global security

I have a strong interest in entrepreneurship. As my followers know, I am a long-time member of JCI, and I am a serial entrepreneur myself. I developed companies in both Norway, and in France, and I have had my share of success and failures.

I have decided that this blog - the Roer.com Information Security blog will change and narrow it's focus a bit, and focus on information security for entrepreneurs and start-ups. I hope that this small change in focus will not drive away my current readers, while continue to grow my readership.

By doing this change, I hope to fill what I think is a gap in the Security blogging arena - to help start-ups and SME's to adequate security. As far as I see it, most security bloggers out there are in one or more of these three groups:

• vendor or service provider, focusing on promoting their own products/services
• (enterprise) risk management, focusing on what many SMEs will consider theory and not very relevant to their everyday focus
• IT-security, focusing on technology, hacking, and "geek" stuff

I think they all have an important role to play, and that they are needed. But for myself, I do not belong directly in any of the categories, plus I am very interested in entrepreneurship. Thus, I will try to fill this gap :)

But worry not, my readers! I will continue to dish out my opinions on global security, TSA, other bloggers and whatever else even remotely securtiy related that I feel an urge to comment upon!

On a side note, I have also established a new blog, focusing on another area I love - trainings!

Do you think this is a good move? Or am I walking into a dead end? Your thoughts are highly valued!

entrepreneurship, jci, security

Russia is moving in to Georgia. Is the Big Bear securing it's oil reserves? Are they trying to close the West's access to the Caspian sea? Where will Putin head after Georgia? Is Putin the new Stalin?

These and many other questions have surfaced around the world for a while now. To many of us, Georgia is far away, thus the news are easily downgraded on our scale of importance. And this might very well be Putin's exact calculations - that Russia can go out and grab Georgia with little or no reactions from the international communities.

I hope that reactions will come. That the international community will raise it's voice and tell Russia and Putin that theft is not acceptable. That Georgia will receive support and help on their path to independence and democracy.

In our globalized market, we are all interdependent. That should also mean that we are equally responsible for each other, that we should care and that we need to voice our concerns.

Larko opened my eyes - by pointing my radar to the incident. Thus, I changed the filter mode in my brain, and interesting bits of information started to appear. Some of them are listed below.

I encourage you to spend a few seconds (as a minimum) to consider the questions I pose above. By spending that little investment of your time, you may find that you need to do something more. If you do, please go ahead! Thanks!

• Russian Business Network blog (follows the RBN, also on the cyber warfare on Georgia)
• Huffington Post - interesting considerations from the US Security Advisor for President Carter
• Swedish Foreign minister Carl Bildt on the case
• EU consider reactions

Please feel free to air your voice - and submit other interesting stories on this potentially global security threat! (Yes, I may exaggerate on a short term - but what are the long term damage that may occur?)

Denmark embarks on a new mission to publish sarcasm. In 2006, Danish and Norwegian newpapers published a series of drawings depicting Mohammed in cartoons. The result was buring embassies and riots.

Now, Danish newspaper have reprinted one of the cartoons, and Denmark is evacuating, or considering evacuation of their embassies in North Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

More over at CNN.

To no big surprise if you have followed the debate, Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize this year. Now, I have nothing against Al Gore and his work to alter our environmental behaviors. What I do oppose is the grounds to give him the peace prize for that work.

In times of great violence, I would prefer to see a peace prize go to someone working to create peace - not someone trying to stop us driving cars.

I guess there are too hard to find anyone actually working towards making peace? Maybe they say "Peace is so 1980s." Perhaps environment and green living is more sexy?

The Nobel Peace prize has evolved. It has gone from being a strong message about peace and understanding, into a populist prize without any controversy at all. I think that is a pitty. And a loss to the world. We need a prize to point us in the right direction, a reminder to keep us working towards global peace. Especially in these terrorist times.

I think it is sad that the prize is given to Al Gore. I do not believe there are no others out there working towards peace. I do not believe there are nothing left to do to create controversy and discussion. Being politically correct and populist does not help.

I do support the work of Gore. But I do not think his work should be enough to get a prize like the Nobel Peace Prize.

Do you think Al Gore is eligible for such a prize?

Back in the cold war days - when Norway was the last outpost of the NATO towards the Soviet, and any politics left of conservative was considered communism, most of the stories from the Soviet where Western propaganda.

I grew up as a kid in the 70s and a teenager in the 80s. No, I still do not understand the pop-music. I learned to be afraid of nuclear war, communism and walked around believing that Soviet was colored in shades of gray. If there where colors there, they would be dark, disturbing. Like shadows.

I remember depicting the west as a golden, shiny, colorful place - where all things good happen. And the East was dark. Depressing. Scary - a modern day hell, so to speak. Gulag and Siberia.

And of course all the hero's came from the west. All the bad guys from the East. No matter if it was Bond or Spiderman - the plot where the same brainwashing scenario good vs. bad.

This is all repeated today with the terrorists. The big, bad Arabian looking bad-guy versus the great, nice, smiling and heroic American. Things have changed, though. The Gulag of today must be Guantanamo's Bay. The terrorist cannot scare us as the Nuclear scenario could back in the day. Perhaps that is why France and US is so keen on targetting Iran these days? Perhaps the everyday suicidal terrorist is not scary enough for the rest of us to create the necessary support for a sustained war on terrorists?

And I am older, hopefully wiser, and know first hand that Russia and Eastern Europe is just as colorful as the rest of the world. And war is never what it seems. US has ran out of Oil. The rest of the world is soon to follow. China is moving into Africa big time. Putin and Russia continues to follow their own path - no matter what the rest of the world does and mean.

In these times, I just love discovering that hero's are on both sides. Like back in 1983, when the Soviet military officer Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov avoided to launch a full size nuclear attack against the west. He decided that the missiles that showed up on his radars where due to a computer error, and not a real attack. Sitting in his bunker, counting seconds and minutes, watching his screens showing a growing number of missiles heading towards them. Keeping himself and his team cool, he saved the world as we know it.

I would love to hear about your everyday hero. About your view of the future. And it's impact on security as we know it.

 

The past couple of weeks has seen an uproar against Sweden in general, and the Swedish artist Mr. Lars Vilk in particular.

Yet again, an artist has managed to piss of the Muslims.

Yet again the Muslims reacts as expected.

And yet again are we discussing whether or not freedom of speech as a principle stands higher than religion.

According to western tradition and belief, freedom of speech is a fundamental right for all mankind. It is a principle we love, and protect.

According to Muslim tradition and belief, Mohamed is sacred, and never to be depicted. Depicting him is a sin, and blaspheme.

All this is well known. And EU has come to the conclusion that when deciding whether or not you are free to speak you mind is to be decided by what your intent of the information is. With the above mentioned art as example - in EU, Lars Vilk is protected by law to make art of Mohamed. Even if some Muslims may get hurt in the process. So how do they know when to protect him? By his intent! If his intentions are good (ie. not to hurt their feelings), he is protected. If his intentions are bad (ie. he draw Mohamed as a dog only to hurt Muslims), he is on longer protected by law.

In other words - Freedom of Speech in Europe is all yours as long as you do not intently hurt someone. If it happens by accident, then it is all fine.

The question is how can I prove that my intentions in this post are all good? That I never mean to hurt anyone?

---

On the other hand, the decision by EU have second to no results on the intention of Al-Quida to put mr. Vilks down. And no matter how much I respect Muslims (and other religions people), I just cannot understand how they can take a picture like this serious, and why they care about it in the first place.

I agree that Mr. Vilk and other artists in the past has not been very kind in the depicting of the holy prophet - but as I understand, non of the artists where Muslims in the first place (nor is now). I have a hard time understanding why someone who is not following your religion has to follow those rules. Now, you may argue that I am stupid, ignorant, and some may even say arrogant, but I still do not get it.

But - I do believe in your right to have those rules. I do believe in your rights to believe in your religion. I will defend that right as well. And I respect your views and ideas.

As I do believe in the freedom of speech. And defend that right too.

What pisses me off is when people use the wrong reasons for their action. I defend your right to be a Muslim. But I strongly disagree with your use of terrorism, violence and your disrespect of other people, cultures and religions.

The same goes for Lars Vilk and other artists. I defend your right to make whatever art you like. But intentionally mocking other people and culture is not my kind of art.

There is one thing I believe is missing in both camps - respect! Respecting different opinions. Different views. Different ideas. Respecting that some call dogs with human heads art, and respecting that some prefer their holy figures to stay a fantasy.