In today’s interconnected global landscape, resource management has become more complicated, particularly when considering security contagion and the proliferation of mis/disinformation (López et al., 2024). In order to lessen the effects of these issues, which have the potential to upset social, political, and economic stability, resources must be used and allocated effectively.
Security Contagion: Global ripples of local threats
Security contagion refers to the rapid spread of security threats across regions often stemming from the interconnected nature of modern societies including technological advancement (Brett, 2021). This phenomenon can take many different forms, such as geopolitical wars, terrorism, and cyberattacks. Consider the 2017 WannaCry ransomware outbreak, originating from a small vulnerability in outdated Windows systems, this cyber threat swept across the globe in mere hours, crippling hospitals in the UK, halting production lines in Renault factories, and disrupting railways in Germany (Chen &Bridges, 2017; Akbanov et al, 2019). The damage was not confined to any single sector or country, showcasing the cascading effects of a localized threat.
Another striking example is the 2008 financial crisis. While it began in the United States with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, its effects quickly spread worldwide, revealing the fragility of interconnected financial systems (Schoen, 2017; Bernanke, 2018). Countries with robust resource management frameworks were better positioned to weather the storm, emphasizing the importance of preemptive investment in risk mitigation strategies (Lu et al., 2022).
Effectively managing resource in such scenarios is not merely damage control, it focuses on building resilience. Furthermore, since threats frequently cross national boundaries, this involves bolstering cybersecurity measures, fostering international cooperation, and creating rapid response teams capable of mitigating the spread of such threats.
Misinformation and Disinformation: The invisible enemy
Mis/disinformation, characterized by the deliberate spread of false or misleading information, is equally, if not more, insidious. It has the potential to erode public confidence, exacerbate social unrest, and skew decision-making (Heffernan, 2024). This problem was brought to light by the COVID-19 pandemic, as mis/disinformation about the virus and vaccines spread faster than the virus itself causing resistance and reluctance, making public health responses more difficult (Pennycook et al., 2020). Resource management strategies must include the allocation of resources to combat misinformation. This involves investing in fact-checking organizations, enhancing digital literacy among the population, and leveraging technology to identify and counter false narratives. Collaboration with social media platforms and the development of regulatory frameworks are also essential to curb the spread of disinformation.
Interplay Between Security Contagion, and Mis/Disinformation
These two phenomena are not isolated. Mis/disinformation can exacerbate the spread of security threats. For example, during the 2021 Colonial Pipeline cyberattack in the U.S., false reports of fuel shortages spread rapidly, causing panic buying and actual shortages (Lubin, 2022), demonstrating how disinformation can amplify the impact of a security breach.
On the flip side, inadequate resource management can leave societies vulnerable to both. In regions with low digital literacy, misinformation spreads unchecked, while poorly resourced cybersecurity frameworks are ill-equipped to handle the cascading effects of security threats (Skiba, 2024).
The interplay between resource management, security contagion, and mis/disinformation creates a complex landscape. Mis/disinformation can exacerbate security contagions by spreading fear, confusion, and panic, thereby straining resources. For example, misinformation during emergencies can lead to misallocation of resources, as seen in the over-purchasing of medical supplies during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic (Pulido et al., 2020).
Conversely, poor resource management can make misinformation and security contagion worse. While underfunded security infrastructures are ill-prepared to address the cascading impacts of security threats, inadequate investment in public communication and education exposes communities to manipulation.
Learning from the ground
The Estonian government provides an interesting example of proactive investment. Estonia made significant investments in cybersecurity after a significant cyberattack in 2007 and is now among the most technologically resilient countries (Nicol, 2018; Górka, 2023). Since its founding, the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence has been instrumental in the fight against cyberattacks worldwide (Atkinson, 2023).
The European Union’s approach to disinformation is another example. Through initiatives like the European Digital Media Observatory, the EU fosters collaboration among fact-checkers, researchers, and policymakers, pooling resources to combat misinformation effectively (Hoxtell, n.d).
Non-governmental organizations in the Philippines, where false information is widespread started grassroots initiatives to teach people how to spot and avoid fake news (Lewis et al., 2020; Barron, 2021). These programs empower communities to oppose deceptive narratives while simultaneously improving digital literacy.
The way forward
To combat cybersecurity, resources should be allocated for cybersecurity, public communication, and education, including funding for technological advancements and training programs. Establishing international collaboration frameworks for resource sharing and threat mitigation will be helpful. The utilization of artificial intelligence and big data analytics for early detection and response to security threats cannot be left out. It is equally important to foster a culture of transparency and public engagement to build trust and resilience, addressing citizens’ concerns and providing accurate information.
Conclusion
The challenges of security contagion and mis/disinformation are profound, yet they are not insurmountable. Effective resource management by utilizing technological innovation, encouraging international cooperation and public engagement can build societal resilience long-term.
By learning from past incidents and embracing proactive measures, societies can navigate the complex landscape of modern threats, ensuring stability and security in an increasingly volatile world.
References
López, A. B., Pastor-Galindo, J., & Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A. (2024). Frameworks, Modeling and Simulations of Misinformation and Disinformation: A Systematic Literature Review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09343.
Brett, T. (2021). Understanding contagion spreading processes of cyber security threats through social networks (Doctoral dissertation, University of Greenwich).
Chen, Q., & Bridges, R. A. (2017, December). Automated behavioral analysis of malware: A case study of wannacry ransomware. In 2017 16th IEEE International Conference on machine learning and applications (ICMLA) (pp. 454-460). IEEE.
Akbanov, M., Vassilakis, V. G., & Logothetis, M. D. (2019). WannaCry ransomware: Analysis of infection, persistence, recovery prevention and propagation mechanisms. Journal of Telecommunications and Information Technology, (1), 113-124.
Bernanke, B. S. (2018). The real effects of disrupted credit: Evidence from the global financial crisis. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2018(2), 251-342.
Schoen, E. J. (2017). The 2007–2009 financial crisis: An erosion of ethics: A case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 146, 805-830.
Lu, J., Rodenburg, K., Foti, L., & Pegoraro, A. (2022). Are firms with better sustainability performance more resilient during crises?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(7), 3354-3370.
Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Fighting COVID- 19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy- nudge intervention. Psychological science, 31(7), 770-780.
Heffernan, A. (2024). Countering Climate Disinformation in Africa.
Lubin, A. (2022). Cyber plungers: colonial pipeline and the case for an omnibus cybersecurity legislation. Ga. L. Rev., 57, 1605.
Skiba, R. (2024). Shadows of Catastrophe: Navigating Modern Suffering Risks in a Vulnerable Society. After Midnight Publishing.
Pulido, C. M., Villarejo-Carballido, B., Redondo-Sama, G., & Gómez, A. (2020). COVID-19 infodemic: More retweets for science-based information on coronavirus than for false Information. International sociology, 35(4), 377-392.
Nicol, C. (2018). Cybersecurity and national resilience in Estonia.
Górka, M. (2023). Baltic States Cyber Security Policy: Development of digital capabilities in 2017-2022. Stosunki
Atkinson, R. J. (2023). NATO Cyber Defence, 2000–2022 (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Western Ontario (Canada)).
Hoxtell, W. Mitigating disinformation in Europe.
Lewis, D., Kanji, N., & Themudo, N. S. (2020). Non-governmental organizations and development. Routledge.
Barron, A. L. (2021). Freedom of Expression, Fake News, and the Elections: How Expression Is Limited or Amplified in the Democratic Elections in the Philippines. Ateneo LJ, 66, 463.
