Author: Mikko Luomala
165602IVCM
A Student of Cyber Security E-mail: [email protected]
Style Format of the Article: Applied style of the Springer Link Journal92
Citation Style: Chicago Style Footnotes: Approved by Tallinn University of Technology Li- brary93
Status: Ready
Control of version
Versio Modifier Reason Date
1.0 Mikko Luomala Template 13.2.2018
1.1 Mikko Luomala Text 16.2.2018
1.2 Mikko Luomala - -
1.3 Mikko Luomala Final update 3.4.2018
Table of Contents
1 The Scope of the Survey and Contribution ... 102 2 Survey questions for research ... 102 3 Eligible for survey ... 103 4 The institutions which have selected for survey ... 105 5 Results ... 107 6 Contributions after the results ... 107 7 References ... 108
92The sample of the Springer Link style: https://static-content.springer.com/lookinside/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-
3-642-29148-7_42/000.png
93More information of approved citation styles at Our Home University’s website: https://www.ttu.ee/institutes/li-
102
1 The Scope of the Survey and Contri-
bution
The scope of the survey is to obtain current and previous researches of the subject of the re- search questions. The survey method has been selected, which is part of methods of qualitative researches. There is reason to believe in the beginning of the study that there might some studies done related to the subject of the research questions. The contribution of this survey is to con- duct inquire to see what the fellow researchers have done in the subjects and use their data as the base in this thesis study. Therefore, the author contributions are inquires and exploration to the field of the subject of the research questions.
2 Survey questions for research
1. Have a cyber-security succeed on its mission effectively to prevent cybercrimes and mitigate cybercrimes with scientific proofs?
2. Is an organizational resilience with PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-At) an effective solution to prevent cybercrimes and mitigate rate of cybercrimes and are there any scientific proofs to support that those two methods would effectively prevent cybercrimes and mitigate cybercrimes?
3. How well have specialists of cyber-security got it right, when they have implemented technical solutions to prevent -or mitigate cybercrimes and have they proofed scientifi- cally that technical solutions of cyber-security are scientifically effective to prevent or mitigate cybercrimes?
4. There is researches94 which states that physical security solutions and technology do not have valid scientific research to support their effectively to prevent and mitigate crimes? Are cyber-security solutions based on scientific studies or are cybersecurity more like hands of belief that they tend to work as specialists of cyber-security believe them to work?
94 Those researches are from Dsc Teemu Santonen and his research of Yksityiseen turvallisuus-
alaan vaikuttavat muutostekijät and inaddition PhD Jyri Paasonen and his doctoral dissertation of Yksityisen tur- vallisuusalan sääntelyn toimivuus − empiirisiä oikeustutkimuksia yksityisestä turvallisuusalasta.
103
5. The U.S army and ASIS International states that the threat is asymmetrical and is run- ning faster scientifically answer to prevent and mitigate cybercrimes, even history of the man shows that the man goes from problems to new problems or conflicts or crimes? 6. Are those claims sound that technology is effective solution to defeat cybercrimes? 7. The technology has advanced but will it be enough that more advanced cyber-security
technologies and artificial intelligence supported technologies to defeat effectively the cybercrimes?
8. Are the criminologist situational prevention and other advanced crime prevention tech- niques used in the industry of cyber-security? Could those advanced techniques work effectively against cybercrimes rather than these organizational resilience and OODA methods?
3 Eligible for survey
None of qualitative data is an absolutely objective [1]. Therefore, none of humans cannot pre- sent they empirical founding’s or either they knowledge purely objective, because humans ex- perience the world and empirical events differently and humans tend to understand definitions differently which means that there is variation for example how a person feels his or her reality. For this survey the specialists will be selected from research universities and persons which have PhD or DSc from field of criminology or science of security are eligible for this survey or persons which have research degree from social sciences and they have made publications of Crime prevention and security studies.95
There is specified reason why just random specialist cannot be interview for this survey and why they background must be checked and validated. Firstly, in science experts opinions are bottoms of quality of evidence (Figure 1) and secondly, for example industry of security the security practitioners and specialist are offering security solutions which are not based on sci- entific studies that they are effective and truly working and those solutions ability to work is just a hand of belief the practitioners and security specialists of the industry [2]. Thirdly, for
95 The security researches: https://www2.le.ac.uk/research-degrees/phd/criminology/crime-prevention-and-secu-
104
example in Finland there is no regulation or legislation process who is eligible to use and pre- sent he or she as a specialist for the public (Annex 1). This means that persons without any real competence and bogus certificates are eligible legally to claim that they are specialists in some subjects. Fourthly, there are persons in industry of security96 which have bought bogus degree from diploma mills.97
Doctor of Medical Science Hannu Lauerma states that just education and title do not make any argument valid without proofs.98 In addition Skepsis association states that every specialist ar- gument worthy and validity is hand of evidence which the arguing “specialist” presents to sup- port his or her arguments.99 The title and education do not make any valid in science. The sci- entific publications which has been proofed to be scientific and research have repeatability are the reasons to believe that those arguments are valid.
Therefore, for this survey only persons with PhD and Dsc are accepted, because they have ability to do a scientific research and second important criterion is that they must have con- ducted research is security and specially research which evaluated effectivity of security and security solutions and finally, made publications which important measure to evaluate persons expertise and specialty in the his or her field.100 In science the scientific founding’s are not hand of one person’s rationality101 and if other cannot understand his or her arguments or repeat and validate his or her research arguments then his or her statement is more like a philosophical point of view than a scientific truth which can called as theory and in ancients terms as Alethea which stands for truth.102 There are experts which have used non-scientific method to get results and even the scientific evidence is lacking to support his or her claims.103 This is the reason why only PhD and Dsc are accepted to this survey, because they know how to use scientific method and how to make an eminent research. These criterions gives more guarantee that per- sons with precise and eminent evidences, which are accepted to survey, will have value more than just opinions of persons and specialists.
96 Parts from video 2:45 – 3:30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANEH_c94nfI
97 More information from video of Eric Hulsizer on parts of 2:11 – 2:28:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLnE4T4m1pE
98 Hannu Lauerma, Hyvän Kääntöpuoli (Helsinki: Duodecim, 2015), 23.
99 Skepsis Ry, Argumentointi, http://www.skepsis.fi/Ihmeellinen/argumentointi.html 100 Hannu Lauerma, Hyvän Kääntöpuoli (Helsinki: Duodecim, 2015), 22 and 56 and 190.
101 University of Helsinki, vi. Ad hoc, http://www.helsinki.fi/kognitiotiede/kurssit/salaiset_kan-
siot/tps/cog121_iii.htm#adhoc
102 Ari Hirvonen, Mitkä metodit? Opas oikeustieteen metodologiaan (Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2011), 12. 103 Hannu Lauerma, Hyvän Kääntöpuoli (Helsinki: Duodecim, 2015), 26.
105
Figure 1. The pyramid of evidence where expert opinion are bottom of the pyramid.104 The figure 1 explains what is credebility of the data in science. Just intuition and «experts opi- onions» are bottom of the credebility in evidence based practices, which is what science is about. Systematic reviews and argumentations which are repeatable and falsiable, but cannot be falsiable even they can be observed are the highest order in the science. The survey scope is obtain from these researchers and scientist they systematic data and studies of the survey ques- tions. On survey situvation, they might reveal the studies which they have done and therefore, the survey, which is part of qualitive research methods can be used to obtain systematic evi- dence of the current or previous studies of the subject of the research questions.
4 The institutions which have selected
for survey
University of Helsinki
Mikko Aaltonen105 [email protected]
104 Linda Murphy, Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Resources, https://guides.lib.uci.edu/ebm/pyramid s
105 The biography of the Mikko Aaltonen: https://tuhat.helsinki.fi/portal/en/persons/mikko-aaltonen(3a08bca2-
106
Person is in the absent and email was sent to his @om.fi email. University of Turku
The emails were sent to Professor Anne Alvesalo-Kuusi106 [email protected] Laurea University of Applied Sciences
The emails were sent to Teemu Santonen [email protected] University of Leceister
The emails were sent to Dr Matt Hopkins [email protected] and Emeritus Professor Adrian Beck [email protected] .
UEF
Aarne Kinnunen, VTT
UEF did not have his email and email was sent to VTT The VTT replied that he does not work there.
NIST research107 Dr. Jason Boehm
Director, Program Coordination Office 301-975-8678
[email protected] (link sends e-mail)
Susan Ballou
Program Manager, Forensic Science Research, Special Programs Office 301-975-8750
[email protected] (link sends e-mail)
The Susan Ballou was absent and email was sent for his collugue of Json Boehm to inquire does they have criminlogy & cybersecurity research in their research centre.
DHS108
The survey was sent for Daniel Gonzales to his email of [email protected] VTT
Inquire were sent to [email protected] and other researcheres in the facility.
106 List of the personnels in the faculty: https://www.utu.fi/en/units/law/research/research-projects/activepro-
jects/Pages/los.aspx
107 More information of the centre: https://www.nist.gov/coe/forensic-science-center-excellence 108 The biography of the Daniel Gonzales: https://www.rand.org/about/people/g/gonzales_daniel.html
107
5 Results
In 3rd of April, there is no whatso ever email replies in the Tallinn University of Technology official email. The email address was [email protected]. The emails were sent on 21th of Feb- ruary and sofar no answers. The thesis has to be defend in June 2018 and time is running out. Therefore, based on this premises the answer for surveys are that no data or answers from sur- vey questions were be able to obain from the scientists and research centeres. This do not con- clusive mean that there is no answer, but the truth is that no answer or data were unable to obtain by this method from the fellow researchers. In summary, any of the eight survey ques- tions were unable to get the answer.
6 Contributions after the results
The surveys turn out to be for nothing. However, it did give result that fellow scientists and researchers did not answer the questions and there might be reason why they did not answer for the questions. Neverthless, the contributions has been fullied, because the inquire has been done, even through the answers were that no answers were not obtain from the fellow research- ers and scientists.
108
7 References
[1] J. Heinonen, A. Keinänen, and J. Paasonen, “Luetettavuus,” in Turvallisuustutkimuksen
tekeminen, Helsinki: Tietosanoma ltd, 2013, p. 95.
[2] J. Paasonen, “No Title,” in Yksityisen turvallisuusalan sääntelyn toimivuus − empiirisiä
oikeustutkimuksia yksityisestä turvallisuusalasta, Helsinki: Suomen
Turvallisuusosaaminen Oy, 2014, p. 9.
Figures
Figure 1. The pyramid of evidence where expert opinion are bottom of the pyramid. .... 105
Appendixes
109
110