IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CYBERSECURITY ACT, 2020 (ACT 1038) WILL BE CHALLENGING: A LOOK AT THE ACCREDITATION OF CYBERSECURITY PROFESSIONALS AND PRACTITIONERS
INTRODUCTION
I have read the Cybersecurity Act, 2020 (Act 1038), and in my view its
implementation will be challenging. In my first article, I looked at the
Governance Structure of the Cybersecurity Authority and its political
orientation that could compromise the operational independence and affect the
continuity of the role of the Authority should there be a change of government.
An institutionalized Board under a specified Ministry to take care of government
policy directives would have been preferable.
In
my second article, I highlighted how complex the implementation of Licensing of
the Cybersecurity Providers under Act 1038 will be considering the broad, vague
and all-encompassing meaning given to what a cybersecurity service is, which in
my opinion may include anybody that deals with computers be it by way of software
or hardware with connectivity to cyberspace.
My
last article on Act 1038 article
will look at the Accreditation of Cybersecurity Professionals and Practitioners
as well as Cybersecurity Standards, Enforcement and Education. An area that is
likely to be in conflict with the National Accreditation Board, University
Faculties and other Professional Bodies such as ISACA. Accreditation of
cybersecurity professionals and practitioners as well as setting standards for
cybersecurity training and education will be tricky due to the dynamic and
diverse skill set needed in such an industry. How is this going to be
implemented?
My
approach for this article will be simple. State what the Authority is supposed
to be doing and how feasible that is in practice.
ACCREDITATION OF CYBERSECURITY
PRACTITIONER AND PROFESSIONAL
According
to Act 1038, a Cybersecurity
Practitioner is an individual or a firm that protects a computer system or
digital service and a Cybersecurity
Professional is a person accredited under this Act to perform a
cybersecurity-related professional function. The Cybersecurity Authority under
the Act “shall establish a mechanism for the accreditation
of cybersecurity professionals and practitioners”
There
are professional bodies like ISACA that award certifications such as CXS-P to
people who have undergone a rigorous training and education in cybersecurity as
professionals and practitioners. A professional I believe is basically a person
who belongs to a professional body or performs an activity as its main source
of income. In the corporate world the distinction
between an academic qualification and that of a professional one is that the latter
belongs to a professional body. The professional is more of a master in a
particular field and need not be a practitioner. We can therefore have Chartered
Bankers Medical Doctors or Lawyers who are professionals but not practitioners.
There are universities that award degrees in cybersecurity and even LLM in
cybersecurity. There are so many Information Technology (IT) certifications
from accredited institutions that has to do with protecting computer systems or
digital services. Now what does the Authority want to do? Are we saying all
these people until they have been accredited by the Cybersecurity Authority
cannot support any organization or put their expertise to use?
The
use of the word “shall” makes it so
imperative for the Authority to give the accreditation and not surprised it
also says “establish mechanism”
because it is a herculean task for an Authority to do this in such a dynamic
environment. Let us take the banking industry for example, there are Chartered
Bankers who are professionals and those who are working in banks as
practitioners and call themselves Bankers. The regulator is the Bank of Ghana
but does not give accreditation to the professional Banker or the practitioner
Banker. What a regulator can do is specify the type of education or training
required by certain roles in the industry they regulate especially at the
executive level. Is Act1038 saying
that an ICASA certified CXS-P for example or someone with a degree in
cybersecurity cannot be a cybersecurity professional or practitioner until
accredited by the Authority and should the person touch anything cybersecurity a
fine must be paid?
In my
opinion, there is nothing complex about cybersecurity that cannot be handled by
the those who know how with the needed knowledge, technical tools and cybersecurity
risk management practices. I think cybersecurity has been blown out of
proportion by a few so called experts so they can earn their living and may be
the legislatures being cyber phobic have bought into it.
CYBERSECURITY STANDARDS AND
ENFORCEMENTS
Under
the Act, the “Authority shall develop,
establish and adopt for cybersecurity the following:
i.
Education and
skills development
ii.
Hardware and
software engineering
iii.
Governance and
risk management
iv.
Research and
development
Also
the Authority shall develop a
qualification and competency framework for
i.
persons offering
training in cybersecurity programmes and
ii.
educational
institutions offering cybersecurity programmes.
In
my opinion, the use of “shall” is
too imperative and should have been more of a facilitating or collaborative
role. Does this mean the Authority is responsible for developing curriculum for
the universities and professional bodies involved in cybersecurity training and
education? Who are going to be working at the Authority and what will their
competency levels be in the development and design of such competency
frameworks. Well the frameworks already exist anyway. Why does the Authority
want to get involved in for example hardware and software engineering? Are they
going to review what institutions such as NIIT are teaching? Must these
institutions seek accreditation from the National Accreditation Board as well
as the Authority? The cybersecurity standards and enforcement could be in
conflict with other educational standards and accreditation due to the dynamic
and diverse skill set needed in such an industry. What about educational
institutions outside the country? Should anyone who has acquired a
qualification in Cybersecurity outside the country seek validation from the
Authority before working in Ghana to make sure it meets the standards? I guess
so because by the Act, you cannot even touch cybersecurity without being
accredited by the Authority anyway. I wonder how this will be accomplished.
CONCLUSION
Due
to the complex mandate given to the Cybersecurity Authority, to implement the
Act, the Authority will have to have a diverse skill set of professionals,
Researchers, Educators, IT Risk Management, Software and Hardware Engineers, IT
Governance experts, IT Auditors. IT Lawyers. I believe they all have to be prefixed
with the powerful word “Cybersecurity” to be able to head and work in the
various directorates that may have to be established to execute this mandate.
These skill sets are abundant in the private sector, industry and academia for
which a collaboration would have been more meaningful and easier to implement
with the Authority playing a facilitating, inspection and monitoring role.
When
you put in too many controls, the system you even trying to protect comes to a
halt. Risk in cyberspace can only be mitigated and managed but not eliminated.
I must say Act 1038 is watertight in
theory and if it is for some requirement to be seen as a country fighting
Cybercrime or preventing Cyberattacks then its purpose has been achieved. No
doubt.
The
Authority seems to have bitten more than it can chew and wondering if an impact
analysis of the Act was done before being passed into law. The Regulations to
follow the Act must bring clarity to its intent so in practice the
implementation will be accomplished.
Let me end by what Chris Reed, a
Professor of Electronic Commerce Law said about making laws for cyberspace:
i.
The law must be
understandable and it must appear to be possible to comply.
ii.
The law must be aiming
to achieve a sensible, feasible end.
iii.
The content of the law
must reasonably match the way in which activities are carried out in cyberspace.
iv.
The law must be
sufficiently future-proof so that that it can adapt to
changes in business methods and technological innovation.
Comments
Post a Comment