This book stems from the CyberBRICS project, which is the first initiative to develop a comparative analysis of the digital policies developed by BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries. BRICS have been chosen as a focus not only because their digital policies are affecting more than 40% of the global population – i.e. roughly 3.2 billion individuals living in such countries – but also all the individuals and businesses willing to use technologies developed in the BRICS or trading digital goods and services with these countries.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
The author thanks wholeheartedly the entire CyberBRICS team for their excellent work. The author would like to especially acknowledge the very useful feedback received from Dr. Min Jiang and Mr. Walter Britto as well as the tremendous editorial work of Mr. Luã Fergus, Ms. Laila Lorenzon, Ms. Carolina Telles and, once again, Mr. Walter Britto. The author expresses sincere gratitude for their friendship, feedback and very constructive comments, all along the development of the CyberBRICS project, to Dr. Ivar Hartmann, Ms. Hannah Draper, Dr. Ian Brown, Dr. Alison Gillwald, Dr. Marcelo Thompson, Ms. Elonnai Hickok, Mr. Sunil Abraham, Dr. Enrico Calandro, Ms. Anri van der Spuy, Dr. Alexey Ivanov, Dr. Shen Yi, Mr. Sergio Suchodolski, Mr. Sizwe Snail, Dr. Nicolo Zingales, Dr. Danilo Doneda and Mr. Bruno Ramos. The CyberBRICS project is an incredible collective effort, hosted by Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Law School and developed in partnership with the Higher School of Economics, in Moscow, Russia; the Centre for Internet and Society, New Delhi, India; the Fudan University, Shanghai, China; and the University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. For further information, see <https://cyberbrics.info/>.
The phrase was coined by the British mathematician Clive Humby, in 2006, and was subsequently made popular by the World Economic Forum 2011 report on personal data. See WEF (2011).
See Kuneva (2009).
See The Economist (2017).
The term Internet user is utilised in this in its double nature of prosumer, i.e. both producer and consumer of digital products and services. See Belli (2017:98).
See O’Neill (2001).
The inclusion of South Africa in the group can be largely explained by the existence of the India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum or IBSA Trilateral, established in June 2003, as a mechanism for permanent coordination between the countries. The creation of IBSA signalled the strong political will to establish a long-standing partnership, collaborating to “the construction of a new international architecture; bring their voice together on global issues; deepen their ties in various areas”. See <http://www.ibsa-trilateral.org/background.html>.
See Stuenkel (2016).
See Brazilian Presidency of the BRICS (2019).
See BRICS (14 August 2019).
For an analysis of such documents and their impact, see Kiselev and Nechaeva (2018).
The BRICS Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Science, Technology and Innovation was approved at the second BRICS Science, Technology and Innovation Ministerial Meeting, held in Brasília, on 18 March 2015. See BRICS (18 March 2015).
See BRICS Working Group on ICT Cooperation (11 November 2016).
See BRICS (2018).
See BRICS STIEP WG (May 2019).
See Itamaraty (27 June 2019).
See BRICS (October 2019).
See BRICS (September 2019).
Three BRICS countries, i.e. China, India and Brazil, are the most populated countries of the regions where Internet growth is expected to be the most relevant. See Cisco (2017).
See BRICS STIEP WG (May 2019).
See Kunming (11 September 2019).
The first Institute has been established in Shenzhen, China, in August 2019. See XinhuaNet (2019).
See Belli (2016:347–358).
See paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (18 November 2005). WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6(Rev. 1)-E. <https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html>.
I thank my friend Henrique Paiva for sharing this metaphor during his presentation at the CyberBRICS event on 5G and New Digital Infrastructures in the BRICS, held at FGV Law School on 30 August 2019. See <https://cyberbrics.info/event-5g-and-new-digital-infrastructures-in-the-brics/>.
Formal agreement on the necessity to adopt a multistakeholder model to properly address cybersecurity has already emerged since the World Summit on the Information Society, culminating in the adoption of the Tunis Agenda, whose paragraph 39 states that UN members “reaffirm the necessity to further promote, develop and implement in cooperation with all stakeholders a global culture of cybersecurity, as outlined in UNGA Resolution 57/239 and other relevant regional frameworks”. See Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (18 November 2005). WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6(Rev. 1)-E. <https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html>.
According to the cybersecurity analysis firm Gemalto, during the first 6 months of 2018, “almost 1 billion records were compromised” only considering the breach incident of Indian digital identify programme Aadhaar, including the leak of Indian citizen names, addresses and a wide range of other personally identified information. See, for instance, Gemalto (2018).
Article 33 of the General Data Protection Regulation that entered in force in the European Union in May 2018 determines that personal data breach incidents must be notified to the supervisory authority “without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after having become aware of it”. This norm, by itself, is at the origin of a much greater awareness of the number of breaches occurring on a daily basis. This provision has also directly inspired the drafters of the Brazilian General Data Protection Legislation that, in its Article 48 foresees – in a less constringent tone than the EU Regulation – that “data breach notifications must occur within a reasonable time, to be defined by the national authority”.
See, for instance, the reasoning of the Court of Justice of the European Union declaring that the EU Commission’s US Safe Harbour Decision is invalid, stressing that “the law and practice of the United States do not offer sufficient protection against surveillance by the public authorities of the data transferred to that country”. Case C-362/14. Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner. Press Release No 117/15. <https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-10/cp150117en.pdf>.
See, for instance, Sevastopulo and Bond (2019).
Since the World Summit on the Information Society, cybersecurity has been considered as an overarching concept encompassing a wide range of items and practices, including information sharing of national and regional approaches, good practices and guidelines; development of warning and incident response capabilities; establishment of suitable technical standards and industry solutions; harmonisation of national legal approaches and establishment of international legal coordination; definition of sound privacy, data and consumer protection systems; and promotion of cybersecurity capacity building. See ITU (2005).
For a recent and well-structure overview, see Fichtner (2018), discussing four approaches to cybersecurity, based on data protection, safeguards of financial interests, protection of public and political infrastructures and control of information and communication flows. For an analysis of different conceptualisations of cybersecurity, see also Wolff (2016).
See ITU-T (2009).
The authors acknowledge that telecoms regulation and capacity building programmes are also two further dimensions that need to be explored, to have a complete picture of cybersecurity policy frameworks. However, these dimensions are not analysed in this volume, as they will be explored within the 2020–2021 CyberBRICS workflow, dedicated to Internet access policies and the digitalisation of public administrations in the BRICS.
As an instance, in June 2019, the United States were reportedly “stepping up digital incursions into Russia’s electric power grid in a warning to President Vladimir V. Putin and a demonstration of how the Trump administration is using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively”. According to the New York Times, “current and former [US] government officials described the previously unreported deployment of American computer code inside Russia’s grid” by the United States Cyber Command, the arm of the Pentagon that runs the military’s offensive and defensive operations in the online world. See Sanger and Perlroth (2019).
As an instance, BRICS countries jointly agreed during the Ninth BRICS Summit, in 2017, to jointly advocate for data protection and, after the 2017 Xiamen Declaration, all BRICS adopted or updated their data protection regimes.
In China, significant government-led and policy-promoted investments in infrastructure are commonly acknowledged amongst the main driving forces that propelled the remarkable Internet growth undertaken by the country. See, for example, Boston Consulting Group (2017). A deeper analysis into the BRICS frameworks related to Internet access will be undertaken by the CyberBRICS project starting from 2020.
The expansion of connectivity as well as the advancement of the IoT can trigger an ample range of benefits, spanning from increased access to education, information and knowledge to gains in productivity, improved citizen participation, but also smoother transportations, more reliable electricity and cleaner environments. See, for example, World Bank (2016) and ITU (2016).
These BRICS countries are respectively first, second, fourth and fifth nation with most smartphone users in the world. See Statista (2019).
See Tunis Agenda, paragraph 39.
This definition was originally proposed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. See NIST (2003).
See Min Jiang’s analysis in Chap. 8.
See European Union Chamber of Commerce in China (2019).
This alternative regulatory technique will be the object of a future study.
This phenomenon is particularly evident as regards terms of service of digital platforms. See Belli and Venturini (2016).
In the BRICS context, this approach has been very vocally reasserted by the Supreme Court of India, in 2017, with the adoption of its landmark Puttaswamy Judgement, stating that “the Right to Privacy is an integral part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution”. See WP (C) 494 of 2012, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union Of India.
See UNCTAD (2016).
See, for example, Gemalto (2018).
In this sense, see Min Jiang’s analysis in Chap. 8.
See Bond (2019).
See Andrey Shcherbovich’s analysis in Chap. 4.
See Belli (2019).
According to the consultancy Statista, the “total installed base of Internet of Things (IoT) connected devices is projected to amount to 75.44 billion worldwide by 2025, a fivefold increase in ten years”. See <https://www.statista.com/statistics/471264/iot-number-of-connected-devices-worldwide/>.
See Mosenia and Jha (2016).
Marzano et al. (2018).
See Antonakakis et al. (2017).
See Pankov (2019).
See UNGA Resolution: Creation of a global culture of cybersecurity and taking stock of national efforts to protect critical information infrastructure, A/RES/64/211.
See ITU (2014).
Particularly, the Tunis Agenda, in its paragraph 40, affirms “the necessity of effective and efficient tools and actions, at national and international levels, to promote international cooperation among, inter alia, law-enforcement agencies on cybercrime [and] call[s] upon governments in cooperation with other stakeholders to develop necessary legislation for the investigation and prosecution of cybercrime”.
This situation has led Russia to enact “Internet Sovereignty” legislation, to reterritorialise digital environment, as illustrated by Andrey Shcherbovich analysis. See Chap. 3 and the annexed Russian country report.
Cybercrime and cyberattacks are considered as transnational security issues to be maintained as “main areas of cooperation” for BRICS countries. See <http://brics2019.itamaraty.gov.br/en/about-brics/main-areas-of-cooperation>.
See World Bank (2017:66).
The Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe (CETS No. 185) is the only binding international instrument specially dedicated to framing cybercrime issue. It serves as a guideline for any country developing comprehensive national legislation against cybercrime and as a framework for international cooperation between treaty signatories. Interestingly, South Africa is the only BRICS member to be a signatory of the Budapest Convention, while Russia, which is a Council of Europe member, is not a signatory. See <https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/the-budapest-convention>.
See UNODC (2013).
See the “Cybercrime” section of the Chinese Country Report, annexed to Chap. 5.
See Chap. 2 of this volume.
See the “Cybercrime” section of the Russian Country Report, in Chap. 3.
See Sagwadi Mabunda’s analysis in Chap. 6 and the “Cybercrime” section of the annexed South African Country Report.
See Anja Kovacs’ analysis in Chap. 4 and the “Cybercrime” section of the annexed Indian Country Report.
See, for example, ICCPR (1966) art. 12, 19, 21 and 22. Importantly, the degree of “necessity” is generally evaluated considering the legitimacy of the goal established by law and the proportionality of the measures. In this perspective, the UN Human Rights Council has consistently stated that “Restrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instruments amongst those, which might achieve the desired result; and they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected”. See, for example, UNHRC General Comments No. 27/1999 and No. 34/2004.
See Belli and Sappa (2017).
See Belli, Francisco and Zingales (2017).
See Min Jiang’s analysis in Chap. 5 as well as the Chinese Country Report.
See Daniel Oppermann’s analysis in Chap. 2 of this volume.
See Canongia and Mandarino (2012).
See Dewar (2018).
The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation and the Russian Doctrine of Information Security are particularly relevant in this regard, as pointed out by Andrey Shcherbovich’s analysis in Chap. 4.
See Bridi and Greenwald (2013).
See O Globo (2015).
See the Russian enactment of the “Internet Sovereignty” law, as highlighted by Andrey Shcherbovich’s analysis in Chap. 4.
In this perspective, see Drake, Cerf and Kleinwächter (2016).
See BRICS (9 July 2015).
See BRICS (16 October 2016).
See BRICS (9 July 2015).
See BRICS (September 2019).
In this sense, see Ziero (2015).
The various facets of the BRICS digital policies will be analysed in the forthcoming works of the CyberBRICS project.
Antonakakis, Manos et al. (2017). Understanding the Mirai Botnet. In Proceedings of the 26th USENIX Security Symposium August 16–18, 2017. Vancouver, BC, Canada <https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity17/sec17-antonakakis.pdf>.
Banga, Rashmi & Jeet Singh, Parminder (2019). BRICS Digital Cooperation for Industrialization. Working Paper 4/2019. Centre for Competition Regulation and Economic Development. University of Johannesburg.
Belli, Luca. (2017). Net Neutrality, Zero-rating and the Minitelisation of the Internet. Journal of Cyber Policy. Routledge. Vol 2. n° 1. <https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2016.1238954>.
Belli, Luca. (2019). The Need for a RIoT (Responsible Internet of Things): A Human Rights Perspective on IoT Systems. In Mullen M. et al (2019). Navigating a New Era in Business and Human Rights. Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies and Article 30. Pp. 181–188. <https://article30.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/a_new_era.pdf>.
Belli, Luca. (2016). De la gouvernance à la regulation de l’Internet. Paris: Berger-Levrault.
Belli, Luca. (2015). A heterostakeholder cooperation for sustainable Internet policymaking. Internet Policy Review, 4(2). <https://doi.org/10.14763/2015.2.364>.
Belli, Luca; Francisco, Pedro & Zingales, Nicolo. (2017). Law of the Land or Law of the Platform? Beware of the Privatisation of Regulation and Police. In Belli, Luca & Zingales, Nicolo (Eds.) Platform regulations: how platforms are regulated and how they regulate us. Rio de Janeiro. FGV Direito Rio. Pp 41–64. <https://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19402>.
Belli, Luca & Sappa, Cristiana. (2017). The Intermediary Conundrum: Cyber-regulators, Cyber-police or both? JIPITEC (Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law) Special Issue: Intermediary Liability as a Human Rights Issue. Vol. 8, n° 3. Pp 183–198. <https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-8-3-2017/4620>.
Belli, Luca & Venturini, Jamila. (2016). Private ordering and the rise of terms of service as cyber-regulation. Internet Policy Review, 5(4). <https://doi.org/10.14763/2016.4.441>.
Bond. (2019). Internet Trends 2019. <https://www.bondcap.com/report/itr19/#view/1>.
Boston Consulting Group (September 2017). Decoding the Chinese Internet. A white paper on China’s Internet economy.
Brazilian Presidency of the BRICS. (2019). What is BRICS? <http://brics2019.itamaraty.gov.br/en/about-brics/what-is-brics>.
BRICS (October 2019). BRICS Science, Technology and Innovation Work Plan 2019–2022. <http://brics2019.itamaraty.gov.br/images/documentos/BRICS_STI_Work_Plan_2019-2022__Final.pdf>.
BRICS (September 2019). A New BRICS STI Architecture. <http://brics2019.itamaraty.gov.br/images/documentos/The_New_BRICS_STI_Architecture__Steering_Committee__Final_19_9_19.pdf>.
BRICS. (14 August 2019). Declaration of the BRICS Ministers of Science, Technology and Telecommunications, Brasilia, Brasil. <http://brics2019.itamaraty.gov.br/images/documentos/Declarao_da_5_Reunio_de_Comunicao_dos_Ministros_do_BRICS.pdf>.
BRICS. (July 2018). 10th BRICS Summit Johannesburg Declaration — BRICS in Africa: Collaboration for Inclusive Growth and Shared Prosperity in the 4th Industrial Revolution. July 25–27 2018, Johannesburg, South Africa. <http://www.brics.utoronto.ca/docs/180726-johannesburg.html>.
BRICS. (4 September 2017). 9th BRICS Summit. BRICS Leaders Xiamen Declaration. Xiamen, China. <http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/en/press-releases/17427-9th-brics-summit-brics-leaders-xiamen-declaration-xiamen-china-september-4-2017>.
BRICS. (16 October 2016). 8th BRICS Summit: Goa Declaration. Goa, India. <http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/pt-BR/notas-a-imprensa/14931-viii-cupula-do-brics-goa-india-15-e-16-de-outubro-de-2016-declaracao-e-plano-de-acao-de-goa>.
BRICS. (18 March 2015). BRICS Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Science, Technology and Innovation. Second BRICS Science, Technology and Innovation Ministerial Meeting. Brasília, 18 March, 2015. <http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/pt-BR/notas-a-imprensa/8342-ii-reuniao-de-ministros-de-ciencia-tecnologia-e-inovacao-do-brics-documentos-aprovados-brasilia-18-de-marco-de-2015#mos>.
BRICS. (9 July 2015). Ufa Declaration, VII BRICS Summit. Ufa, Russian Federation. <http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/pt-BR/notas-a-imprensa/10465-vii-cupula-do-brics-declaracao-de-ufa-ufa-russia-9-de-julho-de-2015#eng>.
BRICS Competition Centre. (2019). Digital Era Competition BRICS Report. <https://cyberbrics.info/digital-era-competition-brics-report/>.
BRICS STIEP WG. (May 2019). Minutes of the BRICS Working Group on Science Technology Innovation and Entrepreneurship Partnership (STIEP WG). Foz do Iguaçu, Brasil 12–15 May 2019. <http://brics2019.itamaraty.gov.br/images/documentos/Minutes_of_the_3rd_Meeting_of_the_STIEP_WG_-_Complete_version.pdf>.
BRICS Working Group on ICT Cooperation. (11 November 2016). Digital Partnership – Transformation through ICTs. ICT Development Agenda and Action Plan. 2nd Meeting of BRICS Ministers of Communications.
Bridi, Sonia & Greenwald, Glenn (1 September 2013). Documentos revelam esquema de agência dos EUA para espionar Dilma. O Globo. <http://g1.globo.com/fantastico/noticia/2013/09/documentos-revelam-esquema-de-agencia-dos-eua-para-espionar-dilma-rousseff.html>.
Canongia, Claudia & Mandarino, Raphael. (2012). Cybersecurity: The new challenge of the information society. Handbook of Research on Business Social Networking: Organizational, Managerial, and Technological Dimensions. IGI Global.
Cisco. (2017). Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update 2016 2021. White Paper. San Jose, CA: Cisco. <https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white-paper-c11-738429.html>.
Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services, South Africa. (2017). Cybersecurity Readiness Report 2017. <https://www.cybersecurityhub.gov.za/images/docs/Cyber-Readiness-Report.pdf>.
Dewar, Robert S. (Ed.) (2018) National Cyberdefence Policy Snapshots. Cyber Defence Project (CDP). Zürich, September 2018. Centre for Security Studies (CSS).
Drake, William J.; Cerf Vinton G. & Kleinwächter, Wolfgang. (January 2016). Internet Fragmentation: An Overview. Future of the Internet Initiative White Paper. <http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FII_Internet_Fragmentation_An_Overview_2016.pdf>.
Ewing, Reese. (27 July 2016) Brazil prosecutor freezes $11.7 million of Facebook funds due to WhatsApp case. Reuters. <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-facebook-whatsapp-idUSKCN10801Q>.
European Union Chamber of Commerce in China (2019). The Digital Hand: How China’s Corporate Social Credit System Conditions Market Actors. <https://www.europeanchamber.com.cn/en/publications-archive/709/The_Digital_Hand_How_China_s_Corporate_Social_Credit_System_Conditions_Market_Actors>
Fichtner, L. (2018_). What kind of cyber security? Theorising cyber security and mapping approaches. Internet Policy Review, 7(2), 1–19. <https://doi.org/10.14763/2018.2.788>.
Gemalto. (2018). Breach Level Index. <https://breachlevelindex.com/request-report>.
Kolomychenko, Maria. (30 August 2018). Russia tries more precise technology to block Telegram messenger. Reuters. <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-telegram/russia-tries-more-precise-technology-to-block-telegram-messenger-idUSKCN1LF1ZZ>.
Kunming. (11 September 2019). Kunming enhances technology cooperation with BRICS countries. <http://en.kunming.cn/c/2019-09-11/10793655.htm>.
Kiselev, Vladimir & Nechaeva, Elena. (2018). Priorities and Possible Risks of the BRICS Countries’ Cooperation in Science, Technology and Innovation, 5(4) BRICS Law Journal 33–60 <https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2018-5-4-33-60>.
Kuneva, Meglena. (31 March 2009). Keynote Speech. Roundtable on Online Data Collection, Targeting and Profiling. Brussels, European Commission. <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-09-156_en.htm>.
Marzano, Artur et al. (2018). The Evolution of Bashlite and Mirai IoT Botnets. in 2018 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC). <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8538636>.
Mosenia, Arsalan & Jha, Niraj K. (2016). A Comprehensive Study of Security of Internet-of-Things. in IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing. Vol. 5 N° 4 <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7562568>.
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) (August 2003). Special Publication 800-59. <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-59.pdf>.
ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). (1966). Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976. <https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx>.
Itamaraty. (27 June 2019). BRICS Informal leaders’ meeting on the margins of the G20 Summit – Joint Media Statement – Osaka, 28 June 2019. <http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/en/press-releases/20557-brics-informal-leaders-meeting-on-the-margins-of-the-g20-summit-joint-media-statement-osaka-28-june-2019>.
ITU. (2014) Understanding cybercrime: Phenomena, challenges and legal response Geneva: ITU Telecommunication Development Bureau. <https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Cybersecurity/Documents/Cybercrime2014_E.pdf>.
ITU. (2005). ITU WSIS Thematic Meeting on Cybersecurity. Chairman’s Report. ITU Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland. 28 June–1 July 2005.
ITU-T. (2009). Recommendation X.1205 (04/08): Overview of cybersecurity. Approved in 2008-04-18. <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.1205-200804-I>.
UN Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development (2016). Harnessing the Internet of Things for Global Development. Geneva: International Telecommunication Union <https://www.itu.int/en/action/broadband/Documents/Harnessing-IoT-Global-Development.pdf>.
O Globo. (4 July 2015). EUA grampearam Dilma, ex-ministros e avião presidencial, revela WikiLeak. <http://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2015/07/lista-revela-29-integrantes-do-governo-dilma-espionados-pelos-eua.html>.
O’Neill, Jim. (November 2001). Building better global economic BRICs. New York: Goldman Sachs. Global Economics Paper, n. 66. <http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/archive/archive-pdfs/build-better-brics.pdf>.
Pankov, Nikolay. (19 March 2019). Mirai goes Enterprise. Kaspersky Daily. <https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/mirai-enterprise/26032/>.
Sanger, David E. & Perlroth, Nicole. (June 15, 2019). U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid. <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/15/us/politics/trump-cyber-russia-grid.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share>.
Sevastopulo, Demetri & Bond, David. (17 February 2019) UK says Huawei is manageable risk to 5G. Financial Times. <https://www.ft.com/content/619f9df4-32c2-11e9-bd3a-8b2a211d90d5>.
Statista. (2019). Number of smartphone users by country as of September 2019 (in millions). <https://www.statista.com/statistics/748053/worldwide-top-countries-smartphone-users/>.
Stuenkel, Oliver. (2016). Post-Western World: How Emerging Powers Are Remaking Global Order. Polity Press.
The Economist. (6 May 2017). The world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data. <https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21721656-data-economy-demands-new-approach-antitrust-rules-worlds-most-valuable-resource>.
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). (2016). Data protection regulations and international data flows: Implications for trade and development. <https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/dtlstict2016d1_en.pdf>.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly). (1 March 2018). Progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society at the regional and international levels. Report of the Secretary-General. A/73/66–E/2018/10.
UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime). (2013). Comprehensive Study on Cybercrime. Vienna: UNODC. <https://www.unodc.org/documents/organized-crime/cybercrime/CYBERCRIME_STUDY_210213.pdf>.
Vaidya, Tavish. (July 2015). 2001-2013: Survey and Analysis of Major Cyberattacks. Department of Computer Science, Georgetown University. <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.06673.pdf>.
WEF. (January 2011). Personal Data: The Emergence of a New Asset Class. <http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ITTC_PersonalDataNewAsset_Report_2011.pdf>.
Wolff, J. (2016). What we talk about when we talk about cybersecurity: Security in Internet governance debates. Internet Policy Review, 5(3). <https://doi.org/10.14763/2016.3.430>.
World Bank. (2016). World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends. Washington, DC: World Bank. <http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/391452529895999/WDR16-BP-Exploring-the-Relationship-between-Broadband-and-Economic-Growth-Minges.pdf>.
World Bank (2017). Combatting Cybercrime Tools and Capacity Building for Emerging Economies. Washington, DC: The World Bank. <https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Cybersecurity/Documents/worldbank-combating-cybercrime-toolkit.pdf>.
Ziero, Gabriel Webber. (December 2015). Looking for a BRICS perspective on international law. Revista de Direito Internacional, Brasília. Vol. 12. N. 2. Pp. 303–322. <https://doi.org/10.5102/rdi.v12i2.3678>.
XinhuaNet. (7 August 2019). BRICS set up new institutional branch to strengthen cooperation on ICT. <http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-08/07/c_138289903.htm>.
Editors and Affiliations
© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Belli, L. (2021). CyberBRICS: A Multidimensional Approach to Cybersecurity for the BRICS. In: Belli, L. (eds) CyberBRICS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56405-6_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-56404-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-56405-6