BLUF – A simple premise if you will. Digital transformation is an extension of analog practices. -> Analog practices are human -> Human nature underlies those practices -> Human nature is embedded in digital transformation -> We need to address human nature in these spaces.

Background – After conversations and observations, a conclusion was uncovered. There is nothing new under the sun – including that statement. We look back and find corroborating evidence – it’s not the first time it’s undertaken, regardless what it is.

Cyber is no different. We transfer data without physical means. The information previously relayed in physical form found a different, faster way to get to the intended destination (with editorial features previously absent). However, it’s called digital transformation for a reason – we take what was done physically and are now doing the action virtually. It takes a variety of shapes with exponential growth, but we are still talking about a rooted legacy/ analog concept or practice – now branching virtually.

Cybercrime is the digital transformation of – you guessed it – legacy analog crime. Ransomware is the outgrowth of ransoming stolen property (or possibly blackmail). Phishing is a con using a different postal service. Denial of service is sabotage – cutting the lines or overloading a circuit to trip a breaker. Distribute it and you’ve an insurrection.

Underlying all are human practices – logic, behaviour, actions. What people for ages have employed to gain desired results. Digital transformation as an extension of human practices becomes dangerous – as the natural human counters and balances have not undergone a similar digital shift and are not present. Digital disruption occurs because a human practice’s transformation has traditional human responses – now insufficient to secure the balance previously offered by opponents. Comparable, competitive digital transformative counters either are not fleshed out or are rushed – offering alternatives without planning and with diminished returns.

Following the cybercrime example, enforcement is challenged in areas such as jurisdiction, deterrence, and response models – making countering crime’s digital disruption nearly impossible. Established legal requirements and restrictions offsetting enforcement power disparity now preclude an ability to effectively limit criminal growth in digital spaces. Whilst task-force efforts glean notable successes, in no way are criminals significantly deterred. Until enforcement agencies expand their own digital transformation – rethinking how they operate in this area – there is little to no chance they will ever catch up.

The public trust required to accept those changes is another matter entirely.

If longstanding human practices are the basis for what’s digitally transformed, then human nature underlies those practices. Instinctual human aspects of aggression, in-group conformity, emotionality, rationality, dominance, deception etc. all play pivotal roles in what practices were created – and still resonate through the digital transformation.

To address the challenges of countering unfavourable digital disruption, we must look to digitally transform counter-balancing elements of human nature. Seem complicated? It is. For we barely recognise the underlying roots in analog interactions. Until we are ready to look at creating digital disruption implementing human counters to provision balance against what is deemed unacceptable, we will continue to bear their toxic growth.

When a tsunami becomes the tide. Of course, we are accustomed to the tide.

-scl