 Mae'r rhaid i'r gweithio ar y cyfnod yma ar y cyfnod gyda'r ysgolion yma. Felly, rydyn ni'n ddod, rydyn ni'n ddod i chi i'ch gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio? Mae'n ddod i chi'ch gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio. Dydyn ni'n begendfans ar y rhaid, ond rydyn ni'n gweithio'r cyfnod ar y gyfnod digwydd yma. Felly mae'n gofynu'r gweithio'n gweithio cyfnod y dweud ac i gweithio'r lecternid gweithio'r maen i chi i i'r EIA. Mae hynno fyddwch bod upswch a'r lecternid isio'r nefyd gan cyfnodau cyfaradur yw'r cyffredinol ar ei ddydd, ond y cyfnod hynny. Mae'n ddau'r ysgol yn ymdegol. Mae'n ddau'r ysgol yn ymdegol yw Professor UCD. Mae'n ddau'r ysgol yn y Cymru Wilson. Mae'n ddau'r ysgol yn y Cymru, a'r ysgol yn y Cyfrifol Cymru UC3 a'r ysgol yn y panel ar y cwm. Nid yw Professor Acon yw ymddangos i danau mae'n de応ol yn ddau'r ysgol yn ymdegol, mae yw'r cyfrifol gyda'n eu cyflosfeydd. Mae'n gweithio at bwysig o gwybodaeth ond sy'n dysgu'r cyfrifol yn ymdegol i gyfan gyfer Cyfrifol Cymru. ond, mae'r cyd-widdig yn tra bobl maradwm, ac mae'r cyd-widdig yn dweud ar gyflawni'r pedig. Mae'r cyd-widdig yn ddod o'i ddweud ar gyfer ei gwaith, amryl yn gyflawni'r parodion am y Amazon sales chartiaeth i China. Dyna dwi'n credu'r cetch. Mae Llywodraeth Llywodraeth ac mae'r c fadingoedd o'r plankrawl o'i china. Mae'n pawb i sixon i'r cethaig. Mae'n cethaig. I think that's quite an amazing accomplishment, so Mary, we're really pleased to have you here, it's a great honour and you know Mary's an international speaker, she's just back from London, so we're really pleased to have you here today and we look forward to your presentation. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I'll school and set up a watch here because I'll lose track of time when I start speaking. So thank you very much for the invitation, I'm delighted to be here at the Institute of International European Affairs and thank you to everybody for coming today. So I really want to get to the conversation part where we can chat, so I'm going to just flip through my slides and really put up constructs that I want us collectively to talk about. So I'm not going to explain anything in great depth, but really just sort of set up pointers to generate discussion. So living in cyberspace is what we're going to be talking about today, yes, and I'm a professor at the Geary Institute. So I was approached by the European Investment Bank a couple of months ago to write a piece, they had this series, they called their Big Ideas series, and they wanted me to write on life in cyberspace, they'd done a piece on water and on forests, and they asked me to write about on cyberspace, which I thought was interesting. So if anybody is interested in reading the paper, this is the paper I'm going to be talking about today, or just a PowerPoint presentation on it, you can go to eib.org and you'll find it under essays, life in cyberspace. So first of all, what is cybersychology? It's the study of the impact of technology on human behaviour, and in fact Ireland is a centre of excellence for cybersychology. We have cybersychology modules at an undergrad level, master's level, and we have doctoral candidates now coming through with PhDs in cybersychology. I was one of the first to get my PhD in cybersychology. Effectively, I originally studied psychology back in the day in the 80s, and when I came across artificial intelligence in the 90s in the form of chatbots, for me it was that sort of moment of everything changed. I looked at chatbots and I thought about, you're all familiar with chatbots as a form of AI, and I thought, wow, they could be incredible for kids with maybe learning difficulties, or I also thought about social isolation. And then I stopped and I thought, or maybe not, maybe this could be the worst thing that they could do. And immediately I decided that I need to know more about this, so I went to the literature, started looking at it, and it came across cybersychology. And then in the 2000s came across the masters and decided to go back and to re-qualify, do my masters and do my doctors. My specialist area is forensic cybersychology. So forensic cybersychology is criminal, deviant and abnormal human behaviour online, and unfortunately I'm kept very busy. So the first thing that I want to talk to you about today is a paradigm shift. People like me have been talking about cyberspace as a place for a decade, 15 years. So when you go online, you are logging in, you are going online, you are getting into a space. And I had been discussing, and cybersychologists discuss this as an abstract space. But in 2016, NATO declared that cyberspace was a domain of warfare, an environment, an actual place. And nobody paid attention. And I think it's a very, very important issue that cyberspace now has been officially recognised as a space. And what NATO was acknowledging is that the battles of the future will take place on land, sea and air and on computer networks in this space. And the acknowledgement of this environment, this cyber ecosystem has implications, social implications in terms of the psychology of this space. It has legal implications in terms of jurisdiction. How do we treat this space, international air, waters, air space, and business in terms of industry operating in this space, and also political implications. So I like this definition. It actually comes from the US Army Cyber Command Joint Protocols. It's a definition of cyberspace, a global domain, information environment, interdependent networks of information, telecommunications, embedded processors and controllers. But what's very interesting is that the Joint Protocol actually divides it up into three layers. The physical network, which we're all familiar with in terms of the actual infrastructure, if you will. The logical network, which is the communications in cyberspace. And the cyber persona, that's us. That's the humans. So think of these three things interacting with each other in cyberspace. And now if we think about cyber persona in cyberspace, we can actually go back and draw on the literature and the learnings from environmental psychologists such as Prachanski and his work in the 80s, who actually conducted extensive studies regarding the impact of environment on human behavior. Now think of cyberspace as a place, as an environment. And think about the impact on human behavior on the individual in terms of the psychology of the individual and on the group in terms of from a sociology perspective. And then how do we transpose that knowledge and information in terms of traditional learnings in psychology into this new space, this cyber ecosystem? Just touching on here the construct of state and trace in cyberspace. So we see powerful behavioral drivers. In other words, human behavior mutates in cyber context. We see the power of anonymity, which is a super power, almost a mythical power of invisibility that comes with great responsibility. We see the online disinhibition effect, the work of Seuler, where people will do things in cyber context that they will not do in the real world. We see cyber immersion, the psychological power of this space. Now at the moment we can think about interacting with our devices at a distance, but the next evolution of technologies, HMDUs, head mounted display units, not only will we, and young people in particular, be psychologically immersed in this space by the time you're putting on your head mounted display unit, you will also be physically encased in this space. I say to parents, if you think you have a problem with your kids turning up at the dinner table with their mobile phones in their hands, wait till you see a row of them in helmets and try communicating with them. Then we have escalation. I've been involved in a dozen different research areas, everything from the impact of technology on the developing infant, cyber babies, through to cybercandria, which is a form of hypochandria manifested online, through to organized cybercrime. The one thing that I've observed, and I say observed because I don't have the studies to prove in terms of causation, is that whenever technology interfaces with a base human disposition, the result tends to be amplified and escalated online. And I called this effect the cyber effect. I believe it's the E equals MC squared of this century. If we can figure out this escalation particularly in negative context, we can then also figure out how to de-escalate, how to stage intervention to deal with negative behaviors online. I get criticized for focusing on negative aspects of technology. I'm absolutely pro-technology. I'm a cyber psychologist. I spend a disproportionate amount of my time online. But the reason I focus on the problems or problematic use of technology is with the view to solving these problems, to come up with technology solutions to technology facilitated problem behavior. There are an army of marketeers, some might be in the room, out there telling us everything is good. I'm over here saying it's not so good. And my intention is that that introduces balance into the debate so we can meet in the center. Online syndication, I'll come back to that because it's on a slide here. We know cybercrime. A cost of cybercrime is soaring. It's just one stat, 600 billion. Hard to estimate but it's a McAfee stat. We have a basic typology in terms of cybercrime. We have internet enabled crimes. For example, fraud existed pre-internet. Now we have cyber fraud. That's one half of the typology. But then you have internet specific crimes such as hacking, which did not exist pre-technology. So the digital world, and these are just extracts from the paper, has transformed almost every aspect of our lives including risk and crime. And crime is now much more efficient. However, the cost of what goes wrong in cyberspace is not just financial. We are also paying a high price in human terms with the evolution of trolling of online bullying. The rise in sleep, interruption and deprivation, particularly in children and young adults. The surge in anxiety and depression in young people associated with technology use. And again I say association, not causation because we need more research in this area in terms of complex modelling of what's happening. But what we have seen is we've seen a 70% increase in anxiety and depression in young people in the last 25 years. And what we see is the widespread commercialisation of human data. After this when we're chatting we can talk about GDPR and I can talk a little bit about my work on the digital age of consent and why I was convinced that it had to be 16 and now thankfully is 16. And then we see the gamification of electoral process evidenced by the manipulation of constituents' behaviours online. So you're familiar with this in terms of Brexit, you're familiar with this in terms of the US election. I've published a paper on this which is published on the Wilson Centre. It's in the resources here in this tech and it's called Manipulating Fast and Slow and it looks at Canaan's theories in this area. When you talk about behavioural manipulation online it's good to do a deeper dive and understand what actually does that mean. How do you manipulate behaviour online? And with the general election looming in Ireland we need to be focused on this in terms of this potential vulnerability in terms of how voters may be persuaded in a best case scenario and maybe manipulated or coerced in a worse case scenario in terms of what's happening online. It's going to touch on this. This is a Europol map. It's a heat map. It's a cyber crime heat map. So you can see the darker areas are where cyber criminal infrastructure is more prevalent and it's just it's a mapping of where cyber crime is happening. And when I saw this map at Europol I actually thought about another map and I thought goodness this is interesting. So here's another map. Just bear that image in your mind for a second. Data visualise it. This is the Shodan map. Does everybody know what Shodan is? Shodan is the map that shows all devices connected to the internet at any point in time. So you can see the heat map here where you would expect. Now let's think about going forward in terms of looking at predicting future threats. Effectively look at all the dark areas that are not connected in a meaningful way at the moment. And if we think that we are having a problem with cyber crime at the moment what will it look like going forward when we have this sort of heat map of connectivity worldwide. Now let's jump out of cyber security and do my favourite thing and go into a completely different area. Now let's think about global warming. Can anybody see what might happen here across the equator when you have global warming? When you have a catastrophic event like a famine or a drought and where you have populations in these areas that have no way of actually providing for themselves or their families other than using the connectivity afforded by the internet to engage in criminal activity not because they want to be criminal but because they are doing it to survive. And from a societal point of view we need to think about this in terms of staging interventions not just with global warming but interventions in terms of how technology will be deployed in these areas in a way that actually is going to make it sustainable for all of us over time in terms of the internet being sustainable over time and not subject to catastrophic shifts in terms of either climate events or other drivers. So this is a report for ARM. ARM is the manufacturer chips and processors. They make about 70% of these for devices worldwide. I'm an academic advisor to ARM and we're doing a number of projects at the moment. My work with them specifically is in terms of educating children in terms of best use of technology. And we're looking forward at IoT, a trillion connected devices, so the internet of things. So again, let's think about this another way. So this cyber utopian, this cognitive dissonance, that it's a good idea to connect to trillion things and not to think that something could go wrong. So at the moment from a cyber security perspective and an Irish perspective, we actually talk about security threats and attacks and attacks on critical infrastructure. The point at which we have a trillion connected devices, we won't be talking about potential attacks on critical infrastructure, we'll be talking about attacks on all infrastructure. Now come back to the physical network, the logical network and cyber persona from the joint protocols and let's think about Ireland's resilience in this context. The great news is that we're an island with limited points of entry for the internet. So if we did have a massive attack on all infrastructure, we could actually look at a physical solution whereby we might secure our island with these limited points of entry. We're not like Luxembourg where it's a thousand connecting points. The second thing in terms of the logical network, we might start to consider alternative communication pathways if the internet goes down for a short period or for an extended period. Do we move to satellite? Do we move to radio in terms of being able to communicate? Or do we have an intranet within the country that we can shift off the internet and move on to another communication pathway? Then in terms of cyber persona, we have so many tech companies HQed in Ireland. We have the capacity to have an incredible act of response force and I would suggest that we start thinking about the creation of a cyber reserve. Can you imagine having that many cyber defenders on call that we could actually draft them in to deal with some catastrophic event? Online syndication, so this is, I describe it as the mathematics of abnormal behaviour online. So today the incidence of abnormal behaviour has been capped or maintained by the laws of proximity and domain. What does that mean? I'm a sex offender in the north of the country and you're a sex offender in the south of the country, not you. What were the chances of us coming together to normalise and socialise our behaviour? It was capped by distance. We weren't likely to come into contact with each other and in addition to that there would be great personal risk involved in us expressing a particular preference until we go online. Now under the cover of anonymity and fuelled by online disinhibition we can syndicate to find each other. My prediction is, and I hope I'm wrong but probably not, is that this will actually drive the incidence of criminal, deviant and abnormal behaviour in general population. There's an argument in terms of causation correlation. Does the connectivity afforded by the internet cause bad behaviour? Possibly not. I sometimes think, if we think about this connectivity at this psychological level, let's think about it another way. Maybe it just shines a very bright light into the darkest reaches of human psyche, what young called the million year old man, and maybe we're all just game of thrones underneath it all. I hope not, but it's a possibility to think about it. So anonymity. I think that for us as a think tank, like this institute, I think we should not be afraid to challenge what I call the sacred cows of the internet. Just because the internet was developed and the premise of anonymity is almost embedded into it does not mean that it is the way to proceed. Yes, we want a dissident in an oppressed regime to be able to wake up and tweet or blog, but at what cost? If the cost of anonymity online is soaring cybercrime, if it's trolling, if it's the sextortion of children by anonymous predators or those who have a commercial interest in the child, then we have to have that conversation about the greater good. And maybe going forward, we work with anonymous protocols rather than anonymity online, and that's something we can talk about when I finish up. So this is my book, The Cyber Effect, and when I was working on it, I got a call from an editor in Washington and she said, Bob would love you to come to his house for dinner. He's very excited about this book he's heard about it, and I said Bob who? And she said Bob Woodward, and I was like, oh my goodness. And I went to dinner with Bob and there were four or five guests in the house. I know there were four or five guests and he literally grilled me for three hours. I didn't eat anything. Every time I lifted a fork, I was answering a question. And what a brilliant man, what an incredibly fine mind to jump into a subject that he literally had. There was very specialised and really get to the bottom of every point very quickly over the period of time. And I was embarrassed the next day. I actually rang his wife and apologized. I said, I'm so sorry. I ruined the dinner. I spent the whole dinner talking about my book and she said to me Mary, don't worry, Bob's house, Bob's rules. If Bob didn't want to talk about your book, we wouldn't have spoken about it. But Bob actually very kindly reviewed my book and he wrote that just as Rachel Carson launched the modern environmental movement with her Silent Spring, which is Rachel Carson's famous book, Mary Aiken delivers deeply disturbing, utterly penetrating and urgently timely investigation into the perils of the largest unregulated social experiment of our time. And while I'm beyond flattered that Bob would even think of my work in any way as being in the same league as Rachel Carson, what he did make me think about was the environmental movement. Now, let's think about cyberspace. Let's think about this environment. Now let's transpose a fundamental principle within the environmental movement into cyberspace, into this new environment. And one of the fundamental principles is the precautionary principle. So in the environmental movement, the precautionary principle dictates that it's not up to us to prove that the oil company is contaminating the sea. It's not up to us to prove that the water utility company is contaminating the water. It is up to them to prove that they are doing no harm. Come back to cyberspace. When we have spills and pollution in cyberspace, when we have, you know, if you look at social media, when we have live killings, live streamed online, when we have children exposed to extreme and violent and adult pornographic content, when we have children accessing self-harm sites in terms of anorexia or cutting sites, who is responsible for the pollution of cyberspace? And who is responsible when something happens on a motorway and there is a horrific accident and images are taken and then disseminated in this space? Is it the device manufacturer? Is it the internet service provider? Is it the social media platform? Is it the app developer? Or are they all collectively responsible for this space? And should we in a social context, in a political context, in a legal context, from an industry perspective, should we be applying the precautionary principle to cyberspace? Should we be forcing all parties who prosper, who commercialize, who monetize this space to step up and be responsible and be accountable? And going forward, what are the issues that we are going to face? We need to look at these problems from an ethical perspective. This is a recent development by a research group at MIT. They are proudly boasting, if you will, that they have developed the world's first psychopathic AI. What could go wrong? What happens when this thing jumps out of the lab and gets in the wild? What happens when it turns its focus to unsupervised children who are actually growing up in cyberspace? There is no shallow end of the swimming pool online. The internet, another sacred cow of the internet, it was founded on the premise that all users are equal, but this is not the case. Some are more vulnerable than others, and particularly children. So what do we need? We need research, we need more investment and research in this space, which is why I'm delighted to be here in an academic forum to talk about it. We need to broaden scientific investigation, and we need to consider how we handle behavioural problems in this environment that are evolving at the speed of technology. And in my paper, I argue that I don't believe scientific breakthroughs are achieved by metaphorically sitting on the fence. We need cyber leadership, and we desperately need academic first responders. In terms of research projects, by the time you apply for a grant, by the time the grant gets awarded, by the time you hire the people to collect and analyse the data, by the time you do your analytics and you write up your results and then you submit to a peer-reviewed publication, you're talking about probably a three to five year timeline. It is likely, if not probable, that the phenomenon under study has already passed by the time we have the evidence based studies to inform policy. And what I am arguing is we don't have to wait, yes of course we want an evidence based approach over time, but we also need expert opinion and expert intervention and working groups and policy forums to actually act now, children are being born, they are engaging with technology. We are, these problems are happening now. My great friend and colleague Mcmorran, an Irish garther who actually rose to the level of a director at Interpol, he says we are facing a tsunami of problem behaviour and criminal behaviour coming at us down the line online. So, instead of thinking about cyberspace and all things that pertain to technology in these silos, you know, communications separate from children and youth in terms of departments, defence over here, justice over here, health over here, finance, what I am arguing for is that what we need is a polyvalent policy approach. We need to join the dots and bring these silos together to look at these problems. And how do we do that? You know, in coming back to cyberspace as a continuum, think of cyberspace as a continuum. On the far left we have the keyboard warriors. We have, you know, the hands off the internet in terms of regulation and governance. And that is based on a fundamental idealism about freedom of the internet. And then over on the right we have social media, social technology industries who also have an idealism around not wanting to see too much regulation in this space because there's a cost associated with it. And you have these two entities who are somehow strategically aligned. And the rest of us, the 99% of us, 99.9% of us and our children, we get to live in the middle with no say in this space. So my plea here today is let's take back cyberspace. Let's look at how we can collectively approach ethics and governance and best practice in this space. And effectively the best approach is transdisciplinary. Now anybody in this room who's involved in an academic context will know how difficult it is to bring different disciplines together. I was at one such brainstorming at the Royal Society and the social scientists couldn't agree with this computer scientist and the mathematicians couldn't agree. It was an interesting day. And so was the report that had to be painfully crafted as a result of the session. But now everything is changing. For me the way through is actually look at all these disciplines that we now have. Cyber psychology, cyber ethics, digital humanities, cybersecurity, health tech, fintech, computer science, robotics, AI. What do we all have in common in a transdisciplinary context? We are all speaking the same language of cyber. And therein lies the hope to create a fantastic forum to actually debate and discuss these issues in a transdisciplinary manner. And I would like to use this opportunity, if I may, to call for the consideration of some form of digital futures forum where we could bring this vision together in an Irish context that may help to inform European policy, that may help to inform global policy in this area. And I'm just going to leave you with something to think about. So for Irish cyber society going forward, we have three aims in an age of technology. One is an aim of achieving and maintaining privacy. The other is an aim of delivering on collective security. And the third is to ensure the vitality of the tech industry. And the most important thing is that none of these aims should have primacy over the other. Privacy cannot trump collective security. And the vitality of the tech industry cannot trump individuals' rights to privacy. And the key going forward is really to achieve balance. I get very worried and concerned regarding how we can deliver on collective security where there are now encrypted domains that are effectively beyond the law. And this will be problematic going forward. So just last slide from my paper. What is new is not always good. Technology only brings progress when we are able as a society to mitigate its most harmful effects. Thank you for your time.