Digital Security in Latin America - Early Perspectives on Establishing a Research Group: James Barr

 “Some other countries are struggling, such as Mexico. They need to tackle crime, not cyber security.”

“The price of Chinese technology is much more accessible compared to European or American companies. Paraguay does not produce any technology.”

“In Latin America we can confuse some platforms with the internet itself. The experience of going online is through social media apps, this is a challenge.’’

“Latin America is the most peaceful region regarding interstate conflict and most violent in interpersonal conflict and/or violence. We have to shift focus more towards everyday violence and the use of technology to oppress people.’’

These quotes, captured in a workshop held by the Digital Security in Latin America Research Group (DLSA) in December 2022, illustrate a very important (if sometimes overlooked) point: the importance of context. By context we refer essentially to how the digital relates to, shapes, and is shaped by the on-the-ground realities emergent in a specific time and place.

Sofia, Jess and I are all social, broadly qualitative researchers by background, with a strong interest in Latin America. In early 2022, we started to chat about our research ideas, proposals and plans. In doing so, we began to note some rather intriguing themes. For instance, although some literature existed on issues of digital security in Latin America, it was somewhat limited when compared to a relative abundance written around other regions such as the USA and Europe. Secondly, whilst interesting work was emerging from and on Latin American digital security, much of it has been relatively siloed (though this in fairness is a typical issue across all of academia). Indeed, our chats often led to light academic crossover, where gaps apparent in one field had already been addressed in another - we just needed pointing in its direction.

This got us thinking. What do we need to research? How can we start to bridge the gap between disciplines, and explore the interplay between these various approaches in the context of Latin America specifically? Then it came to us … a workshop would be a vehicle to bring together people from across the disciplines and facilitate interdisciplinary dialogue! Great stuff! Indeed, we soon realised that a workshop could, in the longer term, facilitate a research group. Even better! But then, reality quickly hit us. Before considering that lofty research group-based ambition, we first had to address a rather pressing issue: how do you organise a workshop? Though we had some ideas, we thought it best to start by consulting Professor Google.

After a few weeks, we started to make headway. Initially, progress was made through reflections on our own experiences at workshops, as well as simple chats with more experienced heads versed in the art of workshop design. These various chats were fruitful. Not only did they not tear our idea to shreds, but they also even kindly suggested that it was a very good one. They pointed us to certain people, who pointed us to other people, and over time we developed an idea of what needed doing. This included:

● Planning a theoretical workshop session, including some starter questions and themes for keynote speakers to address.

● Finding some keynote speakers to attract the masses.

● Making a list of potential participants with relevant expertise.

● Finding an online venue (being a workshop on Latin America, we ensured we could facilitate participation from researchers who are based in Latin America).

Of course, progression is never linear. It was challenging finding the right people to talk to. For instance, it took us far too long to realise that we should look to support from within the Royal Holloway CDT, particularly considering the weight of experience, and the CDT’s interdisciplinary focus. Indeed, our own project reflected this latter ethos. Over time, with a bit of thought and elbow grease, we managed to pull together a surprisingly lengthy and strong list of names who, after a round of emails, were more than happy and indeed excited to attend!

So, we had the idea, the plan of action, the list of participants, and amazing keynote speakers. However, we quickly realised that we needed some extra hands to run the sessions. From moderation to note taking, we wanted the workshop to allow all participants a voice and for that voice to be properly noted down for a report. Those people were absolutely crucial in the smooth running of the workshop, and we could not have done it without them.

After months of planning and hard work the day of the workshop came. We had two brilliant keynotes to prompt discussion, and the long and the short of it is that it was a hugely productive session. We covered quite a variety of topics and perspectives, a variety derived largely, we suspect, from the breadth of experience and backgrounds present at the workshop. There were plenty of insights from the workshop, as the twenty-odd page report indicates, but some of the key points were as follows:

● There are many restrictions to researching cyber security in Latin America. Though more courses are becoming available, challenges remain as research areas remain siloed and there is little interdisciplinarity.

● Cyber security policy in the region is for the most part reactive. It draws from international best practices but is not always adjusted to fit the Latin American context.

● There exists a duality between Latin American approaches to cyber security and relationships with the west in shaping them. Partnerships with western states, and in turn the emulation of western state practice, are often seen as measures of cyber security maturity or capability. However, there also exists an appetite amongst Latin American states to pursue their own independent cyber security approaches.

● Processes of political change and the impacts that these have on issues of cyber security, must be understood against a broader backdrop of historical and current conflict.

● When it comes to the practice of cyber security, a divide exists between the policy and the grassroots level. Strategies and policies may satisfy international standards and requirements, but may do little to address local realities and concerns (what might be termed the cyber security of the ‘everyday’).

We will not analyse these points here since the report does this in a far more concise and nuanced manner. Nonetheless, some of the more subtle findings on the tensions between the emulation of western best practice, versus the want for independent cyber security approaches, were of real interest. This issue and the constant references to the need for everyday perspectives and approaches, calls which again reflect the motives of our own PhD programme, are something we think merit further inquiry. Moreover, it is fascinating to note that many of our initial conceptions around the state of the field were reflected in the comments of our participants: research is siloed and at times limited.

Pulling this workshop together was not an easy process, but it was a worthwhile one, both for the voices foregrounded, the people it brought together and as a means to generate new and exciting research (and hopefully further research opportunities). We plan to keep up the momentum and try to put together a few more workshops over the year, addressing some of the themes mentioned above, alongside short articles, blog posts and more. We will keep you posted!

Read our report
Follow us on Twitter
Find out more about the research group
Contact: dsla.connect@gmail.com