" time

# data[].attributes.headline
Tech firms fail to tackle Russian propaganda - EU

# data[].attributes.subject
Tech firms fail to tackle Russian propaganda - EU

# data[].attributes.body
Social media companies have failed to stop "large-scale" Russian disinformation campaigns since the invasion of Ukraine, the EU has said. The EU Commission's report said the "reach and influence of Kremlin-backed accounts" had grown further in 2023. Russian disinformation has increased on X, formerly Twitter, since Elon Musk bought the company, the report added. The BBC has approached Twitter, Meta, TikTok and YouTube for comment, but has not received a response.

The study, published on Wednesday, looks at attempts to deal with Kremlin-backed disinformation and suggests the rise has been "driven in particular by the dismantling of Twitter's safety standards". The BBC has previously reported that accounts belonging to official Kremlin social media accounts have propagated false information about the war in Ukraine. "In absolute numbers, pro-Kremlin accounts continue to reach the largest audiences on Meta's platforms. Meanwhile, the audience size for Kremlin-backed accounts more than tripled on Telegram," the report found.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"In absolute numbers, pro-Kremlin accounts continue to reach the largest audiences on Meta's platforms. Meanwhile, the audience size for Kremlin-backed accounts more than tripled on Telegram," the report found.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tech firms fail to tackle Russian propaganda - EU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Russian disinformation has increased on X since Elon Musk's takeover, according to a report.

# data[].attributes.headline
Russia 'likely' sponsored cyber-attack on UK to steal military secrets

# data[].attributes.subject
Russia 'likely' sponsored cyber-attack on UK to steal military secrets

# data[].attributes.body
A top cybersecurity expert has accused the Kremlin of backing a group that stole secrets from some of the UK's most sensitive military sites before leaking them to the dark web. Professor of cybersecurity at Ulster University, Kevin Curran, said that last month's attack, which saw Russia-linked hacker group LockBit steal 10GB of sensitive military data from private security firm Zaun in a 'potentially very damaging attack', was 'likely' sponsored by the Russian state.

Thousands of pages of data were leaked to the dark web shortly after the private company, which was responsible for protecting maximum security sites, was breached.  'In this case, given the target, my money would be on this being state-sponsored,' Curran said. Sensitive information about sites including HMNB Clyde, home of the Trident nuclear submarines, and GCHQ, one of the UK's top intelligence and security agencies, was leaked.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Putin's regime 'likely' sponsored cyber-attack on Britain by Russia-linked hackers who acquired secrets about military sites then leaked them onto the dark web amid tensions over Ukraine, expert warns

A top cybersecurity expert says that the Kremlin likely sanctioned the attack

The hack saw sensitive information about the UK's military leaked online

Sensitive information about the home of the Trident nuclear programme was leaked

A top cybersecurity expert has accused the Kremlin of backing a group that stole secrets from some of the UK's most sensitive military sites before leaking them to the dark web.

Professor of cybersecurity at Ulster University, Kevin Curran, said that last month's attack, which saw Russia-linked hacker group LockBit steal 10GB of sensitive military data from private security firm Zaun in a 'potentially very damaging attack', was 'likely' sponsored by the Russian state.

Thousands of pages of data were leaked to the dark web shortly after the private company, which was responsible for protecting maximum security sites, was breached.

'In this case, given the target, my money would be on this being state-sponsored,' Curran said.

Sensitive information about sites including HMNB Clyde, home of the Trident nuclear submarines, and GCHQ, one of the UK's top intelligence and security agencies, was leaked.

Hackers reportedly also leaked information about security equipment at RAF Waddington, where Reaper drone missions have been conducted from for the last 10 years, and Cawdor Barracks, the base of the 14th Signal Regiment which deals in electronic warfare.

Meanwhile, one leaked document related to equipment used to protect Porton Down - one of the most secretive military research facilities in the UK.

Zuna's digital defences were allegedly breached by a group with links to Russian criminals.

LockBit has been on the FBI's radar since 2020, and are believed to have stolen £80 million in ransom money.

One hacker linked to the group, Mikhail Matveev is wanted by US authorities for 'allegedly conducting significant attacks against both United States and worldwide businesses'.

He is on the FBI's most wanted list after alleged attacks on 1,400 global targets, including a £66million blackmail on the Royal Mail who refused to pay.

The professor warned that the UK was unprepared to deal with Russia's 'relentless' cyber attacks, which has stepped up across the world since its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, because of its reliance on private third-parties to protect sensitive data.

'You can't just expect third party suppliers to adhere to your rules.

'There is always a risk when you have third party suppliers and you do wonder if they adhere to industry best practice.

'It is a worry because everything is online now - cybercrime is the biggest crime in the world.

'Given the new era we are entering which is the brink of World War Three everything is serious.

'They are relentless with these attacks. Their best way into our country is through our cyber-security. This is the nation at risk.'

The warning comes after Labour MP Kevan Jones, who sits on the Commons Defence Select Committee, urged the Government to explain why Zaun's computer systems were 'so vulnerable', warning: 'This is potentially very damaging to the security of some of our most sensitive sites.'

'Any information which gives security arrangements to potential enemies is of huge concern,' he added.

The Government has so far declined to respond to concerns, with a spokesperson saying: 'We do not comment on security matters.'

In a statement on its website published on Friday, Zaun said it had taken 'all reasonable measures to mitigate any attacks on our systems' and explained that they had referred the matter to the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC).

It explained that the breach occurred through a 'rogue Windows 7 PC' that was running software for one of their manufacturing machines but that the network was 'otherwise up to date'.

It said: 'At the time of the attack, we believed that our cyber-security software had thwarted any transfer of data.

'However, we can now confirm that during the attack LockBit managed to download some data, possibly limited to the vulnerable PC but with a risk that some data on the server was accessed.

'It is believed that this is 10 GB of data, 0.74% of our stored data.

'It is well known that Zaun is a specialist in high-security perimeter fencing and has supplied fencing to many high-profile sites.

'Sites where our products are used include prisons, military bases and utilities.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Russia 'likely' sponsored cyber-attack on UK to steal military secrets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A professor of cybersecurity said that last month's attack, which saw a Russia-linked hacker group steal 10GB of sensitive military data was 'likely' sponsored by the Russian state

# data[].attributes.headline
Russia warns "all-out war" with US could erupt over worsening cyber clashes

# data[].attributes.subject
Russia warns "all-out war" with US could erupt over worsening cyber clashes

# data[].attributes.body
Escalating tensions between the United States and Russia in cyberspace threaten to spark a real-life clash between the nuclear-armed powers, Moscow's top cybersecurity diplomat has told Newsweek.

At a time when Washington has regularly accused Moscow of using cyber tools—referred to in Russia as information and communication technologies (ICTs)—to pursue illicit aims, Artur Lyukmanov, who serves as both director of the Russian Foreign Ministry's International Information Security Department and special representative to President Vladimir Putin on international cooperation on information security, pointed to a "lack of hard evidence" to substantiate such allegations.

Rather, he told Newsweek, "the U.S. builds up offensive ICT-capabilities, conducts 'hunt-forward' operations against Russia" and "employs its clients abroad."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Escalating tensions between the United States and Russia in cyberspace threaten to spark a real-life clash between the nuclear-armed powers, Moscow's top cybersecurity diplomat has told Newsweek.

At a time when Washington has regularly accused Moscow of using cyber tools-referred to in Russia as information and communication technologies (ICTs)-to pursue illicit aims, Artur Lyukmanov, who serves as both director of the Russian Foreign Ministry's International Information Security Department and special representative to President Vladimir Putin on international cooperation on information security, pointed to a "lack of hard evidence" to substantiate such allegations.

Rather, he told Newsweek, "the U.S. builds up offensive ICT-capabilities, conducts 'hunt-forward' operations against Russia" and "employs its clients abroad."

Among those Lyukmanov accused of being involved in such initiatives were the "IT Army of Ukraine" that claims to be a volunteer outfit created at the start of Russia's war in Ukraine more than a year and a half ago, and other NATO nations hosting "cyber laboratories" in Eastern Europe.

Lyukmanov cited the National Cybersecurity Strategy released in March by President Joe Biden's administration, which allowed for U.S. entities to "punish those that engage in disruptive, destructive, or destabilizing malicious cyber activity." The senior Russian official further alleged that U.S. official and corporate entities were "involved in preparations for 'cognitive warfare,'" and warned "such an escalatory path adds higher risks of confrontation."

"We want to halt further deterioration," Lyukmanov said. "A mistake in the use of ICTs may lead to a direct conflict, an all-out war, especially as that the White House is aware that Russia has all the necessary capabilities to defend itself. A devastative computer attack against our critical information infrastructure will not be left without response."

The history of U.S.-Russia relations in cyberspace has long been fraught, with each side accusing the other of engaging in covert, underhanded online tactics to pursue goals parallel to their real-world geopolitical rivalry.

Russia has been particularly active in campaigning for international cooperation on cybersecurity, having sponsored the first-ever U.N. draft resolution on the issue back in 1998 and tabling another resolution that led to the establishment of the Open-ended Working Group on ICTs two decades later in 2018. But despite rare moments of unity, such as a 2013 dialogue opened between Moscow and Washington, frictions have often overshadowed attempts at cooperation in this field.

Burgeoning mistrust between the two nations on cybersecurity first reached a peak in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, when U.S. intelligence agencies accused the Kremlin of conducting a concerted influence campaign to support the candidacy of Republican candidate Donald Trump , a charge vehemently denied by Moscow.

Russian officials would go on to deny any role in a number of high-profile cyber incidents to hit the U.S. and other countries in the succeeding years, such as the SolarWinds hack, first publicly reported in December 2020, which granted months-long unauthorized access to software used by hundreds of U.S. companies and government institutions.

Just months before news of that hack became public, Putin put forth a four-point plan to manage cybersecurity relations between Washington and Moscow.

The proposal entailed the establishment of bilateral dialogue mechanisms utilizing existing channels on nuclear risk reduction and computer readiness, jointly developing a bilateral intergovernmental agreement on preventing cyber incidents in the vein of past U.S.-Soviet maritime agreements, and assurances of non-intervention in one another's internal affairs.

And even with U.S.-Russia relations sinking to further depths as a result of the latter's war in Ukraine, Lyukmanov argued that "the right way to prevent escalation is to engage in dialogue."

"The goal is to have an international legal framework, as it is not for two or 20 countries to decide on security in the use of ICTs, which are transborder in their functions," Lyukmanov said. "A decade ago, despite the difficult geopolitical situation, Russia and the U.S., as well as other U.N. Member States managed to agree on a list of rules, norms and principles of responsible behavior in information space, though Washington initially rejected the very idea of voluntary obligations."

Now, he argued, "the next step should be making these arrangements mandatory for all countries."

In March, the same month the U.S. National Cybersecurity Strategy was issued, Russia submitted its own concept of what such a multilateral convention should look like, one of several processes and proposals on cyber diplomacy that exist under the auspices of U.N. mechanisms.

"It is an invitation to start working on a universal treaty which would provide an equal basis for cooperation between U.N. Member States and help them overcome the digital divide," Lyukmanov said.

The U.S. has also participated in the Open-ended Working Group, though Washington and a number of its European allies have preferred to handle the issue through a parallel U.N. track led by Groups of Governmental Experts, which are limited to between 15 and 25 participating member states.

Reached for comment, a U.S. State Department spokesperson told Newsweek that, "over the past decade plus, the international community has made clear that international law applies in cyberspace."

"UN member states have coalesced around a non-binding framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace," the State Department spokesperson added, "which, among other things, supports the international rules-based order, affirms the applicability of international law to state behavior in cyberspace, and development and implementation of practical confidence building measures to help reduce the risk of conflict stemming from cyber incidents."

The State Department spokesperson pointed out that "all members of the United Nations General Assembly-including Russia-have repeatedly affirmed this framework," as articulated by the 2021 Open-ended Working Group, as well as Groups of Governmental Experts convening that same year and in previous years, specifically 2015, 2013 and 2010.

And yet the U.S. has continued to accuse Russia of both committing and enabling violations.

"Despite its affirmation of this framework, Russia has repeatedly engaged in disruptive, destructive, or otherwise destabilizing malicious cyber activity," the State Department spokesperson said. "Further, despite the United States', allies', and partners' public identification of a growing number of Russian-based cyber criminals we have seen no meaningful action by Russian authorities to curb this type of behavior or otherwise hold actors accountable."

Also reached for comment, a representative of the "IT Army of Ukraine" acknowledged the group's mission of aiming to "help Ukraine win by crippling aggressor economies and blocking vital services," but said it conducted such operations "independently."

"We have no official or unofficial relationships with the U.S., other NATO members, or any other state-sponsored entities," the "IT Army of Ukraine representative told Newsweek. "While we were founded by Mikhaylo Fedorov, the Minister of Digital Transformation of Ukraine, neither he nor the ministry plays any current role-executive or non-executive-in our activities."

Newsweek has also reached out to U.S. Cyber Command and the U.S. National Security Agency for comment.

While Moscow and Washington see eye-to-eye on little these days, Lyukmanov was confident that the U.S. would change course in the long run and seek a new path toward cooperation.

"There is little doubt that eventually common sense will prevail among other governments, including the U.S., when it comes to the need for prevention of a conflict situation with an unpredictable outcome as a result of a transborder and anonymous computer attack," Lyukmanov said. "All countries are vulnerable to threats in information space, whether they have Silicon Valley or not."

"That's the nature of data which, like water, will always find a weak spot in ICTs," he added. "Our task is to prevent such leaks from turning to stormy streams, a hurricane beyond category 5."
This article has been updated to include comments from a representative of the "IT Army of Ukraine" cyberwarfare group.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Russia warns "all-out war" with US could erupt over worsening cyber clashes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"A devastative computer attack against our critical information infrastructure will not be left without response," Putin's cybersecurity envoy told Newsweek.

# data[].attributes.headline
La startup suisse Ascento lance un nouveau robot de sécurité à deux roues piloté par une IA

# data[].attributes.subject
La startup suisse Ascento lance un nouveau robot de sécurité à deux roues piloté par une IA

# data[].attributes.body
La startup suisse Ascento, une spin-off de l'ETH Zurich, a récemment dévoilé autonome de patrouille de sécurité en extérieur appelé "Ascento Guard". Il est capable de détecter les personnes non autorisées, d'assurer l'intégrité du périmètre, de surveiller les portes, les fenêtres et l'éclairage, et de s'occuper des parkings. Il se déplace à une vitesse de 4,5 km/h lors de ses patrouilles et Ascento affirme que le robot offre une sécurité continue sans intervention humaine. Le robot est censé aider les entreprises à faire face à la grave pénurie de main-d'œuvre qui touche le secteur de la sécurité. Toutefois, certains analystes sont sceptiques quant à la capacité du robot à assurer cette mission.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
La startup suisse Ascento lance un nouveau robot de sécurité à deux roues piloté par une IA, polyvalent et tout terrain, il offrirait une sécurité continue sans intervention humaine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
La startup suisse Ascento, une spin-off de l’ETH Zurich, a récemment dévoilé autonome de patrouille de sécurité en extérieur appelé “Ascento Guard”. Il est capable de détecter les personnes non autorisées, d’assurer l’intégrité du périmètre, de surveiller les portes, les fenêtres et l’éclairage, et…

# data[].attributes.headline
Trotz wachsender Bedrohungslage hat Cybersicherheit in Schweizer KMU eine geringe Priorität

# data[].attributes.subject
Trotz wachsender Bedrohungslage hat Cybersicherheit in Schweizer KMU eine geringe Priorität

# data[].attributes.body
8 von 10 KMU vertrauen ihre digitalen Infrastrukturen externen IT-Dienstleistern an und lassen sich von ihnen auch im Bereich Cybersicherheit beraten. Bei der Umsetzung von Massnahmen zum Schutz gegen Cyberkriminalität gibt es aber kaum Fortschritte. Die Ergebnisse der neuesten Studie zur Digitalisierung und Cybersicherheit in KMU machen deutlich: Je stärker sich Unternehmen als digitale «Pioniere» identifizieren, desto öfter setzen sie technische und organisatorische Massnahmen zur Stärkung der Cybersicherheit in ihrem Unternehmen um. Doch während sich in den vergangenen Jahren stets rund ein Fünftel der befragten KMU als digitale «Pioniere» gesehen haben, sind es 2023 nur noch rund ein Zehntel.

Die Befragung erfolgte im Auftrag von digitalswitzerland, der Versicherung die Mobiliar, der Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, der Schweizerischen Akademie der Technischen Wissenschaften SATW und der Allianz Digitale Sicherheit Schweiz.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
8 von 10 KMU vertrauen ihre digitalen Infrastrukturen externen IT-Dienstleistern an und lassen sich von ihnen auch im Bereich Cybersicherheit beraten. Bei der Umsetzung von Massnahmen zum Schutz gegen Cyberkriminalität gibt es aber kaum Fortschritte. Die Ergebnisse der neuesten Studie zur Digitalisierung und Cybersicherheit in KMU machen deutlich: Je stärker sich Unternehmen als digitale "Pioniere" identifizieren, desto öfter setzen sie technische und organisatorische Massnahmen zur Stärkung der Cybersicherheit in ihrem Unternehmen um. Doch während sich in den vergangenen Jahren stets rund ein Fünftel der befragten KMU als digitale "Pioniere" gesehen haben, sind es 2023 nur noch rund ein Zehntel.

Die Befragung erfolgte im Auftrag von digitalswitzerland, der Versicherung die Mobiliar, der Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, der Schweizerischen Akademie der Technischen Wissenschaften SATW und der Allianz Digitale Sicherheit Schweiz.

Lesen Sie die Studie auf Deutsch. Weiterführende Informationen finden Sie im Whitepaper auf Deutsch, Französisch und Italienisch.

Lesen Sie die Medienmitteilung auf Deutsch, Französisch und Italienisch.

Lesen Sie die Präsentation der Pressekonferenz auf Deutsch.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trotz wachsender Bedrohungslage hat Cybersicherheit in Schweizer KMU eine geringe Priorität

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
8 von 10 KMU vertrauen ihre digitalen Infrastrukturen externen IT-Dienstleistern an und lassen sich von ihnen auch im Bereich Cybersicherheit beraten. Bei der Umsetzung von Massnahmen zum Schutz gegen Cyberkriminalität gibt es aber kaum Fortschritte.

# data[].attributes.body
Wer am Morgen die Radionachrichten hört oder die Zeitung aufschlägt, kann sich manchmal dem Eindruck nicht erwehren, dass sich Krise an Krise reiht. Lernen wir denn nie dazu? Nein, sagt der renommierte Klimatologe Reto Knutti im Interview: Menschen tun sich notorisch schwer damit, auf der Basis von wissenschaftlichen Fakten und Prognosen vorausschauend zu handeln. Wer Krisen angemessen begegnen will, muss deshalb auch gesellschaftliche und politische Faktoren berücksichtigen. In turbulenten Zeiten und in einem immer komplexeren geopolitischen und wirtschaftlichen Umfeld wachsen die Herausforderungen an die Resilienz, die Fähigkeit, Krisen standzuhalten und zu bewältigen. Das konstatiert Peter Grütter in seinem Editorial und sieht gleichzeitig für die Schweiz darin eine riesige Chance: Denn in einer zunehmend vernetzten Welt könnte sie sich als das ruhige Auge im Sturm positionieren und sich auch im Bereich der Digitalen Gouvernanz als zuverlässige internationale Plattform positionieren.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Resilienz in einer vernetzten Welt
Von Christine D'Anna-Huber, asut Die Zeichen stehen auf Sturm (123gif.de)

Wer am Morgen die Radionachrichten hört oder die Zeitung aufschlägt, kann sich manchmal dem Eindruck nicht erwehren, dass sich Krise an Krise reiht. Lernen wir denn nie dazu? Nein, sagt der renommierte Klimatologe Reto Knutti im Interview: Menschen tun sich notorisch schwer damit, auf der Basis von wissenschaftlichen Fakten und Prognosen vorausschauend zu handeln. Wer Krisen angemessen begegnen will, muss deshalb auch gesellschaftliche und politische Faktoren berücksichtigen. In turbulenten Zeiten und in einem immer komplexeren geopolitischen und wirtschaftlichen Umfeld wachsen die Herausforderungen an die Resilienz, die Fähigkeit, Krisen standzuhalten und zu bewältigen. Das konstatiert Peter Grütter in seinem Editorial und sieht gleichzeitig für die Schweiz darin eine riesige Chance: Denn in einer zunehmend vernetzten Welt könnte sie sich als das ruhige Auge im Sturm positionieren und sich auch im Bereich der Digitalen Gouvernanz als zuverlässige internationale Plattform positionieren.

Die Digitalisierung stützt die Standfestigkeit

Dass die Schweiz in Sachen Resilienz gute Karten hat, belegt das Deloitte Resilienz-Barometer 2022. Das hat viel mit der Digitalisierung zu tun: Der Berner Regierungsrat Pierre Alain Schnegg zeigt am Beispiel der Pandemie, wie sich die Resilienz als unverzichtbares Instrument zur Krisenbewältigung bewiesen hat. Ein flexibles und durchgehend digitalisiertes Staatswesen sieht auch Peter Grünenfelder, Präsident auto-schweiz und vormaliger Direktor von Avenir Suisse, als Voraussetzung für eine resiliente Schweiz. Er befürchtet allerdings, dass die Politik die dafür nötigen Reformen und Anpassungsprozesse unnötig blockiere. Die Politologin Regula Stämpfli hingegen sieht die Grundpfeiler (und damit die Resilienz) der Demokratie in Gefahr, wenn die Digtialisierung nicht dringend demokratisiert werde - ein paar radikale Lösungsvorschläge liefert sie gleich mit.

Resilienz als Wettbewerbsvorteil

Wie unverzichtbar resiliente Netze und Services für unsere Volkswirtschaft sind und mit welchen Herausforderungen ihre Bereitstellung verbunden ist, zeigt Daniela Decurtins, Direktorin des Verbands der Schweizerischen Gasindustrie, am Beispiel der Energieversorgung. In einer volatilen Welt müssen aber auch Organisationsstrukturen, Unternehmenskulturen und operative Prozesse agiler und anpassungsfähiger werden. Gordon Thomson, Vizepräsident Technology Acceleration beim Netzbetreiber Cisco, sieht Resilienz als Treiber solcher Transformationsprozesse, deren Erfolg und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit für ihn wiederum untrennbar mit digitalen Innovationen verknüpft sind. Resilienz treibt Innovation: Michael Holzer von Huawei beweist, dass sich dieser Satz auch umkehren lässt. Der 5G-gesteuerte intelligente Eisenbahnlogistikterminal EWG im ungarischen Fényeslitke ist ein eindrückliches Beispiel dafür, wie innovative Übertragungstechnologien die Resilienz kritischer Infrastrukturen stärken können.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Resilienz in einer vernetzten Welt Von Christine D'Anna-Huber, asut Die Zeichen stehen auf Sturm (123gif.de) Wer am Morgen die Radionachrichten hört oder die Zeitung aufschlägt, kann sich manchmal dem Eindruck nicht erwehren, dass sich Krise an Krise reiht. Lernen wir denn nie dazu?

# data[].attributes.headline
Wie das NTC prüfen will, was andere nicht prüfen 

# data[].attributes.subject
Wie das NTC prüfen will, was andere nicht prüfen 

# data[].attributes.body
Das Nationale Testinstitut für Cybersicherheit (NTC) hat es sich zum Ziel gesetzt, quasi ein Pendant zur Empa im Cyberbereich zu werden. Wie es auswählt, was es prüft, welche Meilensteine es nun anpeilt und weshalb die Schweiz überhaupt ein NTC braucht, sagt NTC-Mitgründer Raphael Reischuk im Interview.

# data[].attributes.headline
How A.I. Will Change Leadership: 13 Ways 

# data[].attributes.subject
How A.I. Will Change Leadership: 13 Ways 

# data[].attributes.body
As there is no longer any disagreement that A.I. will change everything we do, it would be appropriate to stop asking “if” and start asking “how” – and the best place to start that conversation is to discuss leadership. Because it is the leaders – or future leaders – who will get us to this new world, organizations must be clear on what’s expected of its leaders.

Consequently, here are some offerings in that arena, based on an understanding of basic leadership principles and how they will be affected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As there is no longer any disagreement that A.I. will change everything we do, it would be appropriate to stop asking "if" and start asking "how" - and the best place to start that conversation is to discuss leadership. Because it is the leaders - or future leaders - who will get us to this new world, organizations must be clear on what's expected of its leaders.

Consequently, here are some offerings in that arena, based on an understanding of basic leadership principles and how they will be affected.

1. Insistence on Creativity.

A.I. is not only the biggest transformation in human history; it is the most sweeping. As a result, there's no choice but to get out of comfort zones and be positioned not only to deal with change but to create it.

2. Talent Acquisition and Management.

No question: we'll have to get better at this, as the game is now at a higher level and the stakes are higher every day.

3. Decentralized Organizational Design.

With massive amounts of data available everywhere, there's no need to let bureaucracy bog things down.

4. Autonomous Teams.

Although this has been brewing for decades, A.I.-driven autonomy will see small teams produce huge results. Leaders will just have to summon the guts to enable it.

5. Massive Inbound Intelligence.

There's no limit on available intelligence. A.I. can not only find it, A.I. can generate it. But be careful; we know the inherent danger in making stuff up.

6. More Robust Internal Learning and Development.

No choice. Either keep up with or ahead of the crowd - or bust. It's like flying; the minute you stop flapping your wings, you're done.

7. Less Benchmarking, More Vision.

Dame Anita Roddick, founder of The Body Shop, said, "Running a company on market research is like driving while looking in the rear-view mirror." She always looked in one direction: forward.

8. Leaps, No Bounds.

Armed with all this power, the risk of taking bold steps is mitigated. Any leader wannabe who doesn't see that - and do that - is not the leader for the future.

9. Change in Balance Between What's Strategic and What's Operational.

Technology used to be a strategic advantage. No longer: The 20 th and 21 st centuries have seen to that.

10. Predictive Analytics.

It used to be that "analysts make projections and fools make predictions," but that's changing. A better word for it might be "expectations." Call it what you will, it will be done better from now on.

11. Better Risk/Reward Decision Making.

Does this one even need a comment?

12. Transparency.

True colors show through when you can't hide them. Tomorrow's leaders will have to be much more "what-you-see-is-what-you-get." Good.

13. Ethics, Ethics, Ethics.

Leaders either need to dust off their old Ethics textbooks or get with the program on the spot. While A.I. has a huge potential for nefarious abuse, it also has the potential to develop our commitment to all levels of ethics: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.

Surely, more criteria will evolve, and so will commentary like this. But that's the thing about A.I. It's still in its wilderness phase. And like Lewis and Clark, there will be new territory iscovered every day. Tomorrow's successful leaders can't wait!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How A.I. Will Change Leadership: 13 Ways

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As there is no longer any disagreement that A.I. will change everything we do, it would be appropriate to stop asking "if" and start asking "how".