War and Peace-injuries worldwide

The attacks on the twin towers and Pentagon have exposed the soft under belly of the US security system. It could have been complacence or it could have been over-confidence that no body could dare a direct attack on that country. But it has happened. In the short term it means that the existing security systems will be enforced with greater seriousness. In the long term the entire security ethos could change.

In a way it is good that the Internet happened when it did. For it made people alive to security threats that exist in ways that had never been thought possible. To that extent considerable development has already taken place in the area of securing information and transactions on the net. However, what is worrying people more is the threat that could exist from internal sources. Who is to police the police? The terrorist attacks have suddenly focused attention on the long-term possibility of infiltration of terrorists within the ranks. Imagine a situation, where you are not sure if you can trust a person that you work with. How do you work in a situation like that?

Are we then condemned to a scenario where each person is a suspect? Are we to live under constant fear that the person entrusted with the security of the organization could be an enemy in disguise? A person who is to ensure safe financial transactions could conspire to cause losses to you. How much can we entrust to the security administrators? Where are we to draw the line?

Threat from internal sources is not a matter of conjecture. It is reality and borne out by research. And the threat is probably larger than we hitherto imagined. The solution, unfortunately, is not so simple. For it will span multiple domains. It will call for integrating all kinds of technologies, processes and intelligence. It will not be a fiefdom of the IT industry alone. It will call for the integration of several conventional security devices and systems, software security solutions, biometrics' methods of detection, and of course a heavy dose of security processes.

The worrisome part is that of the human element. If the basis of all this development is the lack of trust between man and man, will an effective solution call for the complete elimination of human interventions, or at least its marginalization to a considerable extent? That certainly is a scary scenario. (Remember HAL taking over in 2001 space odyssey.) For it could lead to complete dependence on machines with the entire decision process and intervention intelligence resting in them. I am not sure if we would like to progress in that direction.

These are sad developments. Worse, they seem to be irreversible. The boundaries of our lives and existence seem to be forever shrinking. Where is ultimately going to lead to? For all the developments that we pride in, it has not helped bring peace to our world. It has not helped unite man to man. It has not helped promote greater understanding among people. If at all, it has only pushed man to an animal like existence - fighting for his space in the jungle, and living for him.

Good philosophy is all this. But does not help. At the end of the day, it is those at war who seem to be driving the world. Those waging peace can't even be heard. The latter are considered weak and helpless. What an irony, that to enforce peace, you must be seen to be capable of destruction. And so it is that an America is heard, but others are not.

Is it possible for man to be at peace with others if he is not at peace with himself? Conflict is probably the biggest reality of our times. As long as people come in different hues and shades, there will be conflict of interests. For us therefore, there may be little choice but to accept this reality. And keep working on solutions as problems crop up one after the other. So the only practical philosophy may be to accept that problems are a reality. Without problems, there will be no need of solutions, and hence no activity. Similarly, if we accept problems and do nothing about them, we would again end up with a situation of null activity. And absence of activity is really a sign of death. (Thank god for all the problems!)

The way forward then is to keep waging peace and keep preparing our defenses at the same time. Giving up peace initiatives would be defeatism of the worst kind. And pure defense strategies can never be successful against a determined foe. The malaise cannot be allowed to grow. It has to be eliminated, if we have to give peace a chance.

So how are we to develop our security stance? How are we to prepare for the ultimate situation where negative elements have infiltrated our security organizations? Effectively then, what we are saying is that no single person, or for that matter, even a small group of people, should hold the key to any information or device that can help cause a breach into the security system. The security architecture may have to be developed in the form of a jigsaw puzzle. Different people could hold each piece of the puzzle without knowing who else have the other pieces.

The primary responsibility of initiating or coordinating specific actions would lie with specific groups, but they would not be in a position to complete sensitive assignments on their own. Any action initiated by one would automatically alert the rest of the group.

Sounds scary? Yes. Complicated? Yes. Is it practical? I don't know. But we seem to have brought it on ourselves. The writing is definitely on the wall. The ultimate solution may vary on details, but the underlying logic and architecture can't be too different. If only we could channel all this effort and resources into productive activities. But then security happens to be at the base of Maslow's pyramid. You can not remove the foundation, can you?

Sumit Sharma is Vp, Microland and the author of the book titled 'The Corporate Circus.' The views expressed in this article are of the author's and not of Microland.