Technology has played a prominent role in ensuring that nations experience growth in most of their industries that positively impact their economies. On the other hand, operations of various industries have immensely been improved in multiple ways that include production, speed, and quality. Contrary to these facts, the security of the nation has been jeopardized by the increase in innovations influenced by technology. Hence the existence of illegal operations through the internet and other digitized devices. For purposes of ensuring that there is security and citizens are protected from possible criminal activities perpetrated through the digital networks and the internet, the implementation of IT Security policies in various States has become a top priority.
Concerning the executive branches of state governments, IT security policies incorporate every technology standards and programs primarily to promote the security of the nation (Greenberg, 2016) . Besides safety, the core purposes of IT Security Policies is to ensure that the particular plans and relevant concerns are looked into critically to ensure that possible loopholes are sealed and dealt with before they cause harm. On the other hand, the policies provide that related institute s promote management of both resources and innovation of technology. Therefore, it is vital for all states to implement comprehensive IT Security Policies for all agencies and offices because the magnitude of cyber threats differs from one region to another. On the other hand, it is important for each state to identify security concerns within their territory and figure out ways in which the existing challenges can be resolved (Ratzlaff, 2003) . Moreover, staying aware of possible incidences of cyber threats within states influences the ability to place measures that will avoid the occurrence of insecure events, hence ensuring that every involved agency is accountable to all the responsibilities allocated to them.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Like most states in the U.S.A, California and Georgia have their own IT Security policies that enable them to stay alert in case of any cyber insecurity within their regions. The core purposes that have influenced both states to embrace implementation of security policies are mostly the need to stay updated with the issues that concern the security of both states. Moreover, the absolute necessity for the Homeland Security in both states has influenced the need for IT Security Programs and Agencies. In comparison to each other, both states work collaboratively with relevant networks and institutes for purposes of staying on guard for IT insecurity. For instance, the core IT security agent in California referred to as the California Office of Information Security performs its duties in collaboration with other vital agencies. They include California Highway Patrol (CHP), the California Military Department (CMD), California Cybersecurity Integration Center and the office of Health Information Integrity among others, to ensure that the allocate plans in securing networks is achieved. Georgia State, on the other hand, formulated the agency in charge of Information Security referred to as the Georgia Technology Authority. Just like the California Office of Information Security, the Georgia Technology Authority works hand in hand with the federal, local, state and private – sector agencies. Most of these agencies involved in security education, governance, awareness, preparedness, risk management purposely to enhance cyber-security consulting, security governance and IT/IS risk management among others. Both states have formulated agencies that are responsible for IT Security and all the involved factors. For instance, in Georgia, various departments that include Georgia Technology Authority (2017) and the Department of Human Services (n.d) have the office of Information technology which is either responsive to security in IT or handles issues of procurement, management, and telecommunication services. As for the case of California state, under the watch of Governor Edmund Brown, the Secretary of Government Operations Agency Marybel Batjer and the Director and Chief and State Chief Information Officer Amy Tong, the CA Department of Technology (CDT) is purposely implemented to enhance security in the region to all associated institutes.
According to Alex Espenson (2015), California state has the most robust Security Policy in the United States so far. Moreover, population wise, California is bigger than the rest hence must ensure that the illuminating cyber - attacks are dealt with by protecting both the region and its people. Therefore, the California Electronic Communication Privacy Act (CaIECPA ) was enforced and signed by the Governor Jerry Brown to protect the citizens in California from unauthorized searches and seizures. On the other hand, the Act promotes security in the quest for an investigation on electronic devices to safeguard the possibility of cyber - attacks. Compared to other states, California is the first to formulate a comprehensive policy that protects the contents of devices, their location, and searches. On the other hand, unlike Georgia, California has secured a Department of Technology that is focused on developing innovative and responsive solutions to all business needs and available IT challenges. The department is also geared towards providing quality assurance for all government IT projects and services (Ca.Gov, 2017). Additional responsibilities of CDT include the coordination with other agencies, formulation of policies, overseeing available IT projects and advocacy for Information security and delivery of technology services.
The State of Georgia, on the other hand, has ensured that IT Security measures are implemented through every agency that is associated with Information Technology. Furthermore, the security of all business entities and individuals using computerized devices on various networks is a priority. As elaborated by the Georgia Technology Authority (2017), the primary goal of the state is to ensure that its citizens develop trust for the institution through the allocated services. Their key focus is to provide strategic directions and leadership on the state’s cyber protection and information assets. Furthermore, the state is involved in safeguarding the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of all systems and applications all over the state. One of the unique characteristics of the Georgia cybersecurity department is their ability to operate just like the central information security program. As mentioned earlier, Georgia ensures that it meets its set goals in securing Information Technology and gaining the trust of its citizens by collaborating with other relevant agencies both in private and public sectors. The outcome of collaboration is the ability to foster a culture of awareness on security all over the state and its institutions.
While the threat of cybersecurity in Georgia and California have similarities due to the existence of a common technology innovation in both states, their strategies in handling the same issue are slightly different. Besides the use of technical ways, California ensures that its citizens are made aware of the possible threats hence are informed and educated on issues that concern cybersecurity and measures that can be taken to stay protected. Moreover, the tactics used in Georgia on Cyber – Security are also enhanced on the Homeland Security Agency that is responsible for the well-being and safeguarding of its people, business, and properties (Georgia Emergency Management & Homeland Security Agency, 2014). While California has a defined department of technology, Georgia has offices of Information Technology in various units which makes it easier for the state to allocate comprehensive security measures in the IT industries and entities that make use of the innovations. Considering the disparity in needs and available active technology innovations, the cybersecurity measures implemented in Georgia and California are both suitable for the states. For purposes of improvement in implementation, both states can consider allocating training in various institutes to ensure that security measures are impacted and promoted within the regions. On the other hand, Georgia can consider formulating a standard department like in the case of California, whose responsibility will strictly be focused on cybersecurity. As elaborated in the Deloitte-NASCIO Cyber-security study by Srini Subramanian and Doug Robinson (2014), some of the leading challenges that face the implementation of security measures in the IT of most states is inadequate funds that can meet the allocated strategies. Therefore, it is vital for the states to collaborate and enhance their strategy which will reach a defined budget that will be favorable. It is evident that the efforts of Georgia in fighting cyber-crime was catalyzed by the attack from Russia in August 2008, hence their massive strategies applied to all entities that include private and public sectors (LSE, 2017). Besides the plans that have been outlined in the Center for Strategic and International Studies (2012), Georgia is still on the verge of experiencing immense cyber-attacks most that arise from within.
Cyber insecurity has posed a menace to all countries that have industries which are making use of Information Technology in their operations. Unlike other threats and vulnerabilities, cyber-attacks have indicated an immense ability to trample down an economy, hence contribute to the destruction of lives and organizations. Therefore, the efforts applied by most states are all geared towards ensuring that every citizen is protected from any form of insecurity and made aware of the available challenges. Moreover, the formulation of policies in most states is looked into ensuring that the implemented Acts are adhered to, to the later.
References
Georgia Emergency Management & Homeland Security Agency . (2014). Retrieved November 29, 2017, from Homeland Security Division: http://www.gema.ga.gov/PlanPrepare/Pages/Homeland-Security-Division.aspx
Ca.Gov. (2017). California Department of Technology . Retrieved November 29, 2017, from California Govenment: https://cdt.ca.gov/
CSIS. (2012, July). Georgia’s Security Challenges And Policy Recommendations . Retrieved November 29, 2017, from Center for Strategic International Studies: https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/120716_Georgia_Policy_Brief_One.pdf
dea.gov.ge. (2015). National Cyber Security Strategy of Georgia . Retrieved November 29, 2017, from dea.gov.ge: http://www.dea.gov.ge/uploads/National%20Cyber%20Security%20Strategy%20of%20Georgia_ENG.pdf
Department of Human Services. (n.d.). Office of Information Technology . Retrieved November 29, 2017, from Geogia Government: https://dhs.georgia.gov/office-information-technology
Espenson, A. (2015, November 18). California’s Cyber Security Policy Is Now the Strongest in the U.S. Retrieved November 29, 2017, from TECH.CO: https://tech.co/californias-cyber-security-policy-now-strongest-u-s-2015-11
Georgia Technology Authority. (2017). Cybersecurity . Retrieved November 29, 2017, from Georgia Government: https://gta.georgia.gov/cybersecurity
Greenberg, P. (2016, January 16). DATA Security Laws / State Government . Retrieved November 29, 2017, from National Conference of State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/data-security-laws-state-government.aspx
LSE. (2017, September 13). Information Security Policies, Procedures and Guidelines . Retrieved November 29, 2017, from LSE: http://www.lse.ac.uk/intranet/LSEServices/IMT/about/policies/home.aspx
Ratzlaff, J. (2003, January 22). Importance of a Security Policy . Retrieved November 29, 2017, from ZDNet: http://www.zdnet.com/article/importance-of-a-security-policy/
Robb, C. (2009). Desperately Seeking Security Frameworks – A Roadmap for State CIOs. NASCIO.
Subramanian, S., & Robinson, D. (2014). 2014 Deloitte-NASCIO Cybersecurity Study. NASCIO.
The White House. (n.d.). The Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative . Retrieved November 29, 2017, from The White House: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/233086
