The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Okay. Okay. Thank you, thank you very much. And good morning to the brave audience that we have them at 9:00 a.m. here in beautiful Oslo. Thank you for joining us. And thank you for those that are online. And I know that Chris Painter is online, he's very brave it's like 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. in Washington, D.C. so Chris thank you for that
This is an open forum of Cyberdefense and AI in Developing Economies. And my name is Olga Cavalli. I’m a Dean of the National Defense Faculty of Argentina. That is managed by the Ministry of Defense in Argentina. And I'm director of the South School of Internet Governance that's organized since 2009 and in several countries in India and the Americas. With the 17th addition this year in beautiful Mexico City. And let me first introduce my dear colleagues and friends in the panel.
We have Jose Cepeda a parliamentarian from Spain. And unfortunately he couldn't come to Oslo and he was conflicted with the agenda and he sent us a nice video in Spanish by it has captions in English
We have a my dear friend Ram Mohan. He is a chief strategy officer of Identity Digital an a former ICANN board member. And you are the Chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee of ICANN, right?
>> RAM MOHAN: That's correct.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: So you are a very powerful person in the panel.
We have Chris Painter my dear friend, former director of Global Forum on Cyber expertise. Hi Chris. It's so early there. You’re so brave. And thank you so much for being with us today. And also he was the first cyber ambassador of the United States at the time of Obama, this is right, right? You were the first cyber ambassador.
>> CHRISTOPHER PAINTER: Yes the first high level cyber diplomat.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you. And Wolfgang Kleinwachter professor at Aarhus and former commissioner of the Global Commission on Stability in Cyberspace. He will join us a little bit late because he's arranging his things for his travel to home.
We have my dear friend, Philipp Grabensee. Philipp is an attorney and former chair of Afiias. And we have my other dear friend, Luis Adrian Salazar, he's the former ICT Minister of Costa Rica and is now professor in the University of University of ULatina, ULatina, in Costa Rica. A country that was host of one of our schools, very well remembered. Very nice.
Let me briefly make some introduction about the issue that I've been thinking about it's important to reflect and to share with you some thoughts. We know that Artificial Intelligence is bringing profound changes to many things, public management, economy, regulations. That's changing dynamics of cyberattacks and allowing threat that is a previously took months to develop are quickly executed in minutes. So Artificial Intelligence is changing many thing that is a we believe but also in defense. And strategic and geopolitical of Artificial Intelligence in the military spear has a central role in the wars of the future.
It can act as an advisor and collaborator and autonomous Norwegian in conflict. But it poses ethical and governance challenges. We had an interesting panel yesterday ‑‑ oh, there comes Wolfgang. Welcome. I was talking about the session that you hosted yesterday. That was very interesting. Welcome. Join us.
>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Sorry for being late.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: I already presented you but thank you for being here. And we were talking yesterday about autonomous weapons and how Artificial Intelligence is changing also that landscape. We transform warfare by increasing the speed and precision and autonomy of military operations and altering geopolitical dynamics and requiring new forms of preparation.
With a strategic factor in future wars for several reasons. Speed and accuracy of decision making. All processes ‑‑ the Artificial Intelligence process large volumes of data in realtime allowing commanders to make faster and more accurate decisions than humans accelerating the chain of command and the execution of attacking and automation in the attacks and system the AI can collaborate as a Norwegian on the battlefield, controlling drone, missile defense systems (?) and increasing effectiveness and reducing human exposure.
Shifting the global strategic balance. The Artificial Intelligence can alter the balance of power between countries. Generating risk of rapid escalation and preemptive action due to speed of reaction and perception of strategic advantage. New forms of hybrid warfare and cyberattacks. Artificial Intelligence empowers faster and more sophisticated cyber attacks. And advanced operation planning. It enable assimilation of tack call scenarios to optimize attacks and defense plans and. There's ethical and governance challenges.
The military use of Artificial Intelligence rises the need for international regulation to ensure its accountability, reliability, and governability, avoiding the risk of misuse or uncontrolled escalation. This was also discussed in the very interesting workshop that Wolfgang hosted yesterday in this same room.
The urgency of automated response system and trained personnel is key in this new scenario. So the question is, how developing economies can face this challenges and can profit from this new advantages of Artificial Intelligence? So there are challenges, there are advantages. Are we creating a new divide in between countries that are very well developed in Artificial Intelligence and others lagging behind? Or maybe Artificial Intelligence can be used by developing economies, perhaps using them from a far online using profiting from the ‑‑ from the different systems that are online now.
So first we will have a video that Jose Cepeda a parliamentary from Spain sent us. As I said before he is not able to be with us, not even online because he's busy but he sent a nice video and the video is in Spanish but there's captions in English. Can we show the video, please?
[video playing with captions]
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Sorry, I switched language (Laughter). So sorry. I was just thanking Jose for his very interesting video. He prompted me some questions that I will include in the comments that I want to share with other panelists. And also I know his team was going to follow the session online. So regards and thanks for the contribution for taking the time of not only recording the video but adding the script, which is important because we don't have translation in the room.
And he prompted some new questions that I included in the panelist. And I will switch to my dear friend, Ram. You are a very important cybersecurity expert. What does cyberdefense readiness mean in the context of a emerging digital economy? And also I would like to ask you how do you think that developing economies could benefit from using Artificial Intelligence systems in the cloud? Not having them onsite but having them virtually accessed? How do you think that could enhance the national development of a strategies and using defense? And thank you, welcome.
>> RAM MOHAN: Thank you, Olga, you are very kind income the context of an emerging digital economy that's being driven by AI, cyberdefense readiness means having the comprehensive capability to understand, to anticipate, to prevent, detect, respond to, and rapidly recover from cyber threat that is a really could disrupt digital infrastructure, services and commerce and governance. Our modern world is fundamentally built on internet connectivity.
It is no longer just a convenience, it is an invisible infrastructure supporting nearly every aspect of our lives from critical services to daily activities. Now, this new and evolving digital infrastructure is being driven by dramatic AI enhancements. And that requires a robust adaptive defense posture. So what does that mean? Cyberdefense readiness means you have to be able to enable critical services because the internet underpins essential services and you look at health care and you look at financial transactions and transportation, energy grids, even emergency response today depend upon the internet to be up and running.
So a resilient cyber defense strategy will ensure that vital services of are prioritized and that developing economies the governments have a clear set of priorities and a clear set of plans to keep those services operational. And that requires proactive monitoring proactive prevention because you cannot just react to these things. You look at AI and look at national cybersecurity strategies and developing countries have cybersecurity strategies. Most are useful now. Because AI has changed the entire nature of cybersecurity.
And rapid detection and response in sectors like energy or telecom or finance or health care, most of those sectors are still having plans that for them advanced cyberdefense means they can respond in the cloud.
But the cloud is now merely enabling amplifying factor for AI‑based attack systems. There's a real need to focus ongoing beyond rapid detection and response. And being able to think about, do you have the ability to even know that the attack coming at you is AI driven? Because AI driven systems today can masquerade as a friendly force. And do it in a way that is far more superior than it used to be when you had humans doing it. When humans say another state actor was coming at you, you could find traits of those threat actors. But the AI systems completely understand how your local languages or the dialect is. Or and they can create images that that look exactly identical to your existing cyberdefense capabilities.
It's a world where your existing cyberdefense is going to be used against you. Can you find out that it's being used against you? Because that's what AI systems are capable of doing. In the commercial world it's already happening. You look at phish attacks that come through, they are so beautifully done right now.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Extremely sophisticated.
>> RAM MOHAN: So sophisticated and it's not only the sophistication, it's individualized. It used to be that spear phishing was a one‑off thing. You had to really work hard to know you are Olga Cavalli and I have to target you and go and look at your social media profile and try to write something special for you that will trick you. AI agents can do that automatically and come at you in different ways. For developing economies the problem that they have is one of can they scale? And can they adapt?
Because AI driven cyber attacks are scaling and adapting faster than ever before. And cyberdefenses therefore also have to scale quickly. Because volume is not the only problem anymore. It is now the quality is likely to get much better than before. And so you are moving from a brute force attack model to a targeted, focused, and very directed set of attacks. So the attack plane is changing and the scale of it is also changing.
One other thing that I want to point out is the AI and cyberdefense, it's not so much about the technology. In my opinion, most of it is about the people and the processes. Developing economies are not prioritizes or they need to prioritize creating a skilled workforce that not only has a security first culture but actually understand how to harness AI engines and AI systems in order to mount a cyberdefense.
It's one thing to have the ability to detect an AI driven cyber attack. But it's another thing if your economy doesn't have the skillset to respond to it. Then you are going to have a problem. However, if you are a developing economy and you as a government, as a university system focus on that, it is an amazing engine of economic growth. Because the number of people who actually understand these technologies and can harness these technologies is tremendously small. And if you are a developing economy that builds a strong base in your economy of having skilled people who understand not just understand AI. We are not talking about creating prompt engineers. We are talking about having people who can go multiple skillsets above that.
That I think is a tremendous opportunity, right? Many years ago, there was this idea that you offshore the undifferentiated technical tasks. Right? I think we are now in an era where because of AI, you have a need for differentiated technical work. And only a few countries are going to develop these skills for it. The major economies, even in the major economies, in my opinion, I think the United States and China are well ahead of most other major economies. But the advantage here for a developing economy is it's primarily about knowledge and skills.
If you develop that, you could actually lope frog other developed economies and become a real force in cyberdefense readiness.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Thank, Ram, leapfrog concept came to my mind when you were saying that. Because sometimes when you start from behind but you can profit from the development of certain technologies maybe you can capture them. So you think that human resources and train of human resources could be the key to have some value at the national level? Even in countries that have other problems.
What happens in developing economies is priorities sometimes capture the attention of everyone. And this problems that seem to be from other developing economies or other places are lagging behind. But then when something happens when an attack happens you realize it was important to have trained people. So maybe training could be the key to solve this. A group of trained human resources
>> RAM MOHAN: Yeah, look the pervasive problem is that proactive preparedness is not very attractive. Doesn't attract funding. And is not sexy. Right? What is more interesting is there's a huge problem. And then you rally people. You put out a fire. And ‑‑ and nation leaders then get on TV and get a lot of attention. Because they are directing the cyberdefense at that point, right?
But if you invest the time and training in a skilled workforce, you ought to be able to anticipate these problems. And then you will find other countries coming to you, asking you for help. And that's going to develop your local economy.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Fantastic, thank you, thank you very much. I would like now to move to Chris Painter. Chris, thank you again for being to early. What time is it? 2:00 a.m., 3:00 a.m. You are a expert in cyber diplomacy and international relations and the regional debates and the spaces for this issues are being discussed.
Also you were involved in several training capacity building and in your role in the form of cyber expertise. How do you see this evolving? We were talking about in in the workshop yesterday. The different spaces where this is debated and the difficulties of having international rules or treaties to help countries have some rules and thank you again for being so early up with us.
>> CHRISTOPHER PAINTER: Happy to join you, even though it's 3:30 in the morning today and I wish I was there. It's very hot in DC or will be today as the day starts.
I want to build on the other comments. I certainly agree that Artificial Intelligence is both, you know, as the threat because we see criminal actors using it and increasingly using its as you said. But very much helps the defender if used correctly.
I think one of the concerns here ‑‑ well there's a couple concerns. One, as you said, Olga, there's many, many forms. There's regional forms like the AOS and the American states and EU. There's organizations and security corporation in Europe and the LCD and the African union. And Aussie and others and certainly this is being debated in the UN and a issue for this and especially in the developing economy is a resource issue is trying to follow these debates and with cybersecurity generally in the a couple weeks we'll be wrapping up this phase of the open‑ended working group for cybersecurity at the UN in New York, which is a 5‑year mission, sort of like Star Trek, which coming to a close.
But one of the problems especially for not just developing economies but small countries is participating in those meetings in New York, and participating in the literal plethora of other meetings around the world on every topic around cybersecurity and more generally around digital issues is a challenge. And that's exacerbated with respect to Artificial Intelligence. While I agree the Artificial Intelligence poses these real challenges I worry sometimes that Artificial Intelligence is completely monopolizing the debate in a way that's important. Because we do have to debate it and it's good to be ahead of the curve to the extent we can be.
But a lot of time, core cybersecurity issues which is related and intertwined and somewhat also different too don't get the attention they deserve. So at the policy level a lot of governments are like we need ‑‑ we need to do things about AI, which is true. But there's also ignoring some basics that we talked about for a long time and the need for cybersecurity. And I do think that cybersecurity and AI, although they are intertwined, will both be important. AI could certainly be a benefit. Right now I think the benefit of AI is making sense of the giant mass of data for system administrators and defenders to more prioritize threats. In the future it will certainly offer a lot more.
I do worry about that deprioritization of some basics of cybersecurity. You need to do both. The other thing I worry about particularly for developing economies and this is said by others. Is that just like in cybersecurity, a lot of countries or developing don't have the resources to do what they need to do inside of cybersecurity. Including policy. And I do think a lot of countries now have cyber strategies. I don't think they are completely obsolete now. So I disagree with you a bit, there, last speaker, but I think that's good. Those are roadmaps and we worked for many years to get that to happen.
But a lot of countries still don't have national level certs or response teams. They don't really have trained law enforcement, they don't have trained technical people, they don't have policies within their government. They integrate with this digital and some other areas. And I think that's a continued problem because it needs to be a political attention with every country, whether developing or not.
And I think the rationale for that, the strongest one is that if every country around the world, which is true, including developing countries most particularly are trying to maximize digitization and catch this digital transformation, including AI, which is great to help their people. But cybersecurity is still on important plank of that. So I think that's important too.
And I worry about developing economies being left further behind and creating a virtual divide where if you have a specialized area of AI that they don't have. And this based on what you said, Olga. If they don't have the trained workforce to work in this area or the trained investment in this area. Not that every country has to be a leader in Artificial Intelligence itself and development. But they have to take advantage of this as a resource and also be able to appreciate where the threat is. And frankly work countries. And I think that's always important.
On that looking at that framework. I think there's a lot of things we need to do in both international and regional forms. And also most importantly around capacity building to help address this this issue and not wait until the end. As I said, I think there's training and others talk about training and that training is both at a technical level so people understand the technology and how to use it. But it's also at the policy level so diplomats and others can debate this form. And it's not just a debate for the large countries it's a debate for every country as we move forward. So I think that's important. The global forum on cyber expertise, which is around now exactly 10 years, has expanded significantly having over 225, I think, members and partners, around the world in every region of the world.
One of ‑‑ has several working groups on national strategies, on incident response, on cyber crime. But most recently in the last year, there was a working group added on AI and emerging technologies more generally. And that's really important. What that's trying to do is coordinate and promote better capacity building around this, among a multistakeholder community, which includes governments private sector and civil society. I think this is an urgent issue for capacity billing.
I worry about that more generally because in the era where there's increasingly cut funding by governments and others, including the U.S., where the capacity building is not being emphasized as much, that I think causes a problem for all these countries who desperately need this help. And I think that's the number 1 thing I see when I go to the UN. A lot of countries are glad to debate these issues but really need the help the technical help and policy help and training help. And we can't forget that.
As I look at this, I think it's going to be ‑‑ I suspect we will have this debate every year for a few years now because it's one of these evergreen things that will continue to evolve. But I do worry about ‑‑ I love the projects of AI. But I do worry about not just the threat but the potential of AI making it much more difficult for countries to achieve the things they need to achieve because they don't have the resources or priority to do that. And we need to address that. All of us need to address it. Not just now but in the future.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Chris. I do agree with you. But I'm always optimistic. And I got the concept of leapfrog from Ram. And it was in my mind as well. It's possible [overlapping speakers]
I also have the fear of this broaden of this divide among different countries. I would like now to give the floor to my dear friend, Wolfgang Kleinwachter. You are an expert in capacity building. We have been saying that having the capacity in human resources dealing with this issues is fundamental.
How do you think this can be handled by developing countries? And also which talents we should develop at the national level? Perhaps to have a group of experts and one of the challenges is when you train them they go to work to the private sector very quickly because they get more money, which is understandable if you are young and you have you want to develop your career. How you retain them at the national ‑‑ at the state, for example, working for national organizations or governments. And welcome.
>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you very much, Olga. And certainly knowledge is key. And knowledge can be had. So that means the whole internet development has based on the principle of sharing. So sharing the resource it was limited resource was at the beginning of the internet in 1970s who shared computers and to make it work.
And while you need certainly money, but knowledge, if it's available, though it doesn't cost. So it's a question also of readiness to share the knowledge. If somebody has the knowledge, is it ready to share this without any additional costs? It's a general problem and this leads a little bit to political problem we have behind the discussion here. 20 years ago when this started the driving force behind it was not internet governance, it was the digital divide.
Because the what we did see is the development of the internet. We see half and half. And so far the United Nations realized they have to do something additionally to what the 7 decided in 2007 in Okinawa and said we have to shift the divide. And we have to turn it from a digital opportunity to have a digital divide and the digital divide is negative. And into digital opportunities. And then we had the (?). If I take these experiences now in today's world, 20 years later, I see basically we have the same problem today.
It's not the digital divide it's the AI divide. If you remember the speech by the Minister of communication from Saudi Arabia last year in Rio in the opening speech he made this year clear about the AI divide the skills divide. And all this. And so far, 20 years of development of businesses have moved the problem, not solved the problem but moved it to a higher lev. If you say if you use what Chris said. Cybersecurity is part of national security. If we agree to be safe in the internet governance ecosystem, you need to skills and you need the knowledge, then you could argue at the end of the day the AI divide leads to a security divide.
So a security gap. So that means if cybersecurity is national security, and if you have different capacities, then you know, at the end of today, some countries are less secure because they do not have the capabilities as others. So I think that's a dilemma. But we should face it. And should make clear. The only way forward is then to find a certain agreement. And this brings me to the question of regulation. This will be my final point.
So I think the basic idea of the United Nations 80 years ago was that all states are equal. Big states, small states, should have equal rights. The principle of sovereign equality of states is the cornerstone of the Charter of the United Nations. If you translate this into today's world, then we have to have safeguards. The law also protects the weak partners. The small partners.
And as it works, we have to look for certain arrangements, which are based on the philosophy of sharing, which I mentioned in the beginning. And leads to the concept of let's say equality or equal rights in this field. But we have certain discussions on it about projects to regulate this. So I'm very skeptical and we have to this discussion also with Chris over a couple of years. And I share his skepticism it's very difficult to find a legally binding instrument to regulate AI weapons or to regulate AI in general.
We did see the efforts of the European Union to regulate with this risked‑based approach and after two years we realized the idea was probably not so bad. But the implementation is very difficult. You have to create a big bureaucracy to identify what is the risk application. And then to envelope this. We did see the efforts in the Council of Europe they have a legal binding convention to respect human rights if you develop AI. This is helpful but it has to be seen how this works in practice.
If it comes to defense and weapons systems we have since 10 years a negotiations on a less autonomous weapons system, where even after 10 years we have no clear definition what it is.
So everybody feels that something has to be done. We cannot delegate the question of life or death to a machine. So I think the human control is in the centre. But how you organize the human control. If you get as a soldier a recommendation from a computer and says now you have to push the button. Certainly there's a human control. As a human in between. But what you can do in a difficult situation. So finally human control is a good concept. But in reality in a battle situation it's very difficult to have this reflection about, is this the right recommendation? Which comes from the computer. Should I stop here or not?
I think we have similar situation in the history of nuclear weapons. We all know this story from Dr. Pavlov when we was in the submarine and oh this is the wrong information. I should not push the button. So he avoided the nuclear war. In the early 1980s I think a lot of people will remember this story. So far the debate discussion driven by the spirit of sharing, driven by the spirit of equal rights for everybody is for the time being the way forward.
Probably the next generation has better ideas. So let's wait for the next innovation. So thank you.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Thanks to you. And I'm always optimistic, especially in younger generation. And the challenges is there. But when we talk about it, there are some ideas is come up. And we can think about possible ways of not solving all the problems but address them somehow. Thank you very much, Wolfgang, very interesting as usual. Your interventions. Philipp. You are an attorney. And also you have been leader of very important technology companies. Especially related with the internet.
Which policies you think the governments and developing countries should develop in order to harness all this potential AI? And also the challenges of AI? We have seen it's not easy. They have as Chris and Wolfgang already mentioned they have been years discussing about cybersecurity, international treaties. And it's very difficult. But how to do you think this could be addressed or handled by policies? How did those policies could be developed?
>> PHILIPP GRABENSEE: Thank you, Olga. This session follows up on the session you had in Riad and I think we all agree the bottleneck is human capacity and human resources.
We all agreed on that. I think this session I point out and agree with everyone, what can governments and what can policy do? I think to create environment and create funding very simple to attract the human resources to grow as a country. And to create economic opportunities. Establish the problem you addressed that people go to private companies establish private‑public partnerships. So it's not either government or company, private sectors. Maybe some combinations.
So that's all ‑‑ ‑‑ that really what countries can do. In the policy. Which has ‑‑ might have a direct effect. There's a lot of theoretic things and policies and new law for regulating and all that. But this comes too late. I think the only thing which has really big practical impact is developing setting a framework to develop human capacities. Now to Artificial Intelligence comes, that's new. Compared to the other sessions we had.
What does it mean for us? I pretty much share Chris's concerns or pessimism. We have one big problem. To a certain extent, AI might help a little bit to solve the capacity problem because some things which you need ‑‑ I mean, you still need people who run the AI and all this. But still, maybe some tasks which are done by skilled humans can be in the future be taken over by AI. But the big problem is to divide this now.
That makes in my view the problem is even bigger now. You need access to the large language models and we have only so far we have China and U.S. who have and those countries have companies and to run those large language models. And to develop an autonomous cyberdefense system you need access to those large language models. I think you should not get into ‑‑ even middle powers. I'm not even talking about developing countries, even for middle powers it's too late for them to enter the race and compete with the large language models. The race is other. Maybe some others I discussed it yesterday, there's some countries that develop large language models that's another question
But definitely the developing countries cannot develop the large language models so they need access to that he has large language models so what can policy help to grant the access? They can first of all create ‑‑ it's a long shot again ‑‑ to create an economic environment, which makes it attractive to the companies to go in the economies and make money. So offering people the access to the large language ‑‑ so an economy incentive to curate an environment that makes it attractive for countries to for the big companies to give access to them ‑‑ economic access to the large language models so they can make money in the developing countries by giving them access.
There need to be applications in those countries that can develop to access the large language model and make money. But cybersecurity is there so much money? What's the leveraging of the developing countries to make sure they get access in their cyberdefense environment to those large language models?
I believe they have to. And this is ‑‑ I know this is not very popular but this is the real world now. They have to cut deals. Their foreign policy has to be fast to cutting deals. And it's probably as pronounced in the U.S. or China. Offer them deals to agentic advantages to trade in something with those nations and with those companies they trade something, cut deals with them so they grant them access to their large language models.
Because the U.S. has more funding and government funding goes into the large language models. The less inclined the U.S. government will be to share those merits of the large language models. If they don't get something in return. So I think, you know, as said as access might be you don't have time for many conferences you have time for this whole framework. You have to be fast. Not on foreign policy. It's not a matter of years. It develops so fast. And you need access right now and grant access right now. So foreign policy has to cut deals. And make sure they are in a position that is attractive for the very country they talk to that grants them access to their Artificial Intelligence capacities.
And that's what my suggestion. And if this is ‑‑ if they don't cut ‑‑ and it's already ‑‑ it's ‑‑ the digital divide is much bigger I think than probably than ever. With two countries having the large language model and everyone in the world depends on them. Because how can you fight a cyber attack which comes out after large language model if you don't defend it with out of a comparable or maybe even the same model, you have no chance. So that's what the situation is right now.
Let's see how it goes.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Let see how it goes. And very good ideas. And based on knowledge sharing and information sharing that some constant that's been addressed by several of you. And now I would like to go to my new friend, Luis Adrian Salazar. I don't know if we met in Costa Rica. I feel we are long time friends.
>> LUIS ADRIAN SALAZAR: This is the most important thing you feel we have a lot of time to be friends.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: He was a former Minister at Costa Rica and how a professor at the ULatina. And Luis Costa Rica is a country without army. What happens if you have a attack? Attack to the country? How do you define or defend because it's a new way of attacking countries. Like with technology, how you see that situation? How did you handle the big ransom that you experienced some years ago?
>> LUIS ADRIAN SALAZAR: Thank you, and we abolish the army since 1948. We don't use ‑‑ never the word army because it's not part of our ideology by a country. However in 22, we receive our cyber attack, which affect the financial area, the social security areas for hospitals. And we realized we had to do something.
I recognize since this year, and we'll be in a very interesting point of the government history. Because the last government was in the last two weeks. And the next government is starting 8 weeks late. So it was very difficult. However, I recognize to the current government in order to improve the capacity to war with other countries. My colleagues had talking about one thing that is for me the most important thing in this area.
This is the understanding. Sometimes the governments don't understand what happening now. And when I talk about that, it's about the digital war. Because I am an engineer. However, I was a ‑‑ I am a former Minister of the science technology and telecommunication in Costa Rica. When we go to the government, to the different areas of the government to talk about that you require research, people, technology, budget, to improve the life of the people because there are where we forget what's the mean ‑‑ what's the principle that my colleague talk about sharing. About to work together that we forget.
And my opinion is at this time the cyber diplomacy is a way to collaborate and cooperate and to try and understand the scale and scope and the speed that the technology are changing. And it's very important that we talk about the infrastructure. It's very important that we talk about all that we need to increase in capacities to improve the capacity of the people to help in this area.
However, when we talk about the put the human being in centre of the question, it's that you understand that when we receive an attack, we are affecting the health, we are affecting the education, we are affecting the countries which receive attack. And I think we have a opportunity. And I really love this kind of conversation. Because I believe that we create ‑‑ need to create a roadmap. But a roadmap with a specific results.
A concrete result where developing countries are not thinking about Artificial Intelligence. Are not thinking about quantum computer. They are thinking about how to reduce poverty or how to increase access to water. So when we combine the real world, the human need with the technology, you find the real goals and real principle that we have that are working or that we must work for solving.
For finish, I think that we must create a group in order to talk about this specific thing because when you try to translate from the politic war and politic language to the technical, are a gap. And the most recent thing that we have a gap or a gaps of gaps we have a lot of gaps. And a all of those are increasing for the digital gap. So I be optimistic. And I think if we are still working together, we can have a better future for all of us. Thank you.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you all very much. We are running out of time. We have 2 minutes.
>> Thank you.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: And thank you very much. I think that knowledge sharing, information sharing. Working with foreign affairs to have this ‑‑ I like this idea of having the deals with important countries that have more technology. And I am also fear of this big gap between two main countries and all the rest, especially with the developing economies. And I think you mentioned very rightly the priorities in developing economies are always others. It's not technology. But then technology affect what is happening at the national level.
So thank you all very much. Thank you Chris for being so early up with us. And I hope to meet you somewhere in the world in the near future. Thank you very much. And thank you Philipp, thank you Ram, and thank you Luis, and thank you Wolfgang. And thank you Thank you Karina for being the remote moderator and thank you if the audience. We don't have much time. And a applause for our dear colleagues.
(applause)
