By Phillip Gagnon Date: 24 March 2024
About the Article:
This Study was funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and seeks to examine the DHS and private sectors education and training programs in regard to technological advancements in cybersecurity and counterterrorism. The study operated off surveys, interviews and data collected from government and private sector employees. It is considered a multi-year study with interviews from 2021-22 also being utilized. Participants in the study were “professionally connected to the DHS due to the grant being funded by a DHS Center of Excellence, the National Counterterrorism Innovation, Technology, and Education” (Black, 2024).
Introduction:
The introduction begins with a few recent computer software advancements that agencies are beginning to face. They then question if certain government agencies are prepared for the threats. They document how they will approached the multiyear study. Beginning with researching current trends in training leading to survey’s taken by professionals. The ultimate question they have is “How can DHS receive consistent, updated, and relevant technology workforce training for their intelligence and counterterrorism professionals?”(Black, 2024). They utilized interdisciplinary approaches throughout. They combined and vetted data that was collected through surveys, interviews, and internal reports from both government and private sector companies.
Information:
The main body is broken into sections with a title relating to the information described in the following paragraphs. Information put forth is that basic understanding of technology is required for analysts to properly preform there job. And that competency that use to be enough is quickly getting left behind, today technical and tactical knowledge is required, especially when dealing with foreign programs and due to the speed technology advances.
When defining competency, the article argues that the current workforce is limited without proper training. New challenges are always shaping new scenarios to contend with and newer possible threats. Threats highlighted are Cyberattacks or course but also concepts such as biotechnology, nanotech, quantum computing and AI. Factors that arguably were theories or severely limited 10-15 years ago.
Data Collection:
The research combined an assortment of data collected from 2021-22. Quantitative and qualitative data collected from surveys was from 20 Jan 2022 to 15 April 2022. The survey was forwarded to 114 people of which they received 70 responses. After removing incomplete responses they narrowed it to 61 participants. The survey used questions with numerical related items and open ended questions. There were 77 questions divided into 7 categories. The interviews were conducted with at least 17 individuals (a full count was also not found) who were deemed Intelligence professionals from the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and DHS. (Black, 2024). The study also contacted private company professionals through LinkedIn.
Results:
Final Results showed that the private industry is above the curve compared to the government agencies. Which is considered the primary line of defense for the United States cyber defense (Healey, 2017) (Citation pulled from article #48.). It found that due to the private sectors more established protocols regarding training to stay up to date, they are more prepared to handle new threats. In the discussion the Author recommended steps for government agencies to improve their training programs; developing a plan for different qualifications, Increase the time allotted and resources for training, and get more invested in the development of new technologies.
Refrences:
Black, M., Obradovic, L., & House, D. (2024, February 7). Behind the curve: Technology challenges facing the Homeland Intelligence and Counterterrorism Workforce. OUP Academic. https://academic.oup.com/cybersecurity/article/10/1/tyae002/7602882?searchresult=1
Healey J. Who’s in control: balance in cyber’s public–private sector partnerships. Georget J Int Aff. 2017; 18: 120–30. https://doi.org/10.1353/gia.2017.0044
.
Leave a Reply