律师有福了,因为他们将继承网络安全

Daniel W. Woods, Aaron Ceross
{"title":"律师有福了,因为他们将继承网络安全","authors":"Daniel W. Woods, Aaron Ceross","doi":"10.1145/3498891.3501257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper considers which types of evidence guide cybersecurity decisions. We argue that the “InfoSec belongs to the quants” paradigm will not be realised despite its normative appeal. In terms of progress to date, we find few empirical results that can guide risk mitigation decisions. We suggest the knowledge base about quantitative cybersecurity is continually eroded by increasing complexity, technological flux, and strategic adversaries. Given these secular forces will not abate any time soon, we argue that legal reasoning will increasingly influence cybersecurity decisions relative to technical and quantitative reasoning. The law as a system of social control bristles with ambiguity and so legal mechanisms exist to resolve uncertainties over time. Actors with greater claims to authority over this knowledge base, predominantly lawyers, will accrue decision making power within organisations. We speculate about the downstream impacts of lawyers inheriting cybersecurity, and also sketch the limits of the paradigm’s explanatory power.","PeriodicalId":320273,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2021 New Security Paradigms Workshop","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Blessed Are The Lawyers, For They Shall Inherit Cybersecurity\",\"authors\":\"Daniel W. Woods, Aaron Ceross\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3498891.3501257\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper considers which types of evidence guide cybersecurity decisions. We argue that the “InfoSec belongs to the quants” paradigm will not be realised despite its normative appeal. In terms of progress to date, we find few empirical results that can guide risk mitigation decisions. We suggest the knowledge base about quantitative cybersecurity is continually eroded by increasing complexity, technological flux, and strategic adversaries. Given these secular forces will not abate any time soon, we argue that legal reasoning will increasingly influence cybersecurity decisions relative to technical and quantitative reasoning. The law as a system of social control bristles with ambiguity and so legal mechanisms exist to resolve uncertainties over time. Actors with greater claims to authority over this knowledge base, predominantly lawyers, will accrue decision making power within organisations. We speculate about the downstream impacts of lawyers inheriting cybersecurity, and also sketch the limits of the paradigm’s explanatory power.\",\"PeriodicalId\":320273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 2021 New Security Paradigms Workshop\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 2021 New Security Paradigms Workshop\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3498891.3501257\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2021 New Security Paradigms Workshop","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3498891.3501257","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文考虑了哪些类型的证据指导网络安全决策。我们认为,尽管“信息安全属于量化分析师”范式具有规范性吸引力,但它不会实现。就迄今为止的进展而言,我们发现很少有经验结果可以指导风险缓解决策。我们认为,量化网络安全的知识库不断受到日益增加的复杂性、技术变化和战略对手的侵蚀。鉴于这些长期力量不会很快减弱,我们认为,相对于技术和定量推理,法律推理将越来越多地影响网络安全决策。法律作为一种社会控制系统,充满了模糊性,因此存在着解决不确定性的法律机制。对这一知识库拥有更大权威的行为者(主要是律师)将在组织内积累决策权。我们推测了律师继承网络安全的下游影响,并概述了范式解释力的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Blessed Are The Lawyers, For They Shall Inherit Cybersecurity
This paper considers which types of evidence guide cybersecurity decisions. We argue that the “InfoSec belongs to the quants” paradigm will not be realised despite its normative appeal. In terms of progress to date, we find few empirical results that can guide risk mitigation decisions. We suggest the knowledge base about quantitative cybersecurity is continually eroded by increasing complexity, technological flux, and strategic adversaries. Given these secular forces will not abate any time soon, we argue that legal reasoning will increasingly influence cybersecurity decisions relative to technical and quantitative reasoning. The law as a system of social control bristles with ambiguity and so legal mechanisms exist to resolve uncertainties over time. Actors with greater claims to authority over this knowledge base, predominantly lawyers, will accrue decision making power within organisations. We speculate about the downstream impacts of lawyers inheriting cybersecurity, and also sketch the limits of the paradigm’s explanatory power.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Blessed Are The Lawyers, For They Shall Inherit Cybersecurity COLBAC: Shifting Cybersecurity from Hierarchical to Horizontal Designs Change that Respects Business Expertise: Stories as Prompts for a Conversation about Organisation Security The tragedy of common bandwidth: rDDoS “Taking out the Trash”: Why Security Behavior Change requires Intentional Forgetting
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1