Conclusions

2020 ◽  
pp. 239-252
Author(s):  
Raphaël Gellert
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Command And Control ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
The Future ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
And Control

The final chapter provides conclusions containing a summary of the main argument pertaining to the risk-based approach as an implementation of meta regulation in the data protection context. It returns to the debate between rights and risk-based approaches with a focus on the issue of standard setting in data protection, given that the latter has been left out of the equation of the risk-based approach. This renewed focus on the distinction between rights and risk-based approaches allows for a final discussion on the pros and cons of the risk-based approach especially in contrast to a command and control type of data protection. Finally, the chapter also reflects on some of the limitations and contradictions inherent in the notion of regulation and regulation models, and what this means for the future of data protection.

scholarly journals Leading in a VUCA World

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-111
Author(s):  
R Ramakrishnan
Keyword(s):  
Critical Period ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Command And Control ◽  
Insufficient Information ◽  
Control Structures ◽  
The Future ◽  
Entire World ◽  
To Come ◽  
And Control ◽  
Crisis Leaders

The current COVID-19 virus has put the entire world in lockdown, creating one of the worst times of a VUCA world. The changes that are happening because of the pandemic are large scale and occur suddenly. There is a shortage of leadership everywhere. Leaders are unprepared to lead effectively. In this fast-changing and disruptive environment, command and control structures fail. Leaders are expected to act on incomplete or insufficient information. They do not know where to start to drive change as increased complexity makes it difficult. Leaders lack time to reflect and end up acting too quickly or acting too late as they get stuck in analysis paralysis. They are far removed from the source and are forced to act with a limited understanding of events and their meanings. The role and type of leadership are being tested as we are trying to come out of this crisis. Leaders cannot predict the future but need to make sense of it in order to thrive. This paper would analyse challenges that are being faced by leaders in this critical period and how these can be converted into opportunities like a vaccine for the virus.

Issues with data protection as command and control regulation

2020 ◽  
pp. 87-108
Author(s):  
Raphaël Gellert
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Command And Control ◽  
Control Model ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
Control Regulation ◽  
And Control

Chapter 3 shows that a number of the issues that data protection has encountered and which have served as the impetus for the GDPR reform process can be understood from the regulatory viewpoint. More in particular, they amount to the traditional criticism addressed against command and control rulemaking. It is possible to argue that the command and control model of regulation is based upon two assumptions. First, enforcement is operated through sanctions or the threat thereof—what is referred to as deterrencedeterrence|, and it is assumed that such deterrence always works. Second, it is assumed that the regulatory goalsregulatory goals| (and the standards and safeguards they lead to) are somewhat unproblematic. This last set of issues is multi-dimensional insofar as it affects the determination of what counts as an adequate standard and safeguard, but it also affects the implementation in practice of these standards. Just as determining what is the behaviour that will lead to the achievement of regulators is less than obvious, so is the concrete implementation and compliance with the various rules that are meant to lead to such behaviour. This is encapsulated for instance in the data controllers’ uncertainty on how exactly to apply certain data protection provisions, or in the inefficiency of a number of mechanisms such as notification obligations. Finally, due notice should be paid to technological evolutions, which can aggravate these issues.

The Future of Naval Command and Control Systems

1990 ◽  
Author(s):  
C D Byrne ◽  
◽  
W L Lakin ◽  
J A H Miles ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Control Systems ◽  
Command And Control ◽  
The Future ◽  
And Control

The future of command and control for disaster response

2002 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 56-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Rosen ◽  
E. Grigg ◽  
J. Lanier ◽  
S. McGrath ◽  
S. Lillibridge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disaster Response ◽  
Command And Control ◽  
The Future ◽  
And Control

scholarly journals Automation and the Future of Command and Control: The End of Auftragstaktik?

MCU Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-146
Author(s):  
Rosario M. Simonetti ◽  
Paolo Tripodi
Keyword(s):  
New Technologies ◽  
Command And Control ◽  
Historical Perspectives ◽  
Control Functions ◽  
The Future ◽  
Strategic Leaders ◽  
And Control ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Generation Technology ◽  
Advisory Role

The impact of new technologies and the increased speed in the future battlespace may overcentralize command and control functions at the political or strategic level and, as a result, bypass the advisory role played by a qualified staff. Political and/or strategic leaders might find it appealing to pursue preemptive or preventive wars as a strategy to acquire asymmetric advantage over the enemy. This article investigates the roots of this trend, connecting historical perspectives with implications that next-generation technology may have on command and control.

scholarly journals Quantum Cryptography for Nuclear Command and Control

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Hall ◽  
Timothy Sands
Keyword(s):  
Communication System ◽  
Quantum Key Distribution ◽  
Communication Systems ◽  
Command And Control ◽  
Peak Performance ◽  
Large Network ◽  
Interconnected Network ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
And Control

The nuclear inventory of Russia and the USA currently comprises 12,685 warheads in a large network of vehicles; and the interconnected network is managed by a command and control communication system. This command and control communication system (C3) must also relay information from numerous airborne, space-born, and ground sensors throughout the network in potentially degraded environments and are nonetheless meant to securely hold transmissions that must be held to the highest standards of encryption. C3 systems are also arguably one of the most challenging systems to develop, since they require far more security, reliability, and hardening compared to typical communication systems, because they typically must (absolutely) work while other systems fail. Systems used for C3 are not always cutting-edge technology, but they must be upgraded at crucial junctures to keep them at peak performance. This manuscript outlines a blueprint of a way to embed current and future systems with revolutionary encryption technology. This will transform the security of the information we pass to our C3 assets adding redundancy, flexibility, and enhanced speed and insure vehicles and personnel in the system receive network message traffic. Quantum key distribution (QKD) has the potential to provide nearly impregnable secure transmissions, increased bandwidth, and additional redundancy for command and control communication (C3). While QKD is still in its adolescence, how QKD should be used or C3 must be charted out before it can be engineered, tested, and implemented for operations. Following a description QKD functionality, its pros and cons, we theorize the best implementation of a QKD system for C3.

Meta regulation in data protection law: the risk-based approach

2020 ◽  
pp. 136-184
Author(s):  
Raphaël Gellert
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Regulatory Function ◽  
Iso 31000 ◽  
Risk Transformation ◽  
And Control ◽  
Policy Proposals ◽  
Partial Implementation ◽  
Similar Risk

Chapter 5 studies in depth the risk-based approach to data protection, including its rationale and its scope. It shows that it is only a partial implementation of meta regulation. Contrary to meta regulation, it refrains from delegating the regulatory function of standard setting to the regulatees. Instead of addressing all of the issues associated with the “diagnosis-prescription”diagnosis-prescription| flaw associated with command and” control (ie the selection of standards that will lead to satisfactory regulatory outcomes, and the adequate implementation/compliance with the latter), it only focuses on the better implementation of the data protection provisions. In any case, it is also predicated upon the responsibilisation, and hence, the risk transformation of data controllers’ activities. Such responsibilisation is to be found in the modern principle of accountability. Beyond the GDPR, many contemporary statutes have adopted a similar risk-based approach (even though not explicitly named as such). These include Canada’s PIPEDAPIPEDA|, Council of Europe Convention 108+Convention 108+|, etc. These various statutes are discussed and contrasted. Key to the discussion are issues such as the safeguards and type of regulatory collaboration these statutes provide for (eg data protection impact assessment), or how the risk management obligations fare in comparison to the ISO 31000 risk management StandardISO:31000 risk management Standard 2009|, which can be considered the canon in this matter. Finally, this chapter also examines a number of policy proposals that featured a different type of risk-based approach. Namely, one that espouses meta regulation’s delegation of the standard setting function to the regulatees.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document