Cybersecurity and the politics of knowledge production: towards a reflexive practice

How does a reflexive scholarly practice matter for producing useful cybersecurity knowledge and policy? We argue that staking relevance without engaging in reflexivity diminishes the usefulness of knowledge produced both in academia and in policy. To advance a reflexive research agenda in cybersecurity, this forum offers a collective interrogation of the liminal positionality of the cybersecurity scholar. We examine the politics of ‘the making of’ cybersecurity expertise as knowledge practitioners who are located across and in between the diverse and overlapping fields of academia, diplomacy and policy. Cybersecurity expertise, and the practices of the cybersecurity epistemic community more broadly, rely heavily on the perceived applicability and actionability of knowledge outputs, on the practical dependency on policy practitioners regarding access, and thus on the continuous negotiation of hierarchies of knowledge. Participants in this forum reflect on their research practice of negotiating such dilemmas. Collectively, we draw on these contributions to identify obstacles and opportunities towards realising a reflexive research practice in cybersecurity

Beyond the Great Powers: Challenges for Understanding Cyber Operations in Latin America

The past decades have been marked by a renewed interest from states in enhancing their cyber capabilities. Responses to evolving threats have ranged from establishing designated bodies for cybersecurity at the national level, such as cyber commands, to sanctions and cyber diplomacy as part of the ever-expanding national cyber policy ‘toolbox’. Countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and their allies have increasingly focused on questions related to offense-defense balance as part of designing their deterrence strategies in cyberspace. Concerns around the asymmetrical nature of cyber threats and the lower barriers of entry for non-state actors (although, at times, state-sponsored) have equally contributed to the emergence of concepts such as “active cyber defense,” “defend forward,” and “persistent engagement” as synonyms to “authorized offensive cyber operations.”1 In so doing, states believe they can shift the incentives and heighten the costs for adversaries (e.g., China, Russia, and North Korea) to engage in malicious activity2 while also staging a show of force

Brazil, China and Internet Governance

The Internet has continuously been drawing the attention of states. Governance became a central aspect to negotiating tensions between state and non-state actorsinvolved in the Internet ecosystem. This paper draws a comparative analysis between China and Brazil – with a particular emphasis on the latter – in the negotiations on global Internet governance. The primary objective of this work is to identify similarities and differences between both countries’ cyber-policies lying at the intersection of security, privacy, and surveillance. More specifically, it aims to is to determine if Brazil and China can cooperate on a common agenda in the BRICS and assess how the two states deal with the role of the United States in Internet governance. The last section focuses in mapping the challenges and opportunities that emerge from these dynamics, in particular their impact within the BRICS

Brazil, China and Internet Governance: Mapping Divergence and Convergence

The Internet has continuously been drawing the attention of states. Governance became a central aspect to negotiating tensions between state and non-state actorsinvolved in the Internet ecosystem. This paper draws a comparative analysis between China and Brazil – with a particular emphasis on the latter – in the negotiations on global Internet governance. The primary objective of this work is to identify similarities and differences between both countries’ cyber-policies lying at the intersection of security, privacy, and surveillance. More specifically, it aims to is to determine if Brazil and China can cooperate on a common agenda in the BRICS and assess how the two states deal with the role of the United States in Internet governance. The last section focuses in mapping the challenges and opportunities that emerge from these dynamics, in particular their impact within the BRICS