Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis paper inquires how surveillance manifests in least‐ideal contexts (LICs), that is, countries with resource constraints, poor governance and proclivity for populism during COVID‐19, and its implications for crisis governance. Using the Philippines as a case, we advance three arguments. First, LICs can become spaces where inappropriate surveillance is undertaken. Second, liminal surveillance practices can become permanent policy fixtures in LICs. Finally, when a prevailing crisis approach of a government is perceived to be inconsistent with the needs of the public, it can lead to a self‐help system among various societal groups and actors. This self‐help system may not necessarily be aligned with the general direction of the national government. As a result, it can perpetuate a disjointed and maladaptive crisis governance approach, where main actors like national governments, and complementary actors like private sector firms, local government units and citizen organizations pursue goals independent of one another.

Advances in cyber capabilities continue to cause apprehension among the public. With states engaging in cyber operations in pursuit of its perceived strategic utility, it is unsurprising that images of a "Cyber Pearl Harbor" remain appealing. It is crucial to note, however, that the offensive action in cyberspace has only had limited success over the past decade. It is estimated that less than 5% of these have achieved their stated political or strategic objectives. Moreover, only five states are thought to have the capabilities to inflict or threaten substantial damage. Consequently, this raises the question of what accounts for the continued sense of dread in cyberspace. The article posits that this dread results from the inappropriate use of cognitive shortcuts or heuristics. The findings herein suggest that the lack of experience in dealing with cyber operations encourages uncertainty, which motivates decision-makers to base their judgements on pre-existing, and possibly incorrect, conceptions of cyberspace. In response, the article segues into potential solutions that can mitigate unsubstantiated dread towards cyberspace by peering into the role that attributes at the organizational level can play in tempering the position of individuals. The suggested considerations are rooted in the interactions between the micro and macro level processes in forming judgments, sensemaking, and ultimately, mobilizing actions.

Advances in cyber capabilities continue to cause apprehension among the public. With states engaging in cyber operations in pursuit of its perceived strategic utility, it is unsurprising that images of a "Cyber Pearl Harbor" remain appealing. It is crucial to note, however, that the offensive action in cyberspace has only had limited success over the past decade. It is estimated that less than 5% of these have achieved their stated political or strategic objectives. Moreover, only five states are thought to have the capabilities to inflict or threaten substantial damage. Consequently, this raises the question of what accounts for the continued sense of dread in cyberspace. The article posits that this dread results from the inappropriate use of cognitive shortcuts or heuristics. The findings herein suggest that the lack of experience in dealing with cyber operations encourages uncertainty, which motivates decision-makers to base their judgements on pre-existing, and possibly incorrect, conceptions of cyberspace. In response, the article segues into potential solutions that can mitigate unsubstantiated dread towards cyberspace by peering into the role that attributes at the organizational level can play in tempering the position of individuals. The suggested considerations are rooted in the interactions between the micro and macro level processes in forming judgments, sensemaking, and ultimately, mobilizing actions.