Cybersecurity by executive order

This report explores the details of the Obama Administration\u27s executive order on cybersecurity, breaking down the challenges, criticisms, and successes of the effort to date, before offering clear lessons from the US experience that can be applied to the Australian context. Summary: On 12 February 2014 the United States National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) released the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, the flagship accomplishment of the Obama Administration’s 2013 cybersecurity Executive Order. Just weeks before the White House announced its executive order, the then Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard made an equally exciting declaration introducing the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC). One year on, the contrast between the two efforts is stark. The United States and Australia share a common interests in developing a robust partnership between the government and private sector to develop whole-of-system cybersecurity. To move beyond political optics, the ACSC must embrace existing best practices, commit to meaningful public-private partnerships, and set a pragmatic strategy moving forward. The Obama Administration’s efforts, while far from perfect, offer critical lessons that the Australian government can adopt and adapt to ensure that the ACSC is a successful endeavour and critical infrastructure cybersecurity is improved. This Strategic Insight report explores the details of the executive order, breaking down the challenges, criticisms, and successes of the effort to date, before offering clear lessons from the US experience that can be applied to the Australian context

Asia-Pacific cyber insights

This report aims to give insight into the wealth of cyber perspectives across the Asia–Pacific and amplify the regional voice on the key themes and questions of the Global Conference on CyberSpace 2015 in April 2015. Overview The Asia-Pacific region incorporates some of the most mature cyber actors in the world as well as some of the least connected. Governments throughout the region are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of cyberspace, however the capabilities, needs, and priorities of each state lie across a wide spectrum. Asia–Pacific cyber perspectives are far more diverse and dynamic than the dominant narratives coming from the ‘cyber great powers’ and it is important that the region’s distinct voices are heard in international cyber discussions. This report aims to give insight into the wealth of cyber perspectives across the Asia–Pacific and amplify the regional voice on the key themes and questions of the Global Conference on CyberSpace 2015 (GCCS) in April 2015. To achieve this the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s International Cyber Policy Centre partnered with the Institute of Strategic & International Studies Malaysia to host a multistakeholder workshop to gather and collate the expertise of a broad cross-section of Asia–Pacific cyber experts. With generous support from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the workshop brought together participants from government, the private sector, academia, think tanks, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), as well as regional and international organisations from 12 Asia–Pacific countries. The report represents a collation of the thoughts and perspectives from the workshop and subsequent discussions. It is based on the key themes and questions of the GCCS and structured around the GCCS agenda. The intention was not to achieve consensus but instead accurately portray the points of convergence and divergence across the region. Throughout the process the recurring themes of clarity, capacity, and responsibility emerged as ways to ensure a more reliable, secure, and stable cyberspace. The findings of this effort will be presented at an Asia-Pacific Borrel, an official side-event of the GCCS

Cyber maturity in the Asia-Pacific Region 2014

Summary: To make considered, evidence-based cyber policy judgements in the Asia-Pacific there’s a need for better tools to assess the existing ‘cyber maturity’ of nations in the region. Over the past twelve months the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s International Cyber Policy Centre has developed a Maturity Metric which provides an assessment of the regional cyber landscape. This measurement encompasses an evaluation of whole-of-government policy and legislative structures, military organisation, business and digital economic strength and levels of cyber social awareness. This information is distilled into an accessible format, using metrics to provide a snapshot by which government, business, and the public alike can garner an understanding of the cyber profile of regional actors

Personality traits and mental disorders

Peer reviewe

The effects of social identification, norms and attitudes on use of outreach services by homeless people.

Abstract: The theory of planned behaviour, social identity theory and attitudes toward institutional authority were used to predict the uptake of outreach services over a 3-week period in a prospective study of 126 homeless people in a major UK city. Consistent with previous research, subjective norm was an important predictor, but so were identification with support services and attitudes to authority. The effect of intention on behaviour was moderated by subjective norm, such that intention affected behaviour more when subjective norm was weak. Subjective norm was affected by identification with support services, which in turn, was predicted by identification with homeless people and attitude to authority. It is concluded that the role of social identity and social norms is of central importance in understanding uptake of outreach services among homeless people

Models of personality structure

In the present chapter, models of personality structure are discussed. With the term “personality structure” we refer to the organization of the various features of personality as based in theory or in empirical findings. By adding the term “models,” the structure quality seems a bit tautological because a model is usually recognized by its typical form or its organization. Most of the ambiguity in the expression “models of personality structure,” is, however, in the term “model” (from the Latin modulus, diminutive of measure or standard), as the term has accrued a variety of functions which can appear at different levels of abstraction