Certification Survey Extra is a series of periodic dispatches that give added insight into the findings of our most recent Certification Survey. These posts contain previously unpublished Certification Survey data.
The noted philosopher and social critic Neil Diamond once opined that, "Money talks," which most people would probably agree is true, at least in a figurative sense. Belying the metaphysical significance of his own sagacity, however, Diamond further observed of currency that, "It don't sing and dance, and it don't walk." And by the time he furthered that rumination by declaring, "Long as I can have you here with me, I'd much rather be, forever in blue jeans, babe," well, you know, what is the guy even talking about anyway?
Money certainly has a voice, however, and recent events would suggest that, at least for certain parties to national government here in the United States, that voice is the only thing they can hear at all. And deregulation in the name of turning existing piles of money in significantly larger golden hoards, is also one of the orders of the day.
Given all of that, it would seem unlikely that the legislators currently ascendant in Washington, D.C., would want to increase any aspect of federal involvement in anything relating to money and commerce. Or maybe there's something they would want the government to superintend after all.
This is the fourth in a series of articles drawn from our recent Cybersecurity Certification Survey about the role of government in cybersecurity. Previous articles in the series can be found here:
The Role of Government in Cybersecurity, Part 1
The Role of Government in Cybersecurity, Part 2
The Role of Government in Cybersecurity, Part 3
Returning to today's installment, as currency management becomes increasingly computerized, the level of risk to essentially everyone posed by hackers and other digital malefactors is rapidly escalating. Given that government (in the United States and elsewhere) tends to have the most resources available to tackle the really big jobs, and given the importance of financial and economic stability to civil society, perhaps it best falls to government, then, to at least spearhead the effort to protect both public and private financial and banking resources.
Here's what we learned by asking survey respondents — certified cybersecurity professionals, don't forget — to rate their level of agreement with the following two propositions:
Government should be aggressively promote cybersecurity protections and preparedness in the financial and banking sector.
Strongly Agree: 39.6 percent
Agree: 41.6 percent
Neither Agree nor Disagree: 14.3 percent
Disagree: 2.6 percent
Strongly Disagree: 1.9 percent
Government should directly regulate cybersecurity protections and preparedness in the financial and banking sector.
Strongly Agree: 24.3 percent
Agree: 28.9 percent
Neither Agree nor Disagree: 25.7 percent
Disagree: 17.1 percent
Strongly Disagree: 3.9 percent
It seems clear that certified cybersecurity professionals think that government has a role to play here. Almost none of our survey respondents either disagree or take a neutral position on the issue of whether government should aggressively promote cybersecurity protections and preparedness. Even on the question of direct regulation, however, there's a worrisome amount of both general agreement and strong agreement that government needs to play a part.
Do these guys know something about the general penetrability and/or ineffectuality of current finance and banking protections that the rest of us should be aware of? Not even 4 percent of the people we talked to strongly disagree that government should directly regulate the protection of finance and banking operations. That's a sobering though to carry with you into the weekend.