posts

 ***

I made this graphic for my action research project with Canadian School Libraries. You can’t understand the medium if you’re oblivious to the message. I developed a multi-award winning program that produced some of the top digital skills in Canadian students. In thanks for that I’m told I should got back to teaching English if I return to the classroom, giving you an idea of how seriously Ontario is at meaningful cyber-education.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/koe4MQW
via IFTTT

 Madness, right? Let’s compare how we (don’t) teach cybersecurity skills in our schools to how we *do* offer first aid training.

Last week we were in Newfoundland doing digital skills outreach, cybersecurity and emerging technologies outreach with Skills Newfoundland and schools across the Avalon Peninsula. While out there the mighty Micaela, a teacher in her first years of practice at Waterford High School asked if we might try out the new Google dorking lesson I’d developed after taking The Canadian Centre for Open Source Intellence’s analyst course. (The Canadian OSINT Centre).

Dorking is an interesting case in point. It’s something anyone can do. You don’t even have to learn how these days because AI will create the dork commands for you. What it essentially does is use specific operators like file type or site type to enhance a search. You could just type in “Canada’s role in the War of 1812” in a Google search, but if you typed in: “war of 1812″ “Canada’s role” filetype:pdf OR filetype:ppt OR filetype:doc) (site:edu OR site:gov OR site:k12.* OR site:sch.* you return a search of only documents (PDF, PPT, DOC) from education sites (.edu, .gov, .k12) that include the text “war of 1812” and “Canada’s role”. Try both and see the shocking difference in results. I’m told we shouldn’t teach this because students might find nasty things on the internet. Better that they do that on their own, I suppose, because those nasty things are on the internet anyway.

I’ve been given various excuses over the years including that this sort of material might be upsetting to students or that teaching students these skills will make them dangerous. There are interesting parallels between first aid and cybersecurity education that I’d like to consider.

First aid training is inherently unsettling (you’re learning how to act in an emergency situation where your lack of action could lead to death – it’s intense!), but no one is about to say we’re cancelling first aid because some might find it upsetting. The value of having more people with these essential skills is obvious when the blood starts flowing.

Cyber injuries through crime and foreign attacks cost Canada in the vacinity of four billion dollars in 2024. For comparison, we spent 5.75 billion in total on national policing in the same year. These cyber loses have huge emotional and physical costs, but that doesn’t move the needle on public education’s engagement with cybersecurity skills development even with all that financial woe. We’ve also had a rash of cyber-attacks aimed *at* education but this doesn’t stop the ‘head in the sand’ approach to cyber everyone feels most comfortable with.

Learning first aid would also allow you to hurt people more effectively, but that’s hardly an excuse not to teach it. The skills themselves aren’t good or bad, it’s how they’re used which matters. A doctor could go all Hannibal Lector to great effect, but that’s hollywood. The vast majority learn medicine for good. How would learning cyber skills be any different?

A student asked me why I’d be teaching them to ‘hack’ at our first dorking session. My reply was, “I’m not teaching you how to hack, I’m showing you how technology works – this is literally how Google search is meant to work. There are bad people out there using your ignorance against you, I’m giving you some digital kung-fu to fight back with.”

I only wish more education, union and ministry officials felt the same way. If I see cyber-education at all it’s performative poster making during cyber month in October, but these are skills we can teach that not only defend our students, their familiies and communities, but also opens pathways to high-demand careers. Cyber-skills development isn’t someone else’s job. We languish as one of the least digitally skills developed countries because public education isn’t prioritizing this increasingly important skillset.

Signal Hill where Marconi received the first transatlantic radio signal in 1901. In the century and a quarter since communications technologies have radically changed the world. We need to keep up!

The peril involved in it is (and this might come to a shock to you) but there are many nasty things on the internet and this kind of advanced search skill might uncover them, but so could a game session on Roblox. Our preference in Canadian education is to ignore the problem and hope that someone else takes care of it. Imagine if we did that with first aid too. The reasons for this depend on which public education stake holder you talk to. Boards and ministries will play the funding card believing that it’s cheaper to ignore it. It isn’t. For  – though it isn’t.

A grey fox on a hike around Signal Hill – we need to start getting craftier like foxes with how we deliver digital skills development in Canadian education.

The peril involved in it is (and this might come to a shock to you) but there are many nasty things on the internet and this kind of advanced search skill might uncover them. But our preference in education is to hope that the digital ignornance we have so carefully nutured over the past two decades will protect students from that nastiness – I can tell you it isn’t working.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/x7IU4pQ
via IFTTT

 I’ve been blogging extensively for the past fifteen years. In that time I’ve accumulated millions of views, had posts republished on professional, academic and news sites and honoured an early internet ideal of freely sharing my thinking online with the hopes of engaging others and perhaps making things a bit better. Dusty World was also an essential part of my teaching practice; an opportunity to critically review what I’m doing and provide perspective in order to improve my practice. In the process it prompted conversations with colleagues and (I hope) moved the needle on how we teach and use technology in education.

You may have noticed some posts have vanished recently. I’m in the process of backing them all up off-line and bringing down the tent. Reader numbers have tumbled in our brave new world of paid-for content delivered by ‘influencers’ who post for eye balls rather than quality. A blog about pedagogy was never going to compete in that sordid attention market. (Human) reader numbers have fallen as a result.

In the meantime I’m seeing bot traffic, most likely from AI engines, hoovering up my content so big tech can reproduce my voice for everyone and anyone to do with as they see fit.  I’d been willing to weather this storm because I was still reaching real educators trying to improve their practice in a technological quagmire, but public education is in survival mode these days and those looking for a fairer future with edtech have surrendered to marketing.

What pushed me into action was reading Cory Doctorow’s Enshittification. I’d urge you to buy it from your local independent book shop. If you get it from Amazon you’ll regret it by chapter five. Having wrapped it up now, I know that things are bad (I knew that before), but I also know that things could improve, though these days I’m just hoping we avoid World War Three as many countries seem to have forgotten who they are.

If you’ve been reading Dusty World for awhile, thank you for your support. If you’re one of the vanishing minority still working to create digitally literate graduates who have the tools to protect themselves in a vicious disinformation mediascape on digital devices increasingly limited by design for the benefit of billionaires, I can still be found online though for how long I don’t know.

The urge to become a ghost in the machine is strong.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/46XpJZv
via IFTTT

 Background

Canada’s history and ultimately its emergence as a nation
depended heavily on citizen led militias who were willing to take up arms to
defend Canadian interests.[1]  In its early years Canada was under constant
threat from foreign invasion, and it was through militias that key battles such
as the Siege of Quebec in 1775 were won.

Figure 1 Citizen militias in action at the Siege of Quebec (1775)

Without the combined support of both French and English
citizen militias in Quebec, the lower town barricades would have fallen to
American invaders and Canada as we know it may never have been.[2]
This is one of many moments where citizen militias, in this case those from
formerly opposing colonies, joined forces and supported the regular military in
protecting an emerging Canada.

Context

Due to the complexities of modern warfare, we leave physical
military conflict to professional soldiers in the 21^st Century, but
cyber conflict is an emergent problem that every Canadian faces so passing this
responsibility to professionals has proven ineffective. From skirmishes with
cyber criminals to all out attacks by professional foreign cyber militaries on
missions to diminish Canada’s effectiveness as a society, modern cyber warfare
is aimed squarely at a citizenry who has been made helpless by deference to
central authority. This helplessness makes cyber-resiliency difficult to develop
as we have atrophied our citizens’ expectations of empowered personal
engagement.

With criminal and foreign interests focused on disinformation
aimed squarely at unprepared Canadian hearts, minds and wallets, an approach in
keeping with our militia rich past is called for.

 Looking at the
rapidly rising rate of cyber attacks (Figure 2) below, it quickly becomes
obvious that existing centralized attempts at improving cyber-literacy have
failed because with centralized authority comes the expectation that this is
someone else’s problem. The borderless nature of cyberattacks ties our police
services in knots.[3] Our
failure to monitor or effectively respond to online crime suggests dependence
on any central ‘pre-digital’ authority is problematic.

The concept of citizen led militias are fundamental to
Canada’s history and identity. By enabling modern localized cyber training and response
Canada would resolve previous failed attempts by placing the responsibility
where it belongs: with citizens.  A
localized cyber militia would also resolve several other challenges our country
faces when it comes to developing our own cyber talent[4].
Failure to act or simply repeating previous approaches puts Canada at risk of ongoing
deterioration from foreign digital attacks.

Figure 2 Statistics Canada. Table 35-10-0002-01  Police-reported cybercrime, number of
incidents and rate per 100,000 population, Canada, provinces, territories,
Census Metropolitan Areas and Canadian Forces Military Police https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510000201

Leveraging
Canada’s History of Militias to Create a Modern Citizen Based Cyber Defence

With recent increases in support for the Canadian military
due to changes in the geopolitical status quo[5],
plans for the creation and support of a citizen led cyber militia would resolve
an ongoing problem that centralization of responsibility has failed to address.

The vast majority (over 88%[6])
of data breaches in Canada ’s defences come as the result of user ignorance and
error. Canada loses over five billion dollars a year to cyber-criminal and
foreign digital interference[7].
One of the first duties of Canada’s Cyber Militia would be to peer educate
citizens on the importance of disinformation and cyber security preparedness
and make them aware of the challenges they face. This change is essential
because reported cyber criminal activity has increased over 600% since 2014[8]
while remaining one of the least reported crimes (estimates suggest over 90% go
unreported). This data makes it clear that a centralized government approach is
ineffective in developing the cyber resilience our citizens need.

Canada also suffers from a shortage of experienced cyber specialists[9].
Academic programs have proven ineffective in resolving this problem because,
like policing, cybersecurity operations are an experiential/skills-based job
rather than an academic one. The best way to produce these applied experts is
through a trades-based apprenticeship and experiential training model that
local cyber militias could provide. In doing so these units would also uncover
regional talent and reduce Canada’s cyber-gaps by spreading cyber-opportunities
evenly across the country instead of centralizing it in a few urban areas.

A Canadian cyber militia would work with and through
industry, government and civil society spheres of influence by leveraging
citizens locally and establishing individuals as responsible for Canada’s
shared digital defence. Like a militia of old these groups would depend on
grassroots support. In a field like cybersecurity which suffers from
longstanding dominance by privileged groups,[10]
supporting local militias that are protecting their home communities would
create a Canadian shield the truly covers the country.

Canada spends billions to provide centralized
cyber-awareness prevention programs[11]
that are obviously ineffective against an onslaught of increasingly automated[12]
and well funded foreign campaigns. One only need look at the data to see this. To
make cyber and foreign disinformation awareness the responsibility of every
Canadian we need to de-centralize ineffective programs and pivot to a local
militia model that places cyber-readiness in the hands of grassroots groups at
the local level. Federal services that do advanced research and active defence
are not part of this change in focus, but the programs designed to spread
cyber-awareness and access to the field that aren’t working are.

The Canadian Shield is also a weapon

The final piece of the puzzle is organizing and indirectly
supporting the most advanced cyber militias to provide reconnaissance and
arms-reach offensive cyber operations against foreign interlopers. A government
response brings diplomatic strings and bureaucracy, but this arms length approach
to offensive cyber operations has already been effectively employed by many
other countries, including those doing the most egregious harm to Canada.

Other countries have approached this in different ways.
Awash in resources, China[13]
has more people working in offensive cyber operations in their military than
Canada has in its entire Forces. Russia offers a more resource limited approach
that is also very effective with arms-length former military and industry
groups performing offensive cyber operations that are incredibly effective
without getting tangled in government expectations.

Many cyber ‘powers’ utilize decentralized approaches to make
agile, effective use of digital systems for intelligence gathering and foreign
interference.[14] Canada
has not only fallen behind in developing offensive cyber capabilities but also
finds itself trying to defend against this astonishing array of approaches. Trying
to play a game with no offence leaves you with at best a draw and most likely a
loss. The development of cyber militias would quickly reverse that trend while
rapidly enabling a full suite of options for both defensive and offensive
operations.

Conclusion

Canada has a long history of self defence using local
militias. In 2025 Canadian citizens find themselves alienated from a
responsibility that should be placed squarely in their hands. In a world where
automated, state sponsored cyber attacks are something everyone will face,
leaving awareness and responsibility to people thousands of miles away is both
ineffective and ultimately frustrating.

Every Canadian who is online will face foreign
disinformation and potential harm from state sponsored criminal cyber campaigns
in the next year, yet most Canadians think it’s someone else’s job to be aware
of them and stop them. The most astonishing aspect is that it’s Canadians
themselves who open the door to many of these attacks. It’s time to put
responsibility for cyber awareness and literacy where it belongs, locally with
citizens.

By changing its focus from a wagging finger coming from
Ottawa to a supporter of locally based cyber-awareness and future talent
development, federal (and provincial) governments would reverse decades of
damage caused by cyber illiteracy, empower Canadians to defend our country
against foreign attacks that will only grow in the coming years, and ultimately
place cyber awareness and skills development where they belong: in the
communities that so desperately need it.

Figure 3  A
Canadian Citizen Cyber Militia for the 21st Century.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2FzrHaR
via IFTTT

I did a research piece for Canadian School Libraries last winter that looked at how you might develop the complex, multi-disciplinary digital skills you find in cybersecurity in a relatively short period of time. When I first put it together I found myself spending a lot of the time at the front of the paper trying to define the digital skills we find ourselves lacking. I came to the conclusion that adopting high abstraction digital tools such as those you find in cyber, A.I. and other emerging technologies makes for an impossible leap when we don’t have the basics in place.

How we’ve missed this in education is a good question. Anyone with a background in the field knows that there is no such thing as a ‘digital native‘ and that this myth, which has caused so much damage as it prevents education from building meaningful digital pedagogy, kicked off what has become a multi-generational skills shortage that is doing real damage to both the economy and students’ future prospects.

Digital technology has worked its way into everything in 2025, so being unable to make productive use of it damages our ability to compete in a digitally connected world. That we continue to hum and haw about what digital fluency is and how to build it suggests that we’re not going to resolve this problem any time soon in Canadian classrooms.

We’ve seen coding and computational thinking finally worm their way into education curriculums, but this is the tip of a much bigger iceberg when it comes to understanding what digital skills are and how we should approach them.

Originally created for this post on why education is seemingly unwilling to address a persistent digital skills shortage (from 2023).

I’ve been pushing the boundary of what constitutes digital skills ever since I first got knocked out of digital technology by the compsci grads who had claimed the keys to the kingdom. It took me decades to recover and come around to the approach I have now that nurtures my hacking mindset rather than dismissing it.

A few weeks ago I attended a STEM space technology event put on by a partner of ours in Mississauga. Moonshot was designed to introduce students to the interdisciplinary nature of STEM careers – something we go out of our way to avoid in our departmentalized schools. If you’re building space technology as an electronics engineer your job doesn’t end where the wires stop, it also involves collaborating with all the other teams to ensure the electronics are working in conjunction with mechanical, communications, logistics and many other systems. Why do schools insist on siloing subjects like they do?

That siloing is also hobbling digital literacy development. The current coding/computational thinking fixation is just the latest in a long line of compsci blinkered approaches to addressing digital technology literacy. What would it look like if we represented the true breadth of digital and taught that wider scope of understanding in our classrooms? We use this technology daily to do everything from operate our schools to deliver learning across all subjects, but then avoid teaching how it all works at all costs.

At the Moonshot event I was introduced to the CEO of MineConnect, an organization that represents and works to promote the mining industry in Ontario. Our chat at Moonshot led to introductions with Science North over their Mine Evolution game. I’m hoping to get a web based version of that running on UBC’s Quantum Arcade – perhaps with a quantum add-on as quantum sensing is going to drastically improve s in how we mine in the next decade.

What does this have to do with digital literacy? The fact that you’re asking this question shows how little most people understand about where digital technologies come from, and that understanding should be a part of their literacy, don’t you think? If you look up ‘digital supply chain’ you don’t get what we need to build digital technologies, instead you only information on how to ‘go digital’. Even industry goes out of its way to ignore what digital technology is… except in rare mineral mining, hence my work with Mine Connect and Science North.

It’s incredible to me that this late in our adoption of this technology that we still go out of our way not to teach what is needed to make digital happen. The current wholesale adoption of A.I. in education is a great example of this ignorance, as was the rush to the cloud. There is no cloud (it’s someone else’s computer) and A.I. isn’t intelligent, but we’ll grasp at digital straws with willful ignorance if we think it’ll make our lives easier.

In the CSL research I created a pyramid that showed how I taught digital awareness from the ground up in my rural high school. The assumption is that ‘kids nowadays’ know all of this, but that simply isn’t the case. If you want to disable a ‘digital native’ it’s as easy as flipping a switch they don’t usually use. If you want to send a room of them into a panic unplug the Wi-Fi router (assuming you know what that is and where to find it).

Start with the physical substrata and work your way up into the more abstract realms of digital technology; starting digital fluency at coding is like starting literacy at poetry.

In grade 9 I got a lot of digitally engrossed students who thought they knew it all because adults who lack even basic digital familiarity have been telling them that for years. Revealing that this perceived expertise is merely familiarity with a couple of devices and specific software doesn’t take long. In many cases these kids had owned a series of game consoles and phones and that’s it. Familiarity with software is limited to games and social media. Very few knew what an operating system was let alone the firmware that kick start it; this is literally how all computers work yet almost no one seems to know it.

Last week I was in Ottawa doing an introduction to OSes on our cyber range. The grade 5s didn’t know what an OS was, but by the end of our 90 minutes they certainly did. They also learned the boot process any digital device goes through from firmware start-up to OS loading to where most users think computers start – when the desktop appears. They also got to interact with Linux as well as Windows on their Chromebooks (we use a cloud based cyber range so you’re not limited to the restrictive OS on your local device). None of the students knew what Linux was, but they use it everyday because their Chromebook ChromeOS is Linux based. By the end of our afternoon they were navigating the settings in multiple OSes and understood how you could interrupt boot sequences to gain control and interrupt processes.

That we hand students tools like these without any understanding of what they are or how they work is a great failure in modern education, especially as we are only accelerating our use of these machines in classrooms. Considering how widespread their use is now, digital skills have become an ignored foundational literacy.

***

How did I tackle this ever widening digital divide in my program? We started by making our lab DIY. My seniors and I built the first iteration out of e-waste and then kept improving it as we found resources. In 2015 I returned tens of thousands of dollars in board run desktops which then got converted into half a dozen chromebook carts for other classes to use. In that first year our DIY conversion saved the board over tens of thousands of dollars.

In 2016 I contacted AMD and asked if they’d provide CPUs for our next upgrade, and they did! Our board’s SHSM program provided additional funding and for a fraction of the cost of a board run computer lab we had significantly better hardware and control over installing our own OSes and software, which allowed us to provide digital learning opportunities others couldn’t reach.

By 2018 we had a mix of AMD APUs that could handle the graphic modelling we were doing in our game-dev class. This meant they were also more than capable of running any other software we needed to build digital fluency from scratch. In the process my one teacher department went on to win multiple national awards across a staggering range of digital domains ranging from coding and electronics to IT & Networking, 3d modelling and cybersecurity. DIYing is essential if we’re to build digital skills without those compsci coding blinkers on. Even worse is buying a ready-made ‘edtech solution’ which does it all for you and doesn’t teach anyone (staff or students) how technology works. It also tends to trap you in a single brand rather than striving for agnostic digital comprehension.

Having a flexible digital learning environment that we built ourselves allowed us to create unique student projects. In grade 9 that means starting with Arduino micro-controllers. Not only did these open source electronics allow us to develop an understanding of the circuits that all digital technologies depend on, it also offered a tangible approach to programming where the lines of code would produce direct outputs like turning on lights or making music. By the end of the Arduino unit students were confident in building circuits and for many it was also their first opportunity to code in text as opposed to blocks.

As you can see by the gif, getting into Arduino in grade 9 means that by grade 10 students are building customized electronics solutions to everything from the PC temperature system you see to various robotics and digital art installations. One of my seniors worked out an Arduino based fuel management system for his pickup that he then sold to others. Understanding the electronics substrata that digital operates in is imperative for well rounded digital literacy.

From that basis in electronics and introductory coding we moved to information technology and networking – two subjects studiously ignored in schools even though every one of them depends on both to operate every day. We begin I.T. by walking students through PC parts in our recently delivered Computers For Schools desktops. After covering the safety requirements for tools and working with machines that can contain enough electricity to knock you out if you don’t treat them with respect, we dug in.

The biggest point I make in PC building is about static management. As long as students respect the delicacy of the electronics (which they already understand thanks to Arduino), they quickly gain confidence and are never again tyrannized by this technology. After this unit no one calls a desktop PC a “CPU”, because that’s just one part of a much bigger device. Calling a desktop a CPU is like calling a car an engine.

We typically spend a week taking a part desktops and putting them back together. Getting them is no problem because no one wants desktops these days and CFS has piles of them they’re aching to give to classrooms. When we wrap up the IT unit anyone who wants to take their computer home can – you’d be surprised how many students (and teachers) don’t own a home computer. The best part? If it ever goes wrong they know how to fix it because the built it from the hardware up.

Once we got the hardware figured out we installed operating systems. This involves interrupting boot processes and learning how to navigate BIOSes and other types of firmware. Everyone gets to the point where they have Windows and Linux installed, but some students want to build an epic stack. This can involve adding extra hard drives and going through install processes on up to a dozen OSes. By the end of week two we’ve got OSes installed and students have explored many more than the one that came on their phone or game system (which are often Linux based). We’ve even had our share of Hackintoshes in the lab.

Our final step in the IT/Networking unit is to connect the desktops together on a local network and figure out IP addressing and all those other connectivity details most people have no concept of even though they use them daily. Building a network like this takes it out of theory and into tangible practice, as does the PC building. By the end of the week no one is calling connectivity ‘WIFI’ any more. Ethernet is ethernet and wireless is wireless and everyone knows how to configure and troubleshoot both. The motivation is that once we’ve got our network up and running on a domain where everyone can see each other we cue up a LAN party and everyone plays networked games on their DIY systems.

Our wide ranging and borderless approach to digital skills created interesting opportunities to mash up different technologies that are typically taught in siloed departments (if at all). In this case a student leveraged Arduino electronics, PC building and networking with robotics to build a whimsical LAN party robotrain.

We do eventually get to coding of course, but starting that far up the tech pyramid is absurd. High level coding languages (the only ones schools teach) are resource heavy because they spell out commands in easy to understand English (easier for humans = harder for machines). We did HTML and associated languages in grade 9 so the internet didn’t baffle anyone anymore. In grade 10 it was Python simply because it’s in such wide use. In the senior grades students choose their own coding focus, but not before I drag them through an introduction to low level ‘machine language’ programming so they have an appreciation for all the work those high level languages are doing for them. After you’ve had to do your own memory addressing, it changes you.

Leveraging this digital literacy, my seniors helped keep the tech in our building running smoothly. This not only saved money but also gave students invaluable public facing support experience. Perhaps the best example of this was our Chromebook graveyard. We would take in broken machines and then repair them with bits from others. After a couple of years of service most high schools in our board had lost over a quarter of their Chromebooks to abuse and accidents – we enjoyed a 90%+ active rate meaning more computers for more students at no extra cost.

The ‘that’s not your job’ thinking that most boards operate under prevents this kind of innovation and cost savings. I always am left wondering to whose benefit.

The other benefit was that our digital fluency made us resilient. When COVID struck and everyone else folded up their classes and went home early, the digitally fluent students in my program didn’t want to lose their semester’s work and we went online, created our own Discord and landed it remotely. It took a bit of re-culturing because the students needed reminding that this isn’t a gaming Discord – you’re at school, but they quickly adapted and were sharing 3d models, Unity code snippets, circuit designs and network details back and forth to build complex demonstrations of their skills. In many cases they were doing it on the PCs they’d built when they were in grades 9 or 10 because many parents thinking digital technology is a toy.

So what’s stopping us from graduating digitally fluent students with a wide range of skills who are ready to go into any field they choose because every one of them these days involves some kind of digital technology? I come from a time when home computers were brand new and no one had worked out how to ‘do them’ yet. In that primordial binary goo I hacked my own software and learned how to build my own hardware. My millwright apprenticeship turned to IT because of my familiarity with this new technology but I never came at it as a scientist might, but rather as a mechanic would. Hacking isn’t bad, it’s humans finding ways to approach digital technology as agents rather than consumers.

This is from a decade ago. FB has faded from relevance, but every ‘tech’ we use follows the same approach: your attention is the product being sold.

If we’re going to tackle complex interdisciplinary digital technologies like artificial intelligence with anything other than willful ignorance, we need to start building an understanding of digital from the ground up so students and teachers can see beyond the box tech companies want to keep you in. If we’re putting children on it, we should be showing them how it works so that they become more than what most of us are: consumers.

It might sound counter-intuitive, but cybersecurity offers a unique approach to tech that other subjects lack. Cyber is inherently about edge cases and encourages a ‘meta’ mindset when approaching digital environments. You’re not a component inside the system, you’ve recognized its limitations and are working beyond it where being human is not only a benefit but essential. With all the ‘AI doing it for you’ going on these days does being human matter? Other approaches seem easier and wear ‘academic credibility’ better, but what is academic credibility but another system meant to contain your thinking? If we keep our current status quo we will, at best, produce another generation of passive consumers. We’ve tried that and it isn’t going well. Time to hack this problem by putting students back in control of the technology we are using to control them. It’s time to embrace your inner hacker.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/AmwaX6d
via IFTTT