Re: [projectvrm] Gartner Goes Scifi on Security - But what if we also had VRM?

[Peter Cranstone < >]

I believe they call that the 'nuclear option'.

Peter

From: Kevin Cox < "> >
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 3:24 PM
To: "Peter J. Cranstone" < "> >
Cc: Dan Blum < "> >, ProjectVRM list < "> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Gartner Goes Scifi on Security - But what if we also had VRM?

All will be well.

Complex systems find ways of ensuring their own survival. 

Kevin

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Peter Cranstone < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Great blog post. 

I don't see any one solution, just a mix of solutions that work for your lifestyle and risk tolerance. It's becoming so complicated that few will understand it by 2020. A defense in depth strategy will become a must.

Peter

From: Dan Blum < " target="_blank"> >
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:18 AM
To: ProjectVRM list < " target="_blank"> >, " " target="_blank"> " < " target="_blank"> >
Subject: [projectvrm] Gartner Goes Scifi on Security - But what if we also had VRM?

(I had to send this twice because I message up the links the first time - sorry :-)

In the Gartner Goes Scifi: Four Future Security Scenarios  blog post this morning I review a cool webinar from Gartner wherein they use scenario-based analysis to project what will happen in the next five years given the targeting of cyberattacks on individuals and well as enterprises and the conflicting forces for authority. 

Cliff notes: 

Two "government run amok" scenarios are: Regulated Risk, Controlling Parent

Two "chaos rules" scenarios are: Coalition Rules, Neighborhood Watch

I think folks on this list would really like Richard Hunter (who was the speaker, although I know that creating these scenarios was a group effort). He's one of the most ethical analysts I know. However, while In the post above, I pretty much just admired the webinar, I do have some reservations about what might have been missed.

Richard said that one of the cardinal errors in scenario-based planning is not pushing far enough into the corners of the scenarios. In pushing towards the corners, Gartner's work comes up with what he admits are some pretty morally or economically repugnant projections. The "neighborhood watch" scenario, for example, projects that government authority will decline, cybercrime will run amok, and individuals will form e-militias so that we kind of end up like the "Gangs of New York." In this gloomy corner case, it seems like empowering individuals, the democratization of IT, has been a bad thing. And indeed, since governments and large institutions experience individual empowerment as chaos (and Gartner's audience is those large enterprises) that's understandable.

But I thought I'd bounce this off the VRM and pcloud lists because what I love about the participants is the generally optimistic view that empowering individuals can be a good thing. What if we could re-imagine Gartner's "neighborhood watch" or any of the other quadrants in another way?

Perhaps in scenario planning it can be just as much an error to not push into the center as it is to not push into the corners. Because one needs to at least think about all the possibilities before concluding. What if empowered individuals, enterprises and authorities pushed toward the center and came up with non-repugnant fusion of the good elements of the four corners?

Please, friends, check out my Gartner Goes Scifi post and the webinar as well and let me know what you think. 

Let's imagine together!

Dan

http://security-architect.blogspot.com