FSI scholars produce research aimed at creating a safer world and examing the consequences of security policies on institutions and society. They look at longstanding issues including nuclear nonproliferation and the conflicts between countries like North and South Korea. But their research also examines new and emerging areas that transcend traditional borders – the drug war in Mexico and expanding terrorism networks. FSI researchers look at the changing methods of warfare with a focus on biosecurity and nuclear risk. They tackle cybersecurity with an eye toward privacy concerns and explore the implications of new actors like hackers.
Along with the changing face of conflict, terrorism and crime, FSI researchers study food security. They tackle the global problems of hunger, poverty and environmental degradation by generating knowledge and policy-relevant solutions.
Oksenberg-Rohlen Fellow David M. Lampton, an expert on Chinese politics and U.S.-China relations, joins World Affairs host and Hoover Institution Visiting Fellow Markos Kounalakis in a conversation about the growing rivalry between the world's two global powers and how we might evaluate the more than forty years of Sino-American engagement since Nixon went to Beijing in 1972.
Why has engagement weakened so precipitously in the last several years? What may be the costs of this mounting friction; and, what steps could be taken by both Beijing and Washington to move in more productive directions?
Carly Miller is a research analyst at the Stanford Internet Observatory. She was most recently a Team Lead at the Human Rights Investigations Lab at Berkeley Law School where she worked to unearth patterns of various bad actors’ media campaigns. Carly is interested in combining investigative and digital forensic research with the power of effective policy recommendations.
Carly received her BA with honors in political science from the University of California, Berkeley in May 2019.
Former Research Analyst, Stanford Internet Observatory
This event is now full and we are unable to take any further reservations. However, if you would like to be added to the waitlist, please email us at sj1874@stanford.edu.
This panel will examine the role of Ukraine and Russia in the Trump impeachment inquiry. Why has Ukraine emerged as central focus of the charges? What are Russia’s goals here, and how has it tried to achieve them? How different is an impeachment process driven by foreign policy concerns, rather than by domestic charges? Bringing together three experts on Ukraine, Russia, and US presidential politics, we will examine this extraordinary moment in American and international politics.
PANELISTS:
Image
Michael McFaul, '86, MA '86, is the Director and Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies; the Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies in Political Science; and the Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, all at Stanford University. He was also the Distinguished Mingde Faculty Fellow at the Stanford Center at Peking University from June to August of 2015. He joined the Stanford faculty in 1995. Michael McFaul is also an analyst for NBC News and a contributing columnist to The Washington Post.
He received his B.A. in International Relations and Slavic Languages and his M.A. in Soviet and East European Studies from Stanford University in 1986. As a Rhodes Scholar, he completed his D. Phil. in International Relations at Oxford University in 1991.
He also served for five years in the Obama administration, first as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council at the White House (2009-2012), and then as U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation (2012-2014). He has authored several books, including most recently the New York Times bestseller, From Cold War to Hot Peace: An American Ambassador in Putin’s Russia. He is currently writing a book on great powers relations in the 21st century.
Image
Terry M. Moe is the William Bennett Munro Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He has written extensively on the presidency, public bureaucracy, and the theory of political institutions more generally. His most recent book on American national politics is Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy (University of Chicago Press, forthcoming. Coauthored with William G. Howell.)
Image
Steven Pifer is a William Perry research fellow at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation and a nonresident senior fellow with the Brookings Institution. He writes on nuclear arms control, Ukraine and Russia. A retired Foreign Service officer, his assignments included U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and special assistant to the President and senior director for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia on the National Security Council.
MODERATOR:
Image
Anna Grzymala-Busse is a professor in the Department of Political Science, the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Professor of International Studies, senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the director of The Europe Center. Her research interests include political parties, state development and transformation, informal political institutions, religion and politics, and post-communist politics.
Encina Hall
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305-6055
0
Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies, Department of Political Science
Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
mcfaul_headshot_2025.jpg
PhD
Michael McFaul is the Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies in Political Science, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and the Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, all at Stanford University. He joined the Stanford faculty in 1995 and served as FSI Director from 2015 to 2025. He is also an international affairs analyst for MSNOW.
McFaul served for five years in the Obama administration, first as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council at the White House (2009-2012), and then as U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation (2012-2014).
He is a recipient of numerous awards, including an honorary PhD from Montana State University; the Order for Merits to Lithuania from President Gitanas Nausea of Lithuania; Order of Merit of Third Degree from President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and the Dean’s Award for Distinguished Teaching at Stanford University. In 2015, he was the Distinguished Mingde Faculty Fellow at the Stanford Center at Peking University.
McFaul was born and raised in Montana. He received his B.A. in International Relations and Slavic Languages and his M.A. in Soviet and East European Studies from Stanford University in 1986. As a Rhodes Scholar, he completed his D. Phil. in International Relations at Oxford University in 1991.
International Working Group on Russian Sanctions
The International Working Group on Russian Sanctions aims to provide expertise and experience to governments and companies around the world by assisting with the formulation of sanctions proposals that will increase the cost to Russia of invading Ukraine, and support democratic Ukraine in the defense of its territorial integrity and national sovereignty.
Encina Hall
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305
(650) 723-4270
0
amgbusse@stanford.edu
Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Michelle and Kevin Douglas Professor of International Studies
Professor of Political Science
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
anna_gb_4_2022.jpg
Anna Grzymała-Busse is a professor in the Department of Political Science, the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Professor of International Studies, senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the director of The Europe Center. Her research interests include political parties, state development and transformation, informal political institutions, religion and politics, and post-communist politics.
In her first book, Redeeming the Communist Past, she examined the paradox of the communist successor parties in East Central Europe: incompetent as authoritarian rulers of the communist party-state, several then succeeded as democratic competitors after the collapse of these communist regimes in 1989.
Rebuilding Leviathan, her second book project, investigated the role of political parties and party competition in the reconstruction of the post-communist state. Unless checked by a robust competition, democratic governing parties simultaneously rebuilt the state and ensured their own survival by building in enormous discretion into new state institutions.
Anna's third book, Nations Under God, examines why some churches have been able to wield enormous policy influence. Others have failed to do so, even in very religious countries. Where religious and national identities have historically fused, churches gained great moral authority, and subsequently covert and direct access to state institutions. It was this institutional access, rather than either partisan coalitions or electoral mobilization, that allowed some churches to become so powerful.
Other areas of interest include informal institutions, the impact of European Union membership on politics in newer member countries, and the role of temporality and causal mechanisms in social science explanations.
Global Populisms
A new project examining the global surge in populist movements and what it means for established democratic rules and institutions.
On 20 October 2019, Indonesia’s president Joko “Jokowi” Widodo began his second five-year term in office. In his first successful presidential campaign in 2014, he promised to transform the country into a “Global Maritime Fulcrum”—a seemingly keystone role between the Indian and Pacific Oceans that comprise the now popular term “Indo-Pacific.” How has that vision fared, and what priority will it have in 2019-2024? How will Indonesia deal with Sino-American strategic competition? Will Indonesia’s national and regional security policies change or stay the same? In addressing these questions, the talk will feature not only the president but his new ministers’ political, bureaucratic, and personal goals and differences as well. Laksmana will argue that, in practice, the GMF’s promise of proactive centrality has not been to date and is unlikely to be met in future.
Image
Evan A. Laksmana, in addition to his position at CSIS in Jakarta, is completing his doctorate in political science at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, where he has been a Fulbright Presidential Scholar. He has held visiting fellowships and research positions with the National Bureau of Asian Research, Sydney University’s Southeast Asia Centre, the Lowy Institute for International Policy, the German Marshall Fund of the United States, and the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. Journals that have carried his scholarly work include Asian Politics & Policy, Asian Security, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Defense & Security Analysis, and the Journal of Contemporary Asia. Other writings have appeared in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, among other publications.
Using behavioral web-tracking data collected over the 2016 U.S. general election, Matthew Tyler, Justin Grimmer and Shanto Iyengar demonstrate that partisans direct their attention at congenial sources and apolitical portal sites, while ignoring more antagonistic news outlets. While users of all-purpose sites such as Yahoo and MSN come from across the political spectrum, users of dedicated news sites diverge by their partisanship. The authors further demonstrate that partisans tend to consume more news when campaign events favor their party's candidate. They show that the release of the Access Hollywood tape increased news consumption among Democrats, while the announcement of the Comey letter bolstered news consumption among Republicans. These short-term effects on news consumption proved asymmetric. While partisans became more engaged in the aftermath of “good news,'' the authors find no evidence that they avoided exposure to the news in the aftermath of “bad news.'' Overall, the results show that partisans engage with the news more frequently when the news favors their side, and they engage at sites that attract like-minded partisans.
This talk describes the disinformation campaign targeting the Syria Civil Defense (or “White Helmets”), a humanitarian response group that works in rebel held areas of Syria. The White Helmets provide medical aid, search, and rescue to people affected by the civil war in Syria. They also document the impacts of atrocities — including airstrikes and chemical weapons attacks — perpetrated by the Syrian regime and their Russian allies. For several years, the White Helmets have been the target of a campaign to undermine and delegitimize their work. In this talk, I describe a multi-study research effort that reveals how this multi-dimensional, cross-platform campaign “works” — including a look at the media ecosystems that support the campaign, the networks of actors who collaborate to produce and spread its narratives (including government agents and “unwitting crowds” of online activists), and the “work” that these actors participate in, using the affordances of social media platforms to connect, recruit, organize, promote their messages, attack opposing messages, and otherwise advance the goals of their campaign.
On October 1st, with a massive National Day parade down Chang’an Avenue in Beijing, the People’s Republic of China celebrated the 70th anniversary of its establishment in 1949. Like a split-screen T.V., however, on the other side of the border in Hong Kong, black-clad protesters wearing gas masks and goggles undertook one of the most violent protests in Hong Kong SAR since the 1997 handover.
With those contrasting images still fresh on everyone’s minds, FSI, Shorenstein APARC, Stanford China Program, and the Center for East Asian Studies jointly sponsored a conference on October 2nd titled “Hong Kong: A City in Turmoil” to an overflow audience. Jean Oi, Director of the Stanford China Program who moderated the program opened the conference by quoting Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Provost Persis Drell who, in a campus-wide message, had recently encouraged the university community to not shy away from difficult conversations. “We have an extraordinary opportunity [at Stanford],” she quoted from their email, “to learn from each other, to have our thinking challenged, to sharpen our arguments and to develop better ideas from a thoughtful debate.” Even while explicitly aware, therefore, that differing opinions rage on both sides of the debate regarding Hong Kong’s protests, but trusting that “there are thoughtful people on both sides of the debate,” she continued, “we have decided to organize this special event.”
The former Chief Secretary for Administration of the Hong Kong Government (1993-2001) Anson Chan gave the keynote speech followed by a panel discussion featuring Harry Harding, University Professor and Professor of Public Policy, University of Virginia; David M. Lampton, Oksenberg-Rohlen Fellow, FSI, Stanford University; and Ming Sing, Associate Professor, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
The Honorable Anson Chan speaks at Hong Kong: A City in Turmoil conference.
The Honorable Anson Chan gives the keynote speech at the "Hong Kong: A City in Turmoil" conference.
Keynote Speech
In her keynote, Anson Chan first recalled the handover ceremony in 1997, which she attended as Hong Kong SAR’s Chief Secretary, bridging the transition from British sovereignty to Chinese sovereignty. Chan spoke of her dawning realization at the time that the transition of sovereignty “would call Hong Kong people to forge a new identity” that “reconciled our community both with its past and future.” She noted “that many Hong Kong people, particularly the young, have indeed forged a new identity, but not as loyal, submissive Chinese patriots that Beijing had hoped for.” The central government had “singularly failed to win hearts and minds,” Chan added, especially of its young people. Hong Kong is, indeed, now at a crossroads and, she admitted, is a “city in turmoil.”
In Chan’s recollection, the central government exercised its power with “great restraint” following the handover. At first, the SAR government, too, was vigilant in protecting Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. Gradually, however, the city’s autonomy and civil liberties, she asserted, suffered increasing erosion. In particular, “[o]ver the past fifteen years, things changed drastically.” Describing the series of events that have caused Hong Kong’s residents increasing alarm -- including the forced abduction of Hong Kong-based booksellers; disappearance of a mainland Chinese billionaire from a luxury hotel in Hong Kong; Legislative Council members’ oath-taking controversy; the resulting disqualification of six legislative members; and the political screening of pro-democracy electoral candidates, etc. -- she further noted that the “snail’s pace of progress” in implementing full universal suffrage for the election of the Chief Executive and all members of the legislature promised in the Basic Law also brought on mounting popular frustration and despair.
“Was this progressive erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy inevitable?” Chan asked. “I don’t think so,” she answered. Since 1997, Hong Kong SAR’s successive Chief Executives, she countered, have progressively failed to reassure the Hong Kong people that, first and foremost, they will do their utmost to uphold “one country, two systems,” and to defend Hong Kong’s autonomy. In an unsparing critique, she noted, they have instead increasingly come across as “mouthpieces of the central government, toeing the Beijing line.” Chan also suggested that “some years back, Beijing began to both lose confidence in the judgment and competence of the Hong Kong administration and to fear that growing sense of people’s identity as ‘Hong Kongers’ rather than Chinese citizens could pose a threat to the long-term, successful integration of Hong Kong into the motherland.” This growing distrust, then, proved catalytic to increasing tensions and difficulties in Hong Kong-PRC relations.
Characterizing 2003 as the first watershed moment when large public demonstrations – Hong Kong people’s “first taste of people power” -- forced the SAR government to withdraw its proposed bill under Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23, Chan recounted the failure of the constitutional reform consultation process in 2013-2014, the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on August 31, 2014 to set institutional limits on universal suffrage, and the resulting 2014 Occupy Movement, which later morphed into the Umbrella Movement. These popular movements failed to yield genuine universal suffrage, however, and this failure, Chan stated, “left wounds that went unhealed and festered quietly.”
The million-strong protests on June 9th and 16th to register popular opposition to Hong Kong SAR government’s introduction of its extradition bill “broke all records,” Chan noted. Recounting the five demands of the current protesters, Chan voiced support for the establishment of an independent commission with “carefully crafted terms of reference” that could objectively examine the handling of the current unrests. Such a commission could go a long way towards pacifying the protesters, she suggested, and “[s]top the violence, at least for the time being.” She also urged the reopening of broad-based consultation on political reforms, lain dormant since the collapse of the Umbrella Movement in 2014; and to even consider a measure of amnesty to exonerate a subset of both the protesters and the police. Recognizing how problematic such a recommendation might be in the face of spiraling violence and vandalism, she noted, “we are in an unprecedented crisis, and for society to heal, unprecedented measures such as an amnesty applying to certain actions by the protesters and the police force may well prove to be necessary.”
Calling herself an “unrepentant optimist” even against formidable odds, Chan highlighted how Hong Kong has come through many challenges before and after the handover. She sought to emphasize how “[t]he majority [of Hong Kong people] are not anti-China and accepts that Hong Kong is a part of China.” However, she continued, “they are also proud of their Hong Kong identity and fiercely protective of the rights and freedoms they enjoy and which are guaranteed by the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.” Condemning the violence committed by both the police and the protesters, Chan ended her speech with the following words.
So, on this seventieth anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, we in Hong Kong recognize the huge progress that our country has made in a breathtakingly short time, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, improving living standards and achieving economic growth and social advancement that are the envy of the world. We are proud of the unique contribution that Hong Kong has made to our nation’s spectacular achievements and modernization. But we are distressed that the central government feels it necessary to be increasingly repressive towards its Hong Kong subjects. I urge the Beijing leadership to act with greater confidence and to trust us more completely with stewardship of our own future by allowing us to elect our own leaders. In these troubled times, we ask Beijing respectfully to listen with greater understanding to the voices of Hong Kong’s upcoming generations, to recognize and respond to their fears and aspirations and, above all, to harness their talent, their energy and commitment for the benefit of the city we all love and for the benefit of our nation as a whole.
Panel Commentary
Harry Harding, University Professor and Professor of Public Policy, University of Virginia, next spoke from the panel. He applauded the clear and concise rendering that Chan provided of how Hong Kong arrived at the current crisis but noted that his was “a more pessimistic forecast” of Hong Kong’s future. With “one country, two systems” due to expire in 2047, he surmised that Beijing will further whittle away at Hong Kong’s key institutions, such as the judiciary, the press, and universities, and, perhaps, even the freedom of expression of its business community. With respect to Taiwan, Harding noted the increasing urgency in President Xi Jinping’s call for Taiwan to be reunified with the motherland. Yet, Harding noted, the developments in Hong Kong have made “one country, two systems” increasingly unpalatable to even those traditionally favorably disposed towards Beijing. For the U.S., the recent protests have enabled Hong Kong to take center stage with legislative action around the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, the PROTECT Hong Kong Act, and debates surrounding the Hong Kong Policy Act. The recent unrest has also contributed to declining favorability ratings for the PRC from all sectors of the United States, he noted.
Harry Harding, one of the panelists at the conference, gives his thoughts on the situation in Hong Kong.
Harry Harding, one of the panelists for the conference, gives his thoughts on the situation in Hong Kong.
Ming Sing, Associate Professor, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, first delineated the increasing levers of political and economic controls imposed by the PRC government upon Hong Kong SAR since 2003; and the corresponding rise in intensity of political protests in Hong Kong. He then provided a fine-grained analysis of the different phases of the 2019 protests, which began as a peaceful mobilization of public resistance, then grew in violence and counter-violence. He further presented a number of surveys that showed how the majority of the protesters are, indeed, well-educated and young with many of the frontline protesters being university and secondary students. Despite media reports that have suggested that economic discontent lies at the heart of protesters’ grievances, Sing presented survey data that the demonstrators’ grievances are, in fact, mainly political, including Hong Kong’s lack of universal suffrage and central government intervention, among others. Such data, he concluded, further highlights the gaping distrust between Hong Kong’s youth and the central government.
Ming Sing speaks during the Hong Kong: A City in Turmoil conference.
Ming Sing explains the information presented in his slides.
David M. Lampton Oksenberg-Rohlen Fellow, FSI, Stanford University, characterized himself as “hopeful but worried” about the situation in Hong Kong. Raising five observations in particular, Lampton noted the first worrying sign: i.e., neither the outside world nor the SAR have a “road map to the future” with the PRC. Neither the Basic Law nor the Joint Declaration of 1984 can now serve as such a “roadmap,” Lampton asserted, and without a “shared vision,” he stated, “[i]t’s hard to be optimistic.” Secondly, in this “leaderless” protest movement, Lampton asked whether anyone can authoritatively negotiate with and enforce upon its followers any agreement reached with Beijing, should any transpire, so that it can lead to an effective resolution. Thirdly, as evidenced by the PRC’s mass display of “muscular nationalism” on October 1st, Lampton questioned whether Xi Jinping has any incentives to accommodate Hong Kong protesters’ demands, especially when Beijing’s leadership may have its own worries about domestic stability in the PRC. Fourth, with constitutional crises engulfing both the U.S. and Great Britain, Lampton noted, Western democracies are also hampered from effectively and responsibly addressing the situation in Hong Kong. And lastly, Lampton acknowledged how, in the policy vacuum left by the Trump White House with respect to Hong Kong, U.S. Congress was speeding towards adopting punitive legislation against the PRC. But Lampton again expressed doubts as to whether sanctions and threats are effective tools to extract concessions from the PRC government under Xi Jinping.
David M. Lampton shares his viewpoint with the other panelists.
David M. Lampton shares his viewpoint with the other panelists.
Image
The Honorable Anson Chan gives summarizing remarks to close out the "Hong Kong: A City in Turmoil" conference.
Watch the entire conference below. You can also listen to the audio version below, selecting individual tracks.
Hero Image
Professor Thomas Fingar (left) introduces the "Hong Kong: A City in Turmoil" conference keynote speaker, The Honorable Anson Chan.
Graduate Student, Masters in International Policy Studies
Alex Zaheer Crop
Alex Zaheer is a technical Research Assistant at the Stanford Internet Observatory, where he works to create novel collection and analysis pipelines for social media data in order to enable cutting-edge social science research. He is a coterminal Master’s student in the Freeman Spogli Institute Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy program, with a focus in Cyber Policy and Security. He is also a Bachelor’s student in the Computer Science department. His interest areas include digital service, cyber governance and security, and narrowing the Washington-Silicon Valley divide.
Former research assistant, Stanford Internet Observatory
More than 820 million people around the world don’t have enough to eat and their hunger affects us all. “Without food security, you will have no other security,” said David Beasley, the executive director of the World Food Programme, to an audience of Stanford members and local residents on Oct. 1.
Beasley along with predecessor Ertharin Cousin, a visiting scholar with Stanford’s Center of Food Security and the Environment, helped shape the United Nations’ anti-hunger program into the world’s largest hunger relief organization, feeding over 90 million people every year.
Beasley and Cousin spoke on the multifaceted challenges of 21st century humanitarian response at the Robert G. Wesson Lecture, organized by Stanford's Center on Food Security and the Environment.
In March 2017, the Trump administration considered pulling U.S. funding, which provides 40 percent of the program’s support. But by arguing that food insecurity drives terrorist groups, like ISIS using food to recruit members, Beasley was able to keep US funding and raise money internationally.
“If you’re not going to do this out of the goodness of your heart, then you better do this out of your interest for national security,” said Beasley.
Though Cousin lauded the efficacy of Beasley’s efforts, she questioned whether promoting food security as a solution for global security could incite safety issues for World Food Programme workers. “How does that affect the building of awareness and does that create more problems for the people working on the ground?” she asked.
There are countries the World Food Programme has struggled to assist due to safety concerns. In June 2019, Beasley suspended aid from Yemen due to diversion of food from vulnerable people by Houthis. Safety was also a huge factor. “You can get shot and killed or stabbed in a heartbeat,” Beasley said.
The World Food Programme has encountered another complex situation in Venezuela, which is in the midst of its direst food crisis in history. Almost 90 percent of the country is living below the poverty line with a substantial cut in government assistance food programs.
Though Beasley could not provide detail due to the sensitive nature of negotiations, he believes a resolution will come soon. “We’re on the ground…in the middle of negotiations as we speak, and we’re making tremendous headway,”
Future efforts will focus on self-sustainability, which is crucial for long-term food security. The program has rehabilitated about 400,000 acres of otherwise unusable land because of flash floods or drought, allowing hundreds of thousands of people food and job security that would no longer need direct aid.
Both Beasley and Cousin agree that with the technology and wealth available, no child should go hungry and there should never be another famine on earth. “There are [people] who don’t know where their next meal is, and they’re marching towards death. That is absolutely inexcusable,” said Beasley.
When asked by Cousin what his takeaway from his experience as director has been, Beasley said, “Go love your neighbor, first and foremost. Please understand the suffering world out there, and don’t underestimate the power you have as an individual…I have so much hope for the future but at the same time, a great fear form what I see because of a lot of destabilization. The world is very fragile…Loving your neighbor is the most powerful weapon.”
Predicting the future is a fool's errand. Or is it? Technology has proved an agent of unprecedented disruption in recent years, but the instinct of some humans to do harm to others remains a constant. Cyber attacks continue to take the global community by surprise, and government actors still have a tendency to describe cybercrime as a new phenomenon. Knowing what we know about criminal modi operandi and motivations, can we speculate on the future of cybercrime in a way that enables governments, businesses and citizens to anticipate and prepare for the threats to come? Vic will present her ongoing work to review a past cybersecurity futures exercise, and a new project that aims to see further.
The Honorable Anson Chan speaks at Hong Kong: A City in Turmoil conference.
Harry Harding, one of the panelists at the conference, gives his thoughts on the situation in Hong Kong.
Ming Sing speaks during the Hong Kong: A City in Turmoil conference.
David M. Lampton shares his viewpoint with the other panelists.
Vic Baines