Cyber maturity in the Asia-Pacific Region 2015

The second edition of the International Cyber Policy Centre’s annual Cyber Maturity in the Asia Pacific is the culmination of 12 months research and analysis delving into the cyber maturity of 20 countries within our region. It is a usable, quick-reference resource for those in government, business, academia, and the wider cyber community who are looking to make considered, evidence-based cyber policy judgements in the Asia-Pacific. It provides a depth of information and analysis that  builds a deeper understanding of regional countries’ whole of nation approach to cyber policy, crime, and security issues, and identifies potential opportunities for engagement. 

This years’ maturity metric contains five new countries and integrates a stand-alone assessment category on cybercrime enforcement. This new cybercrime category joins continuing assessments of whole-of-government policy and legislative structures, military organisation, international engagement and CERT team maturity in addition to business and digital economic strength and levels of cyber social awareness. This information is distilled into an accessible format, using metrics to provide a snapshot by which government, business, and the public alike can garner an understanding of the cyber profile of regional actors.

Methamphetamine: Focusing Australia’s National Ice Strategy on the problem, not the symptoms

In this report, law enforcement isn’t focused on arrests, prosecutions, custodial offences or seizures, as none of those will have a guaranteed impact on the problem. The focus is on means to reduce the availability of drugs, the disruption of user behaviour and the integration of education and health initiatives.

The report argues that the National Ice Strategy should consider three key points:

  1. Integration. Drug strategies have a better chance of being successful when each of its initiatives are integrated into a strategically focussed harm reduction strategy.
  2. Innovation. Education, health and enforcement stakeholder should be free from the limitations of wholly quantitative performance measures.
  3. Disruption. Initiatives to tackle the ice problem should be focussed towards the disruption of problems rather than the treatment of symptoms of the problem.