Search

Begin New Search Topic Science and Technology

231. Are Non-Governmental Organizations prepared to deal with Cyberthreats?- An analysis of perceptions of cybersecurity capacities among NGOs in Kosovo

Author:
Donika Elshani
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Kosovar Centre for Security Studies (KCSS)
Abstract:
NGOs in Kosovo are increasingly relying on digital tools to conduct their work. From online correspondence via different applications, storing important organizational data on electronic devices and establishing an online presence through social media accounts, they are leveraging technology to streamline processes, improve communication, and engage with stakeholders. However, with the benefits of these digital tools come certain challenges and risks that, if left unaddressed, can undermine the effectiveness and security of NGOs and potentially even threaten their very existence. Malign actors are increasingly using the online sphere to perpetrate malicious activities, including stealing sensitive data, committing financial crimes, spreading falsehoods and hate speech, to name but a few. The aim of this report is to provide a analysis of perceptions of key digital threats and digital capacity-building needs of the non-governmental sector in Kosovo. It seeks to fill the existing data gap by conducting an initial assessment of the key challenges faced by NGOs in terms of digital security and identifying their specific needs for enhancing their digital capacity. The report draws on a quantitative survey conducted among 48 NGOs to assess their cybersecurity landscape. The findings reveal that NGOs in Kosovo face significant challenges in terms of their capacity to identify, mitigate, and respond to cyber threats. The analysis highlights a lack of adequate resources, expertise, and cybersecurity measures within these organizations to effectively tackle potential digital threats in the future.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, NGOs, and Non-Traditional Threats
Political Geography:
Eastern Europe and Kosovo

232. Kosovo's Take on Cybersecurity

Author:
Vesa Kroci
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Kosovar Centre for Security Studies (KCSS)
Abstract:
In 2014, there was a notable surge in cybercrimes in Kosovo. The advancement and widespread adoption of technology during this period brought about a more pronounced occurrence of cyber-related offenses. Fadil Avdyli, the head of the Cybercrime Investigation Sector in the Kosovo Police, reported that eight individuals were apprehended in 2012, eleven in 2013, and seven in 2014. The rising cyberattacks in Kosovo provided an impetus to build a new policy framework dealing with cyber security, resulting with the adoption by the Kosovo government of the National Cyber Security Strategy and Action Plan 2016 – 2019. Program of the Kosovo Government 2021-2025 notes that “cyber security is a growing problem, we will engage in professional capacity building for the prevention of cyber-attacks, completion of the legal framework and modernization of cyber protection equipment”. The Kosovo Security Strategy 2022-2027, puts significant relevance to strengthening cyber security capacities of Kosovo and notes that the government “will invest in the field of cybersecurity, critical infrastructure, innovation and technology and capacity-building”. The strategy also includes the Global Cybersecurity Index as an impact indicator, but Kosovo has not been included. In 2023 Kosovo Assembly adopted Law No. 08/L-173 on Cyber Security, which among others, foresees the establishment of the Cyber Security Agency as well as partially transposes Directive (EU) 2013/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 on attacks against information systems.
Topic:
Security, Crime, Science and Technology, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:
Eastern Europe and Kosovo

233. Mapping the Cloud: Big Tech Taking the Sky by Storm

Author:
Cecilia Rikap
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
City Political Economy Research Centre (CITYPERC), University of London
Abstract:
Here I map Big Tech clouds focusing on the making of asymmetric relations with the different type of involved organizations. Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Alibaba are cloud hegemons that control every inch of their clouds. The cloud is the main means of adoption of digital technologies. As such, developers and other firms offering their services on Big Tech clouds accept the rules of a game predefined by those few giants. They even need to get enabling credentials offered by another type of subordinate actor: the companies offering trainings to get mandatory certificates for joining the cloud as providers. At the other end, customers transition to the cloud often guided and hiring the services of outsourced sales forces. After presenting all these actors and their interplay, I focus on AI as a service to explain the negative effects of such a migration at the level of organizational learning and innovation. Customers’ technological subordination and reduced learning by doing, using and interacting in the cloud has triggered mitigation strategies but only large players can afford them.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Big Tech, Corporations, Cloud Computing, and Digital Learning
Political Geography:
Global Focus

234. Same End By Different Means: Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta’s Strategies to Organize Their Frontier AI Innovation Systems

Author:
Cecilia Rikap
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
City Political Economy Research Centre (CITYPERC), University of London
Abstract:
I combine quantitative methodologies and in-depth interviews to analyse United States Big Tech different strategies to organize and profit from their AI corporate innovation systems (CIS). I propose 1) “frenemies” for Microsoft, because even Chinese organizations and direct competitors integrate its CIS. 2) “University” for Google, whose AI strategy included leaving DeepMind autonomous to explore more fundamental AI but appropriation mechanisms are not translating into a clear business advantage. 3) “Secrecy” for Amazon, given its large concern with secrecty and profiting from AI. 4) And “application-centred” for Facebook; its AI CIS is the narrowest, mostly attached to its platforms.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Innovation, Artificial Intelligence, Big Tech, and Corporations
Political Geography:
Global Focus

235. The video games industry in Europe: current situation, issues and prospects

Author:
Loïse Lyonnet and David Rabineau
Publication Date:
10-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
Beyond them being a societal phenomenon, video games are smashing all records. On a national or European scale, the annual figures for the video games industry are rising to record heights: the European market is set to grow to €24.5 billion by 2022, with more than one in two Europeans aged between 6 and 64 enjoying video games as a leisure activity. Its economic performance aside, the video game industry is eminently strategic, with 110,000 jobs across Europe, including around 20,000 in France. Strategically positioned at the crossroads of different disciplines, the video games industry is closely linked to technological developments, placing it at the forefront of all digital revolutions. At a time when the question of sovereignty is a priority, video games are a solid vector of soft power for European countries. Renowned European studios such as CD Projekt in Poland, Crytek in Germany and Paradox Interactive in Sweden have demonstrated their excellence on an international scale, exporting their productions all over the world. Video games are a lever of influence for Europe that should neither be ignored nor underestimated. Although it boasts a number of world champions, such as France's Ubisoft, the European video game industry still suffers a number of handicaps, not least because its stakeholders find it difficult to organise collectively and work together at EU level. As a result, the industry is developing unevenly from one country to the next, with major disparities in terms of political support. The video game industry still suffers from a lack of visibility. The development of the video games industry at European level opens up new prospects for job creation, economic opportunities, innovation and training in strategic sectors. The European institutions and the Member States need to develop a proactive policy in favour of video games, by increasing their financial support for studios, encouraging intra-European collaboration and developing a framework to prevent talent from leaving the European Union. Video games are an issue of sovereignty for Europe: this is an opportunity not to be missed!
Topic:
Science and Technology, Digital Economy, Soft Power, Industry, and Video Games
Political Geography:
Europe

236. Artificial intelligence: Europe needs to start dreaming again

Author:
Niccolò Bianchini and Lorenzo Ancona
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
To date, there is no universally accepted definition of artificial intelligence (AI). However, a number of definitions do capture the fundamental aspects, such as the one updated by the OECD, from an earlier version in 2019, which will probably be integrated into the law on artificial intelligence now under discussion in the European Union. This definition stipulates: “An AI system is one that is based on a machine which, for explicit or implicit purposes, deduces, from the inputs it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments. Different AI systems vary in their levels of autonomy and adaptability once deployed”. This draws a broad perimeter, which is useful for framing the largest number of existing AI technologies and, although it does not consider the human component, it clarifies the operation of AI technologies as statistical inference systems which, from the processing of inputs, generate different types of output. But this definition ignores other essential elements of artificial intelligence. As immediate as it is provocative, it must be made clear that AI is neither intelligent nor artificial. As Kate Crawford, co-founder of the University of New York’s AI Now Institute, artificial intelligence is not a synthetic product but “comprises natural resources, fuels, human labour, data, infrastructure and classifications”, which illustrate the extent to which economic, political and technical dynamics are central. As far as intelligence is concerned, Luciano Floridi, founder of the Digital Ethics Center of Yale University, speaks of “artefacts with the ability to act without being intelligent”, i.e. to carry out tasks without having any autonomous consciousness, but solely thanks to computing power and statistical inferences. These details are not mere philosophical flights of fancy, but the premises of a conscious reflection on the subject. While the general public discovered AI with ChatGPT a year ago, it is worth pointing out that generative AI, which forms its base, is just one of the different types of AI, and that various AI applications were already present in our daily lives. These include the algorithms in social networks used to recommend content, predictive analysis for finance or programmes for diagnosing and personalising therapies in medicine. Once these doubts have been dispelled, some of the considerations raised so far can be assessed. The transformative nature of this technology is clear : AI has the potential to revolutionise different areas of human experience and, more profoundly, to change reality and the very role of human beings within it[1]. Among the various fields of application, the world of work is under particular scrutiny, with several analyses which forecast major business changes and a significant impact on productivity. The challenge of AI has recently been taken up by the international community, notably at the regulatory level. Great effort is being made to ensure future-proof legislative action, given the extremely rapid evolution of AI technologies, in particular the rise of fundamental models. Although a number of recent initiatives, such as the Executive Order issued by American President Biden, the summit on AI security at Bletchley Park, the G7’s Code of Conduct and the world AI governance initiative launched by China, reflect the growing awareness of this issue, the European Union is proving to be a forerunner in regulating this technology with the law on AI. This is why, according to Anu Bradford, a theoretician behind the Brussels Effect “it is reasonable to expect that the European regulatory role will continue. What's more, the European Union is influencing other players in this field: the United States is steadily moving towards the European model, abandoning one that is purely libertarian”[2]. Beyond this, the industrial development of AI technologies has been underway for some time, and is shaping up to be a new arena of fierce confrontation between global players. Indeed, it is likely that the market-led US model, the state-led Chinese model and the rights-led European model will clash not only in a global regulatory challenge, but also in terms of technological development.
Topic:
Development, Science and Technology, Regulation, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Europe

237. 2023 Annual Estimate of the Strategic Security Environment

Author:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
The Annual Estimate of the Strategic Security Environment serves as a guide for academics and practitioners in the defense community on the current challenges and opportunities in the strategic environment. This year’s publication outlines key strategic issues across the four broad themes of Regional Challenges and Opportunities, Domestic Challenges, Institutional Challenges, and Domains Impacting US Strategic Advantage. These themes represent a wide range of topics affecting national security and provide a global assessment of the strategic environment to help focus the defense community on research and publication. Strategic competition with the People’s Republic of China and the implications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine remain dominant challenges to US national security interests across the globe. However, the evolving security environment also presents new and unconventional threats, such as cyberattacks, terrorism, transnational crime, and the implications of rapid technological advancements in fields such as artificial intelligence. At the same time, the US faces domestic and institutional challenges in the form of recruiting and retention shortfalls in the all-volunteer force, the prospect of contested logistics in large-scale combat operations, and the health of the US Defense Industrial Base. Furthermore, rapidly evolving security landscapes in the Arctic region and the space domain pose unique potential challenges to the Army’s strategic advantage.
Topic:
Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Corruption, Migration, Science and Technology, Terrorism, Partnerships, Weapons, Xi Jinping, Strategic Competition, Logistics, People's Liberation Army (PLA), and Democratic Backsliding
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, China, Europe, Eurasia, Ukraine, Middle East, Asia, Arctic, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

238. Responsible Innovation in Disruptive Digital and Data Technologies

Author:
Paul Samson, Constance de Leusse, Paul Fehlinger, and Aaron Shull
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
As the world grapples with rapid technological change that has the capacity to affect every aspect of human life, “responsible innovation” is key to ensuring that this transformation is shaped in a way that benefits society as a whole while minimizing risks. A joint effort by the Centre for International Governance Innovation and Project Liberty, this policy brief explores seven “verticals” that will guide this technological evolution (artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, neurotechnology, Web3, digital public infrastructure, extended reality and biocomputing) and four “horizontals” (macroeconomics, geopolitics, climate change and regulation) that will shape the medium-term impact of these verticals. Using responsible innovation in the development and application of these technologies can help mitigate their disruptive potential. This approach involves looking at how to reduce the possible negative consequences of an innovation while maximizing its benefits for everyone, and focusing attention on innovation aimed at our greatest shared challenges.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Innovation, Data, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:
Global Focus

239. How to Curb Investments in Chinese Technology: Initiatives and Debates in the United States

Author:
Mathilde Velliet
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
In a continuation of U.S. efforts to slow China's development and acquisition of strategic technologies, Washington has imposed new restrictions on American investment in Chinese technology sectors such as artificial intelligence (AI), quantum, and semiconductors. On August 9, 2023, President Biden issued an unprecedented executive order, announcing notification requirements and prohibitions for U.S. tech investments in China. Three sectors are targeted: semiconductors, quantum information technology, and artificial intelligence. Washington’s main concern is that these investments are accompanied by technology transfers and “intangible benefits” contributing to the development of Chinese military capabilities. This concern, first voiced in the 1980s, has received a heightened political response since 2018. Considering the emerging consensus in Congress and the multiplication of bills, further measures are likely to be adopted in the coming months. The European Union and certain Member States are beginning to reflect on the consequences of U.S. measures, and on the relevance of adopting their own tools to control investment in China.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Investment, Artificial Intelligence, Quantum Computers, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and United States of America

240. China’s AI Regulations and How They Get Made

Author:
Matt Sheehan
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
China is in the midst of rolling out some of the world’s earliest and most detailed regulations governing artificial intelligence (AI). These include measures governing recommendation algorithms—the most omnipresent form of AI deployed on the internet—as well as new rules for synthetically generated images and chatbots in the mold of ChatGPT. China’s emerging AI governance framework will reshape how the technology is built and deployed within China and internationally, impacting both Chinese technology exports and global AI research networks. But in the West, China’s regulations are often dismissed as irrelevant or seen purely through the lens of a geopolitical competition to write the rules for AI. Instead, these regulations deserve careful study on how they will affect China’s AI trajectory and what they can teach policymakers around the world about regulating the technology. Even if countries fundamentally disagree on the specific content of a regulation, they can still learn from each other when it comes to the underlying structures and technical feasibility of different regulatory approaches. In this series of three papers, I will attempt to reverse engineer Chinese AI governance. I break down the regulations into their component parts—the terminology, key concepts, and specific requirements—and then trace those components to their roots, revealing how Chinese academics, bureaucrats, and journalists shaped the regulations. In doing so, we have built a conceptual model of how China makes AI governance policy, one that can be used to project the future trajectory of Chinese AI governance (see figure 1). China’s three most concrete and impactful regulations on algorithms and AI are its 2021 regulation on recommendation algorithms, the 2022 rules for deep synthesis (synthetically generated content), and the 2023 draft rules on generative AI. Information control is a central goal of all three measures, but they also contain many other notable provisions. The rules for recommendation algorithms bar excessive price discrimination and protect the rights of workers subject to algorithmic scheduling. The deep synthesis regulation requires conspicuous labels be placed on synthetically generated content. And the draft generative AI regulation requires both the training data and model outputs to be “true and accurate,” a potentially insurmountable hurdle for AI chatbots to clear. All three regulations require developers to make a filing to China’s algorithm registry, a newly built government repository that gathers information on how algorithms are trained, as well as requiring them to pass a security self-assessment. Structurally, the regulations hold lessons for policymakers abroad. By rolling out a series of more targeted AI regulations, Chinese regulators are steadily building up their bureaucratic know-how and regulatory capacity. Reusable regulatory tools like the algorithm registry can act as regulatory scaffolding that can ease the construction of each successive regulation, a particularly useful step as China prepares to draft a national AI law in the years ahead. Examining the roots of these regulations also grants insight into the key intellectual and bureaucratic players shaping Chinese AI governance. The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) is the clear bureaucratic leader in governance to date, but that position may grow more tenuous as the focus of regulation moves beyond the CAC’s core competency of online content controls. The Ministry of Science and Technology is another key player, one that may see its profile rise due to recent government restructuring and increased focus on regulating underlying AI research. Feeding into this bureaucratic rulemaking are several think tanks and scholars, notably the China Academy for Information Communications Technology and Tsinghua University’s Institute for AI International Governance. In the years ahead, China will continue rolling out targeted AI regulations and laying the groundwork for a capstone national AI law. Any country, company, or institution that hopes to compete against, cooperate with, or simply understand China’s AI ecosystem must examine these moves closely. The subsequent papers in this series will dig into the details of these regulations and how they came about, deepening understanding of Chinese AI governance to date and giving a preview of what is likely coming around the bend.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Regulation, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
China and Asia