periodiko n19 12-7-10:Layout 1

Transcript

ISSUE 19 | JULY 2010 | www.pliroforiki.org
e-SIGNATURES:
A EUROPEAN UNION VISION p.11
PROTECTION OF CRITICAL
DATA USING INFORMATION
CENTRIC APPROACH p.21
MYTHS ABOUT PASSWORD
SETTINGS AND OTHER
NONSENSE: HOW INFORMATION
SECURITY TORTURES USERS IN
THE NAME OF SECURITY p.27
ŒÎ‰ÔÛË ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ˘ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ | Publication of the Cyprus Computer Society | ISSN 1450-152X
ΠΕΡΙΕΧΟΜΕΝΑ
CONTENTS
ISSUE 19 - JULY 2010
Δ∂ÀÃ√™ 19 - π√À§π√™ 2010
π‰ÈÔÎÙ‹ÙË˜
∫˘ÚÈ·Îfi˜ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜
Δ£ 27038
1641 §Â˘ÎˆÛ›·
∫‡ÚÔ˜
ΔËÏ.: 22 460680
º·Í: 22 767349
[email protected]
www.ccs.org.cy
™˘ÓÙ·ÎÙÈÎ‹ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹
∫˘ÚÈ¿ÎÔ˜ E. °ÂˆÚÁ›Ô˘
ª›Óˆ˜ °ÂˆÚÁ¿ÎË˜
°È¿ÓÓÔ˜ ∞ÏÂÙÚ¿ÚË˜
º›ÏÈÔ˜ ¶ÂÏÂÙÈ¤˜
¶·Ó›ÎÔ˜ ª·ÛÔ‡Ú·˜
02
ª‹Ó˘Ì· ™˘ÓÙ·ÎÙÈÎ‹˜ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹˜
08
Δ· Ó¤· Ì·˜
11
e-Signatures: A European Union Vision
Christos Ellinides
21
Protection Of Critical Data Using
Information Centric Approach
Notis Iliopoulos
27
Myths about Password Settings and Other
Nonsense: How Information Security Tortures
Users in the Name of Security
Gene Schultz
32
Teacher Use of ICT in Cyprus Primary Schools
Charalambos Vrasidas
37
Knowledge Management In Developing
And Delivering Software Products
Andreas Hadjioannou
40
How To Share Knowledge Through
Product Cross-Evaluation
Katerina Neophytou
45
Do you know this man?
Philippos Peleties
ÀÔ‚ÔÏ¤˜ ÕÚıÚˆÓ
[email protected]
¢È·ÊËÌ›ÛÂÈ˜
ÃÚÈÛÙ›Ó· ¶··ÌÈÏÙÈ¿‰Ô˘
ΔËÏ.: 22 460680
[email protected]
∂ÈÌ¤ÏÂÈ· - ™ÂÏ›‰ˆÛË - ∂ÍÒÊ˘ÏÏÔ
∂ÏÂ¿Ó· ¡ÈÎÔÏ¿Ô˘
[email protected]
ISSN 1450-152X
ª‹Ó˘Ì· ÙË˜
™˘ÓÙ·ÎÙÈÎ‹˜ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹˜
πÔ‡ÏÈÔ˜ 2010
∞Á·ËÙÔ› Ê›ÏÔÈ Î·È Ê›ÏÂ˜,
∂ÈÛ·ÁˆÁ‹
H «¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹» ÂÈÛÙÚ¤ÊÂÈ Û·ÊÒ˜ ·Ó·ÓÂˆÌ¤ÓË ÌÂÙ¿ ·fi ÌÈ·
Ì·ÎÚfi¯ÚÔÓË ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô ÚÔ‚ÏËÌ·ÙÈÛÌÔ‡ ˆ˜ ÚÔ˜ ÙÔ Ì¤ÏÏÔÓ ÙË˜
¤Î‰ÔÛË˜. ∏ ÚfiıÂÛË Ì·˜ ÂÍ·Ú¯‹˜ ‹Ù·Ó Ë ¤Î‰ÔÛË Ó· Â›Ó·È (·)
·˘Ù¿ÚÎË˜ ·fi ÏÂ˘Ú¿˜ ÔÈÔÙÈÎ‹˜ ıÂÌ·ÙÔÏÔÁ›·˜ Î·È Ó· ·ÔÙÂÏÂ›
‚‹Ì· ¤ÎÊÚ·ÛË˜ ÁÈ· fiÏÔ˘˜ ÙÔ˘˜ Û˘Ó·‰¤ÏÊÔ˘˜ Î·È (‚) ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ¿
‚ÈÒÛÈÌË fiÛÔ ·ÊÔÚ¿ ÙÔ ÎfiÛÙÔ˜ ¤Î‰ÔÛË˜ Î·È Î˘ÎÏÔÊÔÚ›·˜. ŸÌˆ˜
·Ú’ fiÏÂ˜ ÙÈ˜ ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈÂ˜ ·ÊÂÓfi˜ Ë ÔÈfiÙËÙ· Î·È Ë ÔÛfiÙËÙ· ÙˆÓ
ÚÔÛÊÂÚfiÌÂÓˆÓ ¿ÚıÚˆÓ ‰ÂÓ ‹Ù·Ó Â·ÚÎ‹˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ¤Î‰ÔÛË 4
ÂÚÈÔ‰ÈÎÒÓ ÙÔ ¯ÚfiÓÔ Î·È ·ÊÂÙ¤ÚÔ˘ Ë ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ ÎÚ›ÛË ¤¯ÂÈ
ÂËÚÂ¿ÛÂÈ ·ÚÓËÙÈÎ¿ ÙÔ ÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔÓ ÁÈ· ÙÔÔı¤ÙËÛË ‰È·ÊËÌ›ÛÂˆÓ.
∏ ·Á¿Ë fiÌˆ˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔ ÂÚÈÔ‰ÈÎfi Î·È Ë ˘Ô¯Ú¤ˆÛË Ô˘ ÓÔÈÒıÔ˘ÌÂ
·¤Ó·ÓÙÈ ÛÙÔ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ, ÙÔ˘˜ Û˘Ó·‰¤ÏÊÔ˘˜ ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÙËÓ Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚË
ÎÔÈÓˆÓ›· ˘ÂÚÓ›ÎËÛÂ ·˘Ù¤˜ ÙÈ˜ ‰˘ÛÎÔÏ›Â˜ Î·È ¤ÙÛÈ Ë ·Ó·ÓÂˆÌ¤ÓË
19Ë ¤Î‰ÔÛË ‚Ú›ÛÎÂÙ·È ÂÓÒÈÔÓ Û·˜.
ΔÔ ÁÂÁÔÓfi˜ Ô˘ ÛËÌ¿‰Â„Â ÙÔÓ πÔ‡ÓÈÔ ÙÔ˘ 2010, ¤Ú· ·fi ÙÔ
ªÔ˘ÓÙÈ¿Ï Î·È ÙÔ Û‡ÓÙÔÌÔ ¤Ú·ÛÌ· ÙË˜ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·˜ ·fi ÙËÓ ÚÒÙË
Ê¿ÛË ÙÔ˘ £ÂÛÌÔ‡, Â›Ó·È ·Ó·ÌÊ›‚ÔÏ· Ë Â›ÛÎÂ„Ë ÙÔ˘ ¶¿·
μÂÓ¤‰ÈÎÙÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ 16Ô˘ ÛÙËÓ ∫‡ÚÔ. ∏ ÂÈı˘Ì›· ÙÔ˘ Ó· ÂÈÛÎÂÊÙÂ›
ÙËÓ ∫‡ÚÔ Î·È Ó· ÚÔÛÎ˘Ó‹ÛÂÈ ÛÙÔ˘˜ ¯ÒÚÔ˘˜ ·fi ¤Ú·ÛÂ Î·È
‰›‰·ÍÂ Ô ∞fiÛÙÔÏÔ˜ ¶·‡ÏÔ˜ Ì·˙› ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ∞fiÛÙÔÏÔ μ·ÚÓ¿‚·
·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÔÈ Î·Ï¤˜ Û¯¤ÛÂÈ˜ ÙË˜ ∫˘ÚÈ·Î‹˜ ¶ÔÏÈÙÂ›·˜ Î·È
∂ÎÎÏËÛ›·˜ ÌÂ ÙÔ μ·ÙÈÎ·Ófi ‰ÈÂ˘ÎfiÏ˘Ó·Ó ÙÔ Ù·Í›‰È / ÚÔÛÎ‡ÓËÌ·.
∏ ÈÎ·ÓÔÔ›ËÛË ÙÔ˘ ¶¿· ·fi ·˘Ùfi ÙÔ Ù·Í›‰È ‹Ù·Ó Ê·ÓÂÚ‹ Î·È
‰È¿¯˘ÙË fiˆ˜ ‰È¿¯˘Ùfi˜ ‹Ù·Ó Î·È Ô ÛÂ‚·ÛÌfi˜ ÚÔ˜ ÙÔ ÚfiÛˆÔ
ÙÔ˘ Î·È Ë ·Ú·‰ÔÛÈ·Î‹ ÊÈÏÔÍÂÓ›· Ô˘ ÂÂÊ‡Ï·ÍÂ Ë ∫‡ÚÔ˜ Û’
·˘ÙfiÓ Î·È ÛÙË Û˘ÓÔ‰Â›· ÙÔ˘. ΔÂÏÈÎ¿ ÔÈ fiÔÈÂ˜ ‰È·ÊÔÚ¤˜ ¯ˆÚ›˙Ô˘Ó
2 | www.pliroforiki.org
ÙÈ˜ ¯ÚÈÛÙÈ·ÓÈÎ¤˜ ÂÎÎÏËÛ›Â˜ Â›Ó·È Û˘ÁÎÚÈÙÈÎ¿ ÌÈÎÚfiÙÂÚÂ˜ ·fi ·˘Ù¿
Ô˘ ÙÈ˜ ÂÓÒÓÔ˘Ó Î·È ¤ÙÛÈ ı· Ú¤ÂÈ ÔÈ ıÚËÛÎÂ˘ÙÈÎÔ› Ù·ÁÔ› Ó·
·ÊÈÂÚÒÛÔ˘Ó ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚÔ ¯ÚfiÓÔ Î·È ÎfiÔ ÛÙËÓ ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ·
ÁÂÊ‡ÚˆÛË˜ ÙˆÓ ‰È·ÊÔÚÒÓ Ô˘ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÚÔÎ‡„ÂÈ ÛÙÈ˜ Û¯¤ÛÂÈ˜ ÙˆÓ
ÂÎÎÏËÛÈÒÓ Î·È ÛÙËÓ Â·Ó¤ÓˆÛË ÙË˜ «Ì›·˜ ∞ÔÛÙÔÏÈÎ‹˜ Î·È
∫·ıÔÏÈÎ‹˜ ∂ÎÎÏËÛ›·˜» ÌÂÙ¿ Ù· ÙfiÛ· Û¯›ÛÌ·Ù·.
∞Í›˙ÂÈ Ó· ÛËÌÂÈˆıÂ› fiÙÈ Ô ∫˘ÚÈ·Îfi˜ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜,
·Ó·ÁÓˆÚ›˙ÔÓÙ·˜ ÙË ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfiÙËÙ· ÙË˜ Â›ÛÎÂ„Ë˜ Î·È ÛÙ·
Ï·›ÛÈ· ÙË˜ ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ÚÔÛÊÔÚ¿˜, ¯ÚËÌ·ÙÔ‰fiÙËÛÂ ÙÔ
Û¯Â‰È·ÛÌfi Î·È ÙËÓ ˘ÏÔÔ›ËÛË ÙfiÛÔ ÙË˜ Â›ÛËÌË ÈÛÙÔÛÂÏ›‰·˜ ÙË˜
Â›ÛÎÂ„Ë˜ ÙÔ˘ ¶¿· (www.papalvisit.org.cy) fiÛÔ Î·È ÙË˜
Â›ÛËÌË˜ ÈÛÙÔÛÂÏ›‰·˜ ÙË˜ ª·ÚˆÓÈÙÈÎ‹˜ ∂ÎÎÏËÛ›·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∫‡ÚÔ
(www.maronitearcheparchy.org.cy). ∫·È Ù· ‰‡Ô ¤ÚÁ·
ÔÏÔÎÏËÚÒıËÎ·Ó ¤ÁÎ·ÈÚ· ÌÂ ÂÈÙ˘¯›· Î·È ¤Ù˘¯·Ó ıÂÙÈÎÒÓ Û¯ÔÏ›ˆÓ
·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ÂÈÛÎ¤ÙÂ˜. ™˘ÁÎÂÎÚÈÌ¤Ó· Ë ÈÛÙÔÛÂÏ›‰· ÙË˜ Â›ÛÎÂ„Ë˜
ÙÔ˘ ¶¿· ‰¤¯ıËÎÂ Û˘ÓÔÏÈÎ¿ Ì¤¯ÚÈ Û‹ÌÂÚ· ¤Ú·Ó ÙˆÓ 650
¯ÈÏÈ¿‰ˆÓ hits, ÌÂ ·ÔÎÔÚ‡ÊˆÌ· ÙËÓ ÚÒÙË Ì¤Ú· ÙË˜ Â›ÛÎÂ„Ë˜
fiÔ˘ Î·Ù·ÁÚ¿ÊËÎ·Ó 145 ¯ÈÏÈ¿‰Â˜ hits.
ΔÔ ·ÚfiÓ ÂÎÙÂÓ¤˜ Ì‹Ó˘Ì·, ˆ˜ Â›ıÈÛÙ·È ¿ÏÏˆÛÙÂ ·Û¯ÔÏÂ›Ù·È ÌÂ
ÌÈ· ÛÂÈÚ¿ ·fi Î·›ÚÈ· ı¤Ì·Ù· Ô˘ ·ÁÁ›˙Ô˘Ó ÙË Î·ıËÌÂÚÈÓfiÙËÙ·
Ì·˜ Î·È ·ÊÔÚÔ‡Ó ÙÔ Ì¤ÏÏÔÓ Ì·˜ fiˆ˜ Ë ·ÁÎfiÛÌÈ· ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹
ÎÚ›ÛË Ô˘ Û˘ÓÂ¯›˙ÂÙ·È ÁÈ· ÙÚ›ÙÔ ¯ÚfiÓÔ Î·È ¤¯ÂÈ ÂËÚÂ¿ÛÂÈ Î·È
ÙË ¯ÒÚ· Ì·˜, ÙÔ Ó¤Ô Û¯¤‰ÈÔ ÙÔ˘ ∂Δ∂∫ Ô˘ ·ÊÔÚ¿ ÔÏÏÔ‡˜ ·fi
ÂÌ¿˜ Î·È Ë ÌÂÙÔ˘Û›ˆÛË ÙÔ˘ ÔÚ¿Ì·ÙÔ˜ Ì¤Ûˆ ÙË˜ Î·ÈÓÔÙÔÌ›·˜, ÙË˜
‰‡Ó·ÌË ÙË˜ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›·˜ Î·È ÙÔ˘ “marketing” ÛÂ Ó¤· Î·ÈÓÔÙfiÌ·
ÚÔ˚fiÓÙ· Î·È ÙË ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›· Ó¤ˆÓ ·ÁÔÚÒÓ. Δ¤ÏÔ˜ ÙÔ Ì‹Ó˘Ì· ÙË˜
Û˘ÓÙ·ÎÙÈÎ‹˜ ÂÈÙÚÔ‹˜ ÔÏÔÎÏËÚÒÓÂÙ·È ÌÂ ÙË ıÂÌ·ÙÔÏÔÁ›· ÙË˜
¤Î‰ÔÛË˜.
∏ ¶·ÁÎfiÛÌÈ· √ÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ ∫Ú›ÛË Î·È Ô ∞ÓÙ›ÎÙ˘Ô˜
ÛÙË °ÂÈÙÔÓ›· Ì·˜
¶ÔÏÏ¿ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÁÚ·ÊÂ› ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·ÁÎfiÛÌÈ· ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ ÎÚ›ÛË Ô˘
ÂËÚÂ¿˙ÂÈ Ô˘ÛÈ·ÛÙÈÎ¿ fiÏÂ˜ ÙÈ˜ ÂıÓÈÎ¤˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›Â˜ È‰È·›ÙÂÚ· ‰Â
ÙÈ˜ ·ÓÂÙ˘ÁÌ¤ÓÂ˜ Î·È ÛÎÔfi˜ ·˘ÙÔ‡ ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÈÌ¤ÓÔ˘ ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È Ó·
ÚÔÛı¤ÛÂÈ ÛÙÔ fiÁÎÔ ÙˆÓ ÎÂÈÌ¤ÓˆÓ ·˘ÙÒÓ ·ÏÏ¿ Ó· ÂÈÛËÌ¿ÓÂÈ
Î¿ÔÈ· ÛËÌÂ›· Ô˘ ı· ‚ÔËı‹ÛÔ˘Ó ÛÙËÓ Î·Ù·ÓfiËÛË ÙÔ˘
Ê·ÈÓÔÌ¤ÓÔ˘ ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÛÙËÓ ·ÔÊ˘Á‹ ·ÚfiÌÔÈˆÓ Ï·ıÒÓ ÛÙÔ
Ì¤ÏÏÔÓ. ∫·Ù’ ·Ú¯‹Ó Â›Ó·È ÁÂÓÈÎ¿ ·Ô‰ÂÎÙfi fiÙÈ Ë ·ÚÔ‡Û· ÎÚ›ÛË
ÍÂÎ›ÓËÛÂ ÛÙÈ˜ ∏¶∞ fiÔ˘ ‰˘Ô ÚÔÛˆÈÎ¤˜ ÔÏÈÙÈÎ¤˜ ÙÔ˘ Ù¤ˆ˜
¶ÚfiÂ‰ÚÔ˘ ÙË˜ ∫ÂÓÙÚÈÎ‹˜ ΔÚ¿Â˙·˜, Federal Reserve Board (FED)
Dr. Alan Greenspan, ÂÓÒ ‚Ú·¯˘ÚfiıÂÛÌ· Ê·ÈÓfiÓÙÔ˘Û·Ó
ÂÈÙ˘¯Â›˜ ÛÂ ¤Ó· ÌÂÛÔÚfiıÂÛÌÔ ÔÚ›˙ÔÓÙ· ·¤Ù˘¯·Ó
Î·Ù·ÛÙÚÔÊÈÎ¿.
√ Dr. Greenspan ıÂˆÚÂ›ÙÔ Ô Ì¿ÁÔ˜ ÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜ Ô˘ Â›¯Â
Î·Ù·Ê¤ÚÂÈ Ó· ÂÈÏ‡ÛÂÈ ÙÔ Úfi‚ÏËÌ· ÙÔ˘ ÂÈ¯ÂÈÚËÌ·ÙÈÎÔ‡ Î‡ÎÏÔ˘,
business cycle, ÌÂ ÙÈ˜ ÂÚÈÔ‰ÈÎ¤˜ ÌÂÁÂı‡ÓÛÂÈ˜ Î·È ÛÌÈÎÚ‡ÓÛÂÈ˜
ÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜ Î·È ÙËÓ ·ÔÊ˘Á‹ ÙˆÓ ˘Ê¤ÛÂˆÓ. ∞˘Ùfi ÙÔ ¤Ù˘¯Â
ÌÂ ÙËÓ Û˘ÓÂ¯‹ ÌÂ›ˆÛË ÙˆÓ ÂÈÙÔÎ›ˆÓ Ë ÔÔ›· Ô‰‹ÁËÛÂ ÛÙËÓ
·ÏfiÁÈÛÙË ÌÂÁ¤ı˘ÓÛË ÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜ Ì¤Ûˆ ÙË˜ ·‡ÍËÛË˜ ÙË˜
˙‹ÙËÛË˜ ÁÈ· Î·ÙÔÈÎ›Â˜. Δ· ¯·ÌËÏ¿ ÂÈÙfiÎÈ· Â¤ÙÚÂ·Ó ÛÂ
·ÁÔÚ·ÛÙ¤˜ ÌÂ ÌÂÈˆÌ¤ÓË ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ Â˘ÚˆÛÙ›· Ó· ·ÔÎÙ‹ÛÔ˘Ó
Î·ÙÔÈÎ›· ÌÂ ‰·ÓÂÈÛÌfi ÙÈ˜ ‰fiÛÂÈ˜ ÙˆÓ ‰·ÓÂ›ˆÓ ÛÙÔ Ù¤ÏÔ˜ ‰ÂÓ
ÌÔÚÔ‡Û·Ó Ó· ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›ÛÔ˘Ó ÌÂ ·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÌ· ÔÈ ÙÚ¿Â˙Â˜ Ô˘
‰·ÓÂÈÔ‰ÔÙÔ‡Û·Ó ÙËÓ ·ÁÔÚ¿ ·˘ÙÒÓ ÙˆÓ Î·ÙÔÈÎÈÒÓ Ó· ‚ÚÂıÔ‡Ó
ÂÎÙÂıÂÈÌ¤ÓÂ˜ Î·È Ó· ·Ó·ÁÎ·ÛÙÔ‡Ó Ó· Ï¿‚Ô˘Ó Ì¤ÙÚ· ÁÈ· ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ
·ÚÈıÌfi ÂÈÛÊ·ÏÒÓ ‰·ÓÂ›ˆÓ.
ΔÔ Úfi‚ÏËÌ· ÁÈ· ÙÈ˜ ÙÚ¿Â˙Â˜ ·Ô‰Â›¯ÙËÎÂ È‰È·›ÙÂÚ· ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ ˆ˜
Û˘Ó¤ÂÈ· ÙÔ˘ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚÔ˘ ÂÍ›ÛÔ˘ ÎÚ›ÛÈÌÔ˘ Ï¿ıÔ˘˜ ·˘ÙÔ‡ ÙÔ˘
ÌÂÈˆÌ¤ÓÔ˘ ÂÏ¤Á¯Ô˘ ÙˆÓ ÙÚ·Â˙ÒÓ. To FED ·ÔÊ¿ÛÈÛÂ fiÙÈ ÛÂ ÌÈ·
ÒÚÈÌË Î·È ·ÓÙ·ÁˆÓÈÛÙÈÎ‹ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›· fiˆ˜ ÙÈ˜ ∏¶∞ ÙÔ ÙÚ·Â˙ÈÎfi
Û‡ÛÙËÌ· ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡ÛÂ Ó· Ú˘ıÌ›ÛÂÈ ·fi ÌfiÓÔ ÙÔ˘ Ù· ÙÔ˘ Ô›ÎÔ˘
ÙÔ˘ Î·È Ó· ·Ó·Ï¿‚ÂÈ ÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚË Â˘ı‡ÓË ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·˘ÙÔÚÚ‡ıÌÈÛË
ÙÔ˘. ∞˘Ù‹ Ë ÏÔÁÈÎ‹ ·Ú·ÁÓˆÚ›˙ÂÈ ‚Â‚·›ˆ˜ ÙË ‚·ÛÈÎ‹ ·Ú¯‹ ÙˆÓ
ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎÒÓ fiÙÈ ÙÈ˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ¤˜ ‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈfiÙËÙÂ˜ ÙˆÓ ·ÓıÚÒˆÓ
Î·È ÙˆÓ ÔÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌÒÓ ÙÈ˜ Î·ıÔÚ›˙ÂÈ ÙÔ ÚÔÛˆÈÎfi Û˘ÌÊ¤ÚÔÓ Î·È
Î¤Ú‰Ô˜. °È· ·ÎfiÌË ÌÈ· ÊÔÚ¿ ÂÈ‚Â‚·ÈÒÓÂÙ·È fiÙÈ Ô ·ÓÂÍ¤ÏÂÁÎÙÔ˜
Î·ÈÙ·ÏÈÛÌfi˜ ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È ‚ÈÒÛÈÌÔ˜ Î·È fiÙÈ Ô ÏÂÏÔÁÈÛÌ¤ÓÔ˜ ¤ÏÂÁ¯Ô˜
Â›Ó·È ··Ú·›ÙËÙÔ˜. ΔÈ˜ Û˘Ó¤ÂÈÂ˜ ·˘ÙÒÓ ÙˆÓ Î·Ù·ÛÙÚÔÊÈÎÒÓ
Ï·ıÒÓ ÙÈ˜ ¤¯Ô˘ÌÂ ˙‹ÛÂÈ Ù· ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›· ¯ÚfiÓÈ· Î·È ‰ÂÓ ¯ÚÂÈ¿˙ÂÙ·È
Ó· ÂÂÎÙ·ıÔ‡ÌÂ.
∏ ÙÚ·ÁÈÎ‹ ·Ï‹ıÂÈ· Â›Ó·È fiÙÈ Ù· ÚÔËÁÔ‡ÌÂÓ· ¤ÙË Ë ·ÁÎfiÛÌÈ·
ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›· ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁÔ‡ÛÂ Ì¤Û· ÛÂ ÌÈ· ¿ÌÂÙÚË ·ÈÛÈÔ‰ÔÍ›· fiÙÈ Ë
ÌÂÁ¤ı˘ÓÛË ı· ‹Ù·Ó Û˘ÓÂ¯‹˜ Î·È fiÙÈ Ô ˘ÂÚ‚ÔÏÈÎfi˜ ‰·ÓÂÈÛÌfi˜
‹Ù·Ó ‚ÈÒÛÈÌÔ˜. ¢˘ÛÙ˘¯Ò˜ ÙÔ ÁÏ¤ÓÙÈ ¤¯ÂÈ ÙÂÏÂÈÒÛÂÈ Î·È ı· Ú¤ÂÈ
ÙÒÚ· Ó· ÏËÚÒÛÔ˘ÌÂ ÙÔ ÏÔÁ·ÚÈ·ÛÌfi. ∞ÎfiÌË Î·È ÌÂÙ¿ ÙËÓ
ÂÍ¿ÏˆÛË ÙË˜ ‡ÊÂÛË˜ ÔÈ Î˘‚ÂÚÓ‹ÛÂÈ˜ ÙˆÓ ‰È·ÊfiÚˆÓ ¯ˆÚÒÓ
·Ó·ÁÎ¿ÛÙËÎ·Ó Ó· ·˘Í‹ÛÔ˘Ó ÙÈ˜ ‰·¿ÓÂ˜ ÁÈ· Ó· Û˘ÁÎÚ·Ù‹ÛÔ˘Ó
ÙÔ Ú˘ıÌfi ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË˜ ÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜ ÙÔ˘˜, Ó· ÎÚ·Ù‹ÛÔ˘Ó
ÂÈ¯ÂÈÚ‹ÛÂÈ˜ ˙ˆÓÙ·Ó¤˜ Î·È ÙËÓ ·ÓÂÚÁ›· ÛÂ ÏÔÁÈÎ¿ Â›Â‰·.
ŸÌˆ˜ ‰‡Ô ¯ÚfiÓÈ· ÌÂÙ¿ Î·È ·˘Ù¤˜ ¤¯Ô˘Ó Ó· ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›ÛÔ˘Ó Ù·
ÂÏÏÂ›ÌÌ·Ù· ÛÙÔ ÚÔ¸ÔÏÔÁÈÛÌfi ÙÔ˘˜, ÙÔÓ „ËÏfi ‰·ÓÂÈÛÌfi, ÙËÓ
„ËÏ‹ ·ÓÂÚÁ›· Î·È ÙËÓ ˘ÔÙ›ÌËÛË ÙˆÓ ÂıÓÈÎÒÓ ÓÔÌÈÛÌ¿ÙˆÓ. ∏
ÌÂÁ¿ÏË ¤ÁÓÔÈ· fiÏˆÓ Â›Ó·È Ë ÔÚÈÛÙÈÎ‹ ·ÒÏÂÈ· Ì¤Û· Û’ ·˘Ù¿ Ù·
‰‡Ô ¤ÙË ÙÔ˘ 25% ÙË˜ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈÎ‹˜ ·Í›·˜ ÙË˜ ·ÁÎfiÛÌÈ·˜
ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜ fiˆ˜ ÌÂÙÚÂ›Ù·È ÌÂ ÙÔ ∞Î·ı¿ÚÈÛÙÔ ∂Á¯ÒÚÈÔ ¶ÚÔ˚fiÓ
(∞∂¶), Ë ÚÔ‚ÏÂfiÌÂÓË ÈÛ¯Ó‹ ·Ó¿Î·Ì„Ë ÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜ ÁÈ· Ù·
ÂfiÌÂÓ· ¤ÙË, ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È Ë ÂÓ‰Â¯fiÌÂÓË ÔÚÈÛÙÈÎ‹ ·ÒÏÂÈ· ı¤ÛÂˆÓ
ÂÚÁ·Û›·˜ ÁÈ·Ù› ÔÈ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›Â˜ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ÈÛ¯Ó‹ ·Ó¿Î·Ì„Ë Ô˘
ÚÔ‚Ï¤ÂÙ·È ÁÈ· Ê¤ÙÔ˜ Ê·›ÓÔÓÙ·È ·Úfiı˘ÌÂ˜ Ó· ·˘Í‹ÛÔ˘Ó ÙÔ
ÚÔÛˆÈÎfi ÙÔ˘˜.
Ÿˆ˜ ¿ÓÙ· Ô ·‰‡Ó·ÙÔ˜ ÎÚ›ÎÔ˜ ˘Ô¯ˆÚÂ› ¿ÓÙ· ÚÒÙÔ˜ Î·È
ÛÙËÓ ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË ·˘Ù‹ ÔÈ ·‰‡Ó·ÙÂ˜ ¯ÒÚÂ˜ ÙË˜ ∂˘Úˆ˙ÒÓË˜ (PIπGS)
¶ÔÚÙÔÁ·Ï›·, πÙ·Ï›·, πÚÏ·Ó‰›·, ∂ÏÏ¿‰·, πÛ·Ó›· ı· ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÙÈ˜
ÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚÂ˜ ÂÈÙÒÛÂÈ˜. ∞˘Ùfi Ô˘ ‰ÂÓ Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ·ÁÓÔÔ‡ÌÂ
Â›Ó·È fiÙÈ Ë ÎÚ›ÛË ·˘Ù‹ ÂÛÙÈ¿˙ÂÙ·È Î‡ÚÈ· ÛÙ· ‰ËÌfiÛÈ· ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ¿
ÌÂ „ËÏfi ¤ÏÏÂÈÌÌ· ÛÙÔ ÚÔ¸ÔÏÔÁÈÛÌfi Î·È ˘¤ÚÌÂÙÚÔ
Î˘‚ÂÚÓËÙÈÎfi ‰·ÓÂÈÛÌfi. ΔÔ ·Ú¿ÍÂÓÔ Î·È Ù·˘ÙfiÛËÌ·
·ÚËÁÔÚËÙÈÎfi ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË ÙË˜ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·˜ Â›Ó·È fiÙÈ ÛÂ
·ÓÙ›ıÂÛË ÌÂ ÙËÓ ∫˘‚¤ÚÓËÛË Ô˘ ¤¯ÂÈ ¤Ó· ¯Ú¤Ô˜ ÙË˜ Ù¿ÍË˜ ÙÔ˘
120% ÙÔ ∞∂¶ Ù· ÓÔÈÎÔÎ˘ÚÈ¿ ÛÙËÓ ∂ÏÏ¿‰· ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÂÚÈÔÚÈÛÌ¤ÓÔ
Î·È ÏÔÁÈÎfi ¯Ú¤Ô˜ ÙË˜ Ù¿ÍË˜ ÙÔ˘ 45% ÙÔ˘ ∞∂¶. ◊‰Ë Ë ÙÚ·ÁÈÎ‹
Î·Ù¿ÛÙ·ÛË ÙË˜ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·˜ ¤¯ÂÈ ÂÈÊ¤ÚÂÈ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ¿ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ¿,
ÔÏÈÙÈÎ¿ Î·È ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎ¿ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· Î·È Ë ¯ÒÚ· ÌÂÙÚ¿ ÙÚÂÈ˜
ÓÂÎÚÔ‡˜ Ô˘ ¤ı·Ó·Ó ·Ó·›ÙÈ· ÛÙÔ ¯ÒÚÔ ÂÚÁ·Û›·˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ÛÙÔ
Î¤ÓÙÚÔ ÙË˜ ∞ı‹Ó·˜.
∏ ∂ÏÏ¿‰· ‰˘ÛÙ˘¯Ò˜ ·ÔÙÂÏÂ› ¤Ó· Î·Ïfi ·Ú¿‰ÂÈÁÌ·, ÚÔ˜
·ÔÊ˘Á‹, fiÔ˘ ‰È·‰Ô¯ÈÎ¤˜ Î˘‚ÂÚÓ‹ÛÂÈ˜ ÙfiÛÔ ÙÔ˘ ¶∞™√∫ ·fi
ÙËÓ ¿ÓÔ‰Ô ÙÔ˘ ÛÙËÓ ÂÍÔ˘Û›· ÛÙÈ˜ ·Ú¯¤˜ ÙË˜ ‰ÂÎ·ÂÙ›·˜ ÙÔ˘ 1980
fiÛÔ Î·È ÙË˜ ¡¢ Ô˘ Î˘‚¤ÚÓËÛÂ ÂÓ‰È¿ÌÂÛ· Î·Ù·Û·Ù¿ÏËÛ·Ó ÙËÓ
·Ó·Ù˘ÍÈ·Î‹ ‚Ô‹ıÂÈ· ÙË˜ ∂∂ Î·È ÌÂÁ¤ı˘Ó·Ó ·ÓÂ‡ı˘Ó· ÙfiÛÔ ÙÔ
¤ÏÏÂÈÌÌ· ÛÙÔ ÚÔ¸ÔÏÔÁÈÛÌfi fiÛÔ Î·È ÙÔ ‰ËÌfiÛÈÔ ¯Ú¤Ô˜. ΔËÓ
Î·ÎÔ‰È·¯Â›ÚÈÛË Â¤ÙÂÈÓ·Ó ÔÈ ÂÏ·ÙÂÈ·Î¤˜ Û¯¤ÛÂÈ˜ ÌÂ ÔÏ›ÙÂ˜
Î·È Í¤ÓÔ˘˜ ÂÂÓ‰˘Ù¤˜ Î·È ÚÔÌËıÂ˘Ù¤˜ ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È Ë ‰È·ÊıÔÚ¿ Î·È
Ô ¯ÚËÌ·ÙÈÛÌfi˜ ÔÏÈÙÈÎÒÓ. μÂ‚·›ˆ˜ ÙÒÚ· Ô˘ ÙÔ ÁÏ¤ÓÙÈ ÙÂÏÂ›ˆÛÂ
Î·È Â›Ó·È Ë ÒÚ· Ó· ÏËÚˆıÂ› Ô ÏÔÁ·ÚÈ·ÛÌfi˜ Ë ∂ÏÏ¿˜ ÎÈÓ‰˘ÓÂ‡ÂÈ
·fi ‰È¿ÊÔÚÔ˘˜ ÎÂÚ‰ÔÛÎfiÔ˘˜ Î·È ÂÚÈ¤Ú¯ÂÙ·È ÂÓ Â›‰Ë Â·›ÙË
ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙˆÓ ÂÙ·›ÚˆÓ ÙË˜ Î·È ÙË˜ ‰ÈÂıÓÔ‡˜ ÎÔÈÓfiÙËÙ·˜
Â·ÈÙÒÓÙ·˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ ‚Ô‹ıÂÈ· Î·È ÚÔÛÙ·Û›·.
∫¿ÔÈÂ˜ ·fi ÙÈ˜ ¯ÒÚÂ˜ ÙË˜ ÔÌ¿‰·˜ ÙˆÓ PIπGS fiˆ˜ Ë πÚÏ·Ó‰›·
ÂÁÎ·›Úˆ˜ ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È Ë ¶ÔÚÙÔÁ·Ï›· Î·È Ë πÛ·Ó›· ÈÔ ÚfiÛÊ·Ù·
·Ó·ÏÔÁÈ˙fiÌÂÓÂ˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ÎÈÓ‰‡ÓÔ˘˜ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÚÔ¯ˆÚ‹ÛÂÈ ÌÂ ÂıÓÈÎ‹
ÔÌÔÊˆÓ›· ÛÙË Ï‹„Ë ÙˆÓ ·Ó·ÁÎ·›ˆÓ Ì¤ÙÚˆÓ ÁÈ· Ó· ·ÔÊ‡ÁÔ˘Ó
Ù· ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· ÙË˜ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·˜. ¶·ÚfiÌÔÈ· ‰Ú·ÎfiÓÙÂÈ·, ÚÔÏËÙÈÎ¿
www.pliroforiki.org | 3
Ì¤ÙÚ· ¤¯Ô˘Ó ˘ÈÔıÂÙ‹ÛÂÈ Î·È ¿ÏÏÂ˜ ¯ÒÚÂ˜ fiˆ˜ ÙÔ ∏ÓˆÌ¤ÓÔ
μ·Û›ÏÂÈÔ, Ë °ÂÚÌ·Ó›·, Ë πÙ·Ï›· Î·È Ë °·ÏÏ›· ¯ˆÚ›˜ È‰È·›ÙÂÚË
ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎ‹ ·ÓÙ›‰Ú·ÛË. ∞ÓÙ›ıÂÙ· ÛÙËÓ ∂ÏÏ¿‰· Î·È ÛÂ ¿ÏÏÂ˜
ÌÂÛÔÁÂÈ·Î¤˜ ¯ÒÚÂ˜ ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈ ·Û˘ÌÊˆÓ›· ÙˆÓ ÔÏÈÙÈÎÒÓ ˆ˜ ÚÔ˜
ÙÔ ÙÈ ‰¤ÔÓ ÁÂÓ¤Ûı·È Î·È ·Ú·ÙËÚÔ‡ÓÙ·È ‰ËÌfiÛÈÂ˜ Ì·˙ÈÎ¤˜
·ÓÙÈ‰Ú¿ÛÂÈ˜ Î·È ÎÈÓËÙÔÔÈ‹ÛÂÈ˜ ÁÈ·Ù› ÛÙÔ Ù¤ÏÔ˜ ÙË˜ ËÌ¤Ú·˜ ÔÈ
ÔÏ›ÙÂ˜ ÙË˜ Î¿ıÂ ¯ÒÚ·˜ ı· ÎÏËıÔ‡Ó Ó· ÏËÚÒÛÔ˘Ó ÙÔ ÎfiÛÙÔ˜
ÙË˜ ·ÏfiÁÈÛÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹˜ ÔÏÈÙÈÎ‹˜ Î·È ÙË˜ ‰È·ÊıÔÚ¿˜.
μÂ‚·›ˆ˜ Ë ∫‡ÚÔ˜ ‰ÂÓ ÂÍ·ÈÚÂ›Ù·È Ô‡ÙÂ ·fi ÙËÓ ÎÚ›ÛË ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È
·fi ÙËÓ ·Û˘ÌÊˆÓ›· ˆ˜ ÚÔ˜ ÙÔ Ú·ÎÙ¤Ô. ∏ Î˘‚¤ÚÓËÛË, ·fi ÙËÓ
ÏÂ˘Ú¿ ÙË˜, ‰ÂÓ Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È Ó· ·ÓÙÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÂÙ·È ÙÔ Ì¤ÁÂıÔ˜ ÙÔ˘
ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ Î·È ÙËÓ ·Ó¿ÁÎË Ó· ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›ÛÂÈ Ù· ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ¿
‰ÔÌÈÎ¿ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· ÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜ ( ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ¿ÏÏˆÓ ˘ÂÚ‚ÔÏÈÎ¿
ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ˜ ‰ËÌfiÛÈÔ˜ ÙÔÌ¤·˜, ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ¤˜ ‰È·ÊÔÚ¤˜ ÛÙÔ˘˜ fiÚÔ˘˜
ÂÚÁÔ‰fiÙËÛË˜ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙÔ˘ ‰ËÌfiÛÈÔ˘ Î·È ÙÔ˘ È‰ÈˆÙÈÎÔ‡ ÙÔÌ¤·, ÌÂ
·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÌ· fiÏÔÈ Ó· ı¤ÏÔ˘Ó Ó· ÂÍ·ÛÊ·Ï›ÛÔ˘Ó ÌÈ· ı¤ÛË ÛÙÔ
‰ËÌfiÛÈÔ, ¯·ÌËÏ‹ ·Ú·ÁˆÁÈÎfiÙËÙ· Î·È Î·Ù΄Â¤ÎÙ·ÛË ¯·ÌËÏ‹
·ÓÙ·ÁˆÓÈÛÙÈÎfiÙËÙ·). √È Û˘ÓÙÂ¯Ó›Â˜ ·Ó·ÏÒÓÔÓÙ·È ÛÂ ÌÈ· ÌË
‚ÈÒÛÈÌË ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ· ‰È·Ù‹ÚËÛË˜ ÙˆÓ ÎÂÎÙËÌ¤ÓˆÓ Î·È ÔÈ
ÔÏÈÙÈÎ¤˜ ËÁÂÛ›Â˜ ÚÔÛÌÂÙÚÔ‡Ó Î·Ù¿ Î‡ÚÈÔ ÏfiÁÔ ÙÔ ÔÏÈÙÈÎfi
ÎfiÛÙÔ˜ Î·È fiÊÂÏÔ˜ Î·È Î·Ù¿ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚÔ ÙÈ˜ ·ÓÙ›ÛÙÔÈ¯Â˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ¤˜
·Ú·Ì¤ÙÚÔ˘˜.
™ÙËÓ Ú¿ÍË ·˘Ùfi ÛËÌ·›ÓÂÈ fiÙÈ Ô Ì¤ÛÔ˜ ∫‡ÚÈÔ˜, fiˆ˜ Î·È Ô
·ÓÙ›ÛÙÔÈ¯Ô˜ ∂˘Úˆ·›Ô˜, ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Û˘ÓËı›ÛÂÈ ÛÂ ¤Ó·
¯·ÌËÏfiÙÂÚÔ ‚ÈÔÙÈÎfi Â›Â‰Ô ÌÂ fiÙÈ ·˘Ùfi Û˘ÓÂ¿ÁÂÙ·È. ΔÔ ‚·ÛÈÎfi
Ì¿ıËÌ· Â›Ó·È fiÙÈ fiÏÂ˜ ÔÈ ÂÓÂÚÁ¿ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ¿ ÌÔÓ¿‰Â˜ fiˆ˜
ÎÚ¿ÙË, ÂÈ¯ÂÈÚ‹ÛÂÈ˜, ÔÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌÔ› Î·È ¿ÙÔÌ· ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Ì¿ıÔ˘Ó
Ó· ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁÔ‡Ó Ì¤Û· ÛÙ· Ï·›ÛÈ· ÙˆÓ ‰˘Ó·ÙÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ ÙÔ˘˜ Î·È Ó·
Û˘ÌÂÚÈÊ¤ÚÔÓÙ·È ·Ó¿ÏÔÁ·.
O ∫˘ÚÈ·Îfi˜ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ÛÂ ÌÈ· ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ· Ó·
Û˘Ì‚¿ÏÂÈ ÛÙËÓ Ô˘ÛÈ·ÛÙÈÎ‹ ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙÒÈÛË ÙˆÓ ‰È·ÚıÚˆÙÈÎÒÓ
ÚÔ‚ÏËÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜ ¤¯ÂÈ ÔÌfiÊˆÓ· ·ÔÊ·Û›ÛÂÈ, Î·Ù¿
ÙË ‰È¿ÚÎÂÈ· ÙË˜ ÚfiÛÊ·ÙË˜ °ÂÓÈÎ‹˜ ™˘Ó¤ÏÂ˘ÛË˜ Î·È ÌÂÙ¿ ·fi
ÂÈÛ‹ÁËÛË ÙÔ˘ ¶ÚÔ¤‰ÚÔ˘, ÙË Û‡ÛÙ·ÛË ÌÈ·˜ ‰ÂÍ·ÌÂÓ‹˜ ÛÎ¤„Ë˜
ÌÂ ·ÓÙÈÎÂ›ÌÂÓÔ ÙË ÌÂÏ¤ÙË, ¤ÚÂ˘Ó·, ·Ú·ÁˆÁ‹ Î·È ‰È¿¯˘ÛË
ÁÓÒÛË˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔ Ò˜ ÔÈ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›Â˜ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó·
Û˘Ì‚¿ÏÏÔ˘Ó ÛÙËÓ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË ÙË˜ Î˘ÚÈ·Î‹˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜ Î·È ÛÙË
‚ÂÏÙ›ˆÛË ÙË˜ ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁ›·˜ Î·È ÙË˜ ·fi‰ÔÛË˜ ÙÔ˘ Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚÔ˘
‰ËÌfiÛÈÔ˘ ÙÔÌ¤·. ∞˘Ùfi Â›Ó·È fiÓÙˆ˜ ¤Ó· ÂÍ·ÈÚÂÙÈÎfi ‚‹Ì· ·Ó Î·È
ÔÈ ÈÔ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔÈ ·fi Ì·˜ ı˘ÌfiÌ·ÛÙÂ ·ÚÎÂÙ¤˜ ·ÚfiÌÔÈÂ˜
ÚˆÙÔ‚Ô˘Ï›Â˜ ·fi ÏÂ˘Ú¿˜ ¶ÔÏÈÙÂ›·˜. ∞˘Ù‹ ÙË ÊÔÚ¿ fiÌˆ˜ Ë
ÚˆÙÔ‚Ô˘Ï›· Â›Ó·È ÛÙ· ¯¤ÚÈ· Ì·˜.
Δ·ÌÂ›Ô ™˘ÓÙ·ÍÈÔ‰ÔÙÈÎÒÓ ¶·ÚÔ¯ÒÓ ÁÈ· Ù· ª¤ÏË
ÙÔ˘ ∂Δ∂∫
ªÈ· ·fi ÙÈ˜ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfiÙÂÚÂ˜ Ì·ÎÚÔ¯ÚfiÓÈÂ˜ ÂÈÙÒÛÂÈ˜ ·fi ÙËÓ
·ÁÎfiÛÌÈ· ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ ÎÚ›ÛË Ë ÔÔ›· Û˘ÓÂÈÎÔ˘ÚÂ›Ù·È Î·È ·fi ÙÔ
‰ËÌÔÁÚ·ÊÈÎfi Úfi‚ÏËÌ· ÙË˜ ∂˘ÚÒË˜ Â›Ó·È Î·È Ë ÎÚ›ÛË ÙˆÓ
Û˘ÓÙ·ÍÈÔ‰ÔÙÈÎÒÓ Ù·ÌÂ›ˆÓ. ΔÔ ‰ËÌÔÁÚ·ÊÈÎfi Úfi‚ÏËÌ· Â›Ó·È
·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÌ· ‰‡Ô ‰ËÌÔÁÚ·ÊÈÎÒÓ Ù¿ÛÂˆÓ ÔÈ ÔÔ›Â˜ ÂÍÂÏÈÎÙÈÎ¿
ÂÓ‰Â¯ÔÌ¤Óˆ˜ Ó· Ô‰ËÁ‹ÛÔ˘Ó ÙÈ˜ ∂˘Úˆ·˚Î¤˜ ¯ÒÚÂ˜ ÛÂ ·‰È¤ÍÔ‰Ô
ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎfi Î·È ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎfi.
∞ÊÂÓfi˜ Ë ∂˘ÚÒË ¿Û¯ÂÈ ·fi ˘ÔÁÂÓÓËÙÈÎfiÙËÙ· ÌÂ ÙÔ ‰Â›ÎÙË
ÁÔÓÈÌfiÙËÙ·˜ ÔÏ‡ ¯·ÌËÏfiÙÂÚ· ·fi ÙÔ Ú˘ıÌfi ·Ó·Ï‹ÚˆÛË˜ ÙˆÓ
2,1 ÁÂÓÓ‹ÛÂˆÓ ÁÈ· Î¿ıÂ Á˘Ó·›Î· ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙˆÓ ÂÙÒÓ 15 Î·È 49. °È·
·Ú¿‰ÂÈÁÌ· ÛÙËÓ ∫‡ÚÔ Ô ‰Â›ÎÙË˜ ÁÔÓÈÌfiÙËÙ·˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔ 2008, ÁÈ·
ÙÔ ÈÔ ÚfiÛÊ·ÙÔ ¤ÙÔ˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô ¤¯Ô˘Ó ‰ÔıÂ› ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›·
(Statistical Service of Cyprus, 2009, 78), Â›Ó·È 1,46 ÛÂ Û‡ÁÎÚÈÛË
ÌÂ 1,47 ÁÈ· ÙÔ Û‡ÓÔÏÔ ÙÔ˘ Ï·Ó‹ÙË Î·È 1,51 ÁÈ· ÙÔ Û‡ÓÔÏÔ ÙË˜
∂∂, Û‡ÌÊˆÓ· ÌÂ ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›· ·fi ÙËÓ ÈÛÙÔÛÂÏ›‰· ÙË˜ CIA (2010).
∞ÊÂÙ¤ÚÔ˘ ÙÔ ÚÔÛ‰fiÎÈÌÔ Â›Â‰Ô ˙ˆ‹˜ ¤¯ÂÈ ·Ó¤ÏıÂÈ ÛÙËÓ
∫‡ÚÔ ÁÈ· ÙÔ 2006/07 ÛÙ· 78,3 ¤ÙË ÁÈ· ÙÔ˘˜ ¿Ó‰ÚÂ˜ Î·È ÛÙ·
81,9 ¤ÙË ÁÈ· ÙÈ˜ Á˘Ó·›ÎÂ˜ ÛÂ Û‡ÁÎÚÈÛË ÌÂ 75 ¤ÙË ÁÈ· ÙÔ˘˜
¿Ó‰ÚÂ˜ Î·È 80 ¤ÙË ÁÈ· ÙÈ˜ Á˘Ó·›ÎÂ˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔ 1996/97 (Statistical
Abstract 2008, 80). ΔÔ ·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÌ· ·˘ÙÒÓ ÙˆÓ ·ÓÙ›ÚÚÔˆÓ
Ù¿ÛÂˆÓ Â›Ó·È fiÙÈ ÏËı˘ÛÌfi˜ ‰ÂÓ ·˘Í¿ÓÂÈ Ô˘ÛÈ·ÛÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂ
·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÌ· ¤Ó·˜ ÌÂÈˆÌ¤ÓÔ˜ ÏËı˘ÛÌfi˜ ÂÚÁ·˙fiÌÂÓˆÓ Ó·
Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Û˘ÓÙËÚÂ› ¤Ó· ·˘Í·ÓfiÌÂÓÔ ÏËı˘ÛÌfi ·ÙfiÌˆÓ ÙË˜
ÙÚ›ÙË˜ ËÏÈÎ›·˜.
∞˘Ù‹ Ë ÂÍ¤ÏÈÍË Ô‰ËÁÂ› ·Ó·fi‰Ú·ÛÙ· Ù· ‰ËÌfiÛÈ· Û˘ÓÙ·ÍÈÔ‰ÔÙÈÎ¿
Ù·ÌÂ›· ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÙÔ˘˜ ÎÚ·ÙÈÎÔ‡˜ ÚÔ¸ÔÏÔÁÈÛÌÔ‡˜ ÛÂ ·‰È¤ÍÔ‰Ô.
°È· ÙËÓ ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙÒÈÛË ÙÔ˘ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ ÙˆÓ Û˘ÓÙ·ÍÈÔ‰ÔÙÈÎÒÓ
Ù·ÌÂ›ˆÓ ˘¿Ú¯Ô˘Ó ‰‡Ô Ï‡ÛÂÈ˜, ÔÈ ÔÔ›Â˜ Â›Ó·È ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ¿ Î·È
ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎ¿ ÂÒ‰˘ÓÂ˜ Î·È ¤¯Ô˘Ó (Ê˘ÛÈÎ¿) ÔÏÈÙÈÎfi ÎfiÛÙÔ˜: (·) ÙË
·‡ÍËÛË ÙˆÓ ÂÈÛÊÔÚÒÓ Ì¤Ûˆ ¿ÌÂÛË˜ ·‡ÍËÛË˜ ÙˆÓ ÂÈÛÊÔÚÒÓ
·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÙˆÓ ÂÙÒÓ ÂÈÛÊÔÚ¿˜ Î·È (‚) ÙË ÌÂ›ˆÛË ÙˆÓ ˆÊÂÏËÌ¿ÙˆÓ.
™ÙËÓ ∫‡ÚÔ Ë ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ· ÚÔ˜ ÙÔ ·ÚfiÓ ·ÊÔÚ¿ ÙÔ ÛÎ¤ÏÔ˜
·‡ÍËÛË˜ ÙˆÓ ·ÔıÂÌ·ÙÈÎÒÓ ÙÔ˘ Δ·ÌÂ›Ô˘ ∫ÔÈÓˆÓÈÎÒÓ
∞ÛÊ·Ï›ÛÂˆÓ (Δ∫∞) Ì¤Ûˆ ÙË˜ ·‡ÍËÛË˜ ÙˆÓ ÂÈÛÊÔÚÒÓ Î·È ÙË˜
·‡ÍËÛË˜ ÙÔ˘ ¤ÙÔ˘˜ Û˘ÓÙ·ÍÈÔ‰fiÙËÛË˜ ÛÙ·‰È·Î¿ ÛÙ· 65 Î·È
ÂÓ‰Â¯ÔÌ¤Óˆ˜ Ì¤¯ÚÈ Î·È Ù· 67 ¤ÙË.
™Â ÁÂÓÈÎ¤˜ ÁÚ·ÌÌ¤˜ Ë Û‡ÓÙ·ÍË Á‹Ú·ÙÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ Δ∫∞ Â›Ó·È ÙË˜ Ù¿ÍË˜
ÙÔ˘ 60% ÙÔ˘ Ì¤ÛÔ˘ fiÚÔ˘ ÙˆÓ Û˘ÓÔÏÈÎÒÓ ÂÈÛÊÔÚÒÓ ÔÛÔÛÙfi Ô˘
Ê˘ÛÈÎ¿ Â›Ó·È Ô˘ÛÈ·ÛÙÈÎ¿ ¯·ÌËÏfiÙÂÚÔ ·fi ÙÔ Â›Â‰Ô ‰È·‚›ˆÛË˜
ÙˆÓ Û˘ÓÙ·ÍÈÔ‰ÔÙÔ‡ÌÂÓˆÓ. ™‡ÌÊˆÓ· ÌÂ ÙËÓ ÈÛÙÔÛÂÏ›‰· ÙÔ˘ ∂Δ∂∫
(« ∏ Î·ÙËÁÔÚ›· ÛÙËÓ ÔÔ›· Î·Ù·Ù¿ÛÛÔÓÙ·È Ù· Ì¤ÏË ÙÔ˘ ∂Δ∂∫ ÁÈ·
ÛÎÔÔ‡˜ ·ÛÊ¿ÏÈÛË˜ Â›Ó·È ·˘Ù‹ ÙˆÓ ÂÈÛÙËÌÔÓÈÎÒÓ
Â·ÁÁÂÏÌ¿ÙˆÓ. ªÂ ‚¿ÛË Ù· ÈÛ¯‡ÔÓÙ· Û‹ÌÂÚ·, ¤Ó· Ì¤ÏÔ˜ ÙÔ˘
∂Δ∂∫ Ô˘ ·Ó·Ì¤ÓÂÙ·È Ó· ÂÈÛÊ¤ÚÂÈ ÛÙÔ °™∫∞ ÁÈ· 35 ¯ÚfiÓÈ·,
ÂÍ·ÛÊ·Ï›˙ÂÈ ÛÙÔ 63Ô ¤ÙÔ˜ Û‡ÓÙ·ÍË Ô˘ ·Ó·ÏËÚÒÓÂÈ ÙÔ 45%
ÂÚ›Ô˘ ÙÔ˘ ‰ËÏˆı¤ÓÙÔ˜ ÂÈÛÔ‰‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ ÙÔ˘». º˘ÛÈÔÏÔÁÈÎ¿
·Ó·Ì¤ÓÂÙ·È fiÙÈ ÛÙËÓ ËÏÈÎ›· Û˘ÓÙ·ÍÈÔ‰fiÙËÛË˜ Ô Î¿ıÂ
ÂÚÁ·˙fiÌÂÓÔ˜ ı· ¤¯ÂÈ ÌÂÈˆÌ¤ÓÂ˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ¤˜ ˘Ô¯ÚÂÒÛÂÈ˜, ı·
¤¯ÂÈ ·ÔÏËÚÒÛÂÈ Ù· ‰¿ÓÂÈ· ÙÔ˘ Î·È ‰ÂÓ ı· ¤¯ÂÈ ÂÍ·ÚÙÒÌÂÓ·
Ù¤ÎÓ·. ŸÌˆ˜ ÛÙË ‰ÈÎ‹ Ì·˜ ÎÔÈÓˆÓ›· ÌÂ ÙÈ˜ ÛÊÈÎÙ¿ ‰ÂÌ¤ÓÂ˜
ÔÈÎÔÁ¤ÓÂÈÂ˜ ÔÈ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ¤˜ ˘Ô¯ÚÂÒÛÂÈ˜ Î·È Ë ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ·
ÛÙ‹ÚÈÍË˜ ÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔÁ¤ÓÂÈ·˜ ‰ÂÓ ÔÏÔÎÏËÚÒÓÂÙ·È ÔÙ¤.
™¯¤‰ÈÔ ‰˘Ó·ÙfiÓ Ó· ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ‹ÛÂÈ ÂÎÚËÎÙÈÎ¤˜
·ÓÙÈ‰Ú¿ÛÂÈ˜. ΔÔ ÁÂÁÔÓfi˜ ‰Â fiÙÈ ÛÙÔ ÚfiÛÊ·ÙÔ ·ÚÂÏıfiÓ
Â›‰·Ó ÙÔ Êˆ˜ ÙË˜ ‰ËÌÔÛÈfiÙËÙ·˜ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚ›Â˜ fiÙÈ
·ÚfiÌÔÈ· Û¯¤‰È· ¤Ù˘¯·Ó ÂÎÌÂÙ¿ÏÏÂ˘ÛË˜ ·fi
ÂÈÙ‹‰ÂÈÔ˘˜ Î·ıÒ˜ Â›ÛË˜ Î·È Ë ÛÔ˘‰‹ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ÔÔ›·
ÙÚÔ¯Ô‰ÚÔÌÂ›Ù·È Ë ˘ÏÔÔ›ËÛË ÙÔ˘ ™¯Â‰›Ô˘ ‰˘Ó·ÙfiÓ Ó·
‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ‹ÛÂÈ Â›ÛË˜ ·ÓÙÈ‰Ú¿ÛÂÈ˜.
ªÂ ‚¿ÛË ·˘Ù¿ Ù· ‰Â‰ÔÌ¤Ó· Â›Ó·È ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfi Ô Î¿ıÂ ÂÚÁ·˙fiÌÂÓÔ˜
Ó· ÚÔÁÚ·ÌÌ·Ù›˙ÂÈ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹ ÙÔ˘ Î·Ù¿ÛÙ·ÛË ÁÈ· Ù· ¤ÙË
ÙË˜ ¯Ú˘Û‹˜ ÙÚ›ÙË˜ ËÏÈÎ›·˜ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ¿ÏÏˆÓ ÌÂ ÙË Û˘ÌÌÂÙÔ¯‹ ÛÂ
ÚfiÛıÂÙ· Û˘ÓÙ·ÍÈÔ‰ÔÙÈÎ¿ Ù·ÌÂ›·, Ù·ÌÂ›· ÚÔÓÔ›·˜, ·ÛÊ¿ÏÂÈÂ˜
˙ˆ‹˜ Î·È ·ÙÔÌÈÎ¿ Û¯¤‰È· ·ÔÙ·Ì›Â˘ÛË˜ Î·È Â¤Ó‰˘ÛË˜. ™Ù·
Ï·›ÛÈ· ·˘Ù¿ ÙÔ ∂Δ∂∫ ÚÔÙÂ›ÓÂÈ ÙË Û‡ÛÙ·ÛË ˘Ô¯ÚÂˆÙÈÎÔ‡ ÁÈ·
fiÏ· Ù· Ì¤ÏË Ù·ÌÂ›Ô˘ Û˘ÓÙ·ÍÈÔ‰ÔÙÈÎÒÓ ·ÚÔ¯ÒÓ. ∏ ÚˆÙÔ‚Ô˘Ï›·
·ÓÙÈÎÚ›˙ÂÙ·È ÌÂ ÛÎÂÙÈÎÈÛÌfi È‰È·›ÙÂÚ· fiÛÔ ·ÊÔÚ¿ ÙÔ ˘Ô¯ÚÂˆÙÈÎfi
ÙË˜ Û˘ÌÌÂÙÔ¯‹˜, ÙÔ Û˘ÓÔÏÈÎfi ÎfiÛÙÔ˜ ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÙË ‰È·ÛÊ¿ÏÈÛË
ÙˆÓ ÌÂÏÏÔÓÙÈÎÒÓ ·Ô‰fiÛÂˆÓ. ΔÔ ¢.™. ÙÔ˘ ™˘Ó‰¤ÛÌÔ˘
ÂÂÍÂÚÁ¿˙ÂÙ·È ÂÈÛÙÔÏ‹ ÛÙË ‚¿ÛË ÙÔ˘ ÈÔ Î¿Ùˆ ÚÔÛ¯Â‰›Ô˘ ÁÈ·
·ÔÛÙÔÏ‹ ÛÙÔ ∂Δ∂∫ Ô˘ ·Ú·Ù›ıÂÙ·È ÈÔ Î¿Ùˆ:
∂ÂÈ‰‹ Ù· Ì¤ÏË Ì·˜ ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÔ˘Ó fiÙÈ ‰ÂÓ ÙÔ˘˜ ˙ËÙ‹ıËÎÂ
Ó· ÂÎÊÚ¿ÛÔ˘Ó ¿Ô„Ë ‹ Ó· Û˘ÌÌÂÙ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÛÂ Î¿ÔÈ·
¤ÚÂ˘Ó· Ô˘ Ó· ÙÂÎÌËÚÈÒÓÂÈ ÙËÓ ·Ó¿ÁÎË ÁÈ· ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›·
Î·È ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁ›· ÂÓfi˜ Ù¤ÙÔÈÔ˘ ™¯Â‰›Ô˘ ˘Ô‚¿ÏÏÔ˘ÌÂ ÙËÓ
ÂÈÛ‹ÁËÛË fiˆ˜ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÔÔÈËıÂ› ¤ÚÂ˘Ó· ‹ Î·È
‰ËÌÔ„‹ÊÈÛÌ· ·Ó¿ÌÂÛ· ÛÙ· Ì¤ÏË ÙÔ˘ ∂ÈÌÂÏËÙËÚ›Ô˘ ÛÙËÓ
ÔÔ›· Ó· ÙÂıÔ‡Ó ÂÓÒÈÔÓ ÙÔ˘ ÔÈ ‚·ÛÈÎ¤˜ ·Ú¯¤˜
ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁ›·˜, ‰ÈÔÈÎËÙÈÎ¤˜ Î·È ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ¤˜, ÙÔ˘ ™¯Â‰›Ô˘
ÒÛÙÂ Ó· ÎÚÈıÂ› Î·Ù¿ fiÛÔ ÙÔ Ì¤ÏÔ˜ ı· ÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔÓÙ·Ó
Ó· Û˘ÌÌÂÙ¿Û¯ÂÈ ÛÂ ¤Ó· Ù¤ÙÔÈÔ ™¯¤‰ÈÔ. ¡ÔÂ›Ù·È fiÙÈ Ù˘¯fiÓ
¤ÁÎÚÈÛË ÙˆÓ ‚·ÛÈÎÒÓ ÚÔÓÔÈÒÓ ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁ›·˜ ÙÔ˘ ™¯Â‰›Ô˘
ÔÛÒ˜ ‰ÂÓ Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ÂÎÏËÊıÂ› fiÙÈ ÛÙÔ ™¯¤‰ÈÔ ı·
Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Û˘ÌÌÂÙ¤¯Ô˘Ó Ù· Ì¤ÏË ˘Ô¯ÚÂˆÙÈÎ¿. ∞ÓÙ›ıÂÙ·,
·Ï¿ ı· ‰ÒÛÂÈ ÌÈ· ¤Ó‰ÂÈÍË ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ‹
‚ÈˆÛÈÌfiÙËÙ· ÙÔ˘ ™¯Â‰›Ô˘.
«∞Ó·ÊÂÚfiÌ·ÛÙÂ ÛÙÔ ÈÔ ¿Óˆ ı¤Ì· Î·È ÛÂ Û˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ·
Û¯ÂÙÈÎÒÓ ÂÓËÌÂÚÒÛÂˆÓ Ô˘ ÚÔ¤‚ËÎÂ ÚfiÛÊ·Ù· ÙÔ
∂ÈÌÂÏËÙ‹ÚÈÔ ÚÔ˜ Ù· Ì¤ÏË ÙÔ˘, ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ¿ÏÏˆÓ
‰ËÏÒıËÎÂ fiÙÈ ÙÔ Û¯¤‰ÈÔ ı· Â›Ó·È ˘Ô¯ÚÂˆÙÈÎfi ÁÈ· fiÏ·
Ù· Ì¤ÏË ÙÔ˘ ∂Δ∂∫. μ¿ÛÂÈ ÙÔ‡ÙÔ˘ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÚÔÎ‡„ÂÈ
ÔÈÎ›ÏÂ˜ ·ÓÙÈ‰Ú¿ÛÂÈ˜ ·fi ÌÂÚ›‰· ÌÂÏÒÓ ÙÔ˘ ∂Δ∂∫ (ÛÙÔÓ
∫Ï¿‰Ô ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜), ÔÈ ÔÔ›Â˜, ÂÏÏÂ›„ÂÈ Û˘ÓÙÔÓÈÛÌÔ‡
Î·È ÌË¯·ÓÈÛÌÒÓ ¤ÎÊÚ·ÛË˜ ÙÔ˘ ∫Ï¿‰Ô˘ ÛÙÔ ∂Δ∂∫
‰ÈÔ¯ÂÙÂ‡ÔÓÙ·È Ì¤Û· ·fi ÙÔ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌfi Ì·˜, ˆ˜ Ë
Ì·˙ÈÎfiÙÂÚË ÎÔÈÓfiÙËÙ· ÙˆÓ ∂ÈÛÙËÌfiÓˆÓ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜.
¶·Ú·Î·ÏÔ‡ÌÂ ÛËÌÂÈÒÛÙÂ fiÙÈ Ô ∫˘ÚÈ·Îfi˜ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ˜
¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜, ÂÎÚÔÛˆÒÓÙ·˜ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ ·ÚÈıÌfi ÌÂÏÒÓ
ÙÔ˘ Ô˘ Â›Ó·È ÂÁÁÂÁÚ·ÌÌ¤Ó· ÛÙÔ ∂Δ∂∫, ÙÔÔıÂÙÂ›Ù·È ÂÎ
ÚÒÙË˜ ·ÚÓËÙÈÎ¿ ÚÔ˜ ÙÔ ‰È·ÌÔÚÊÔ‡ÌÂÓÔ Û¯¤‰ÈÔ Î·È
·Ú·Î·ÏÔ‡ÌÂ fiˆ˜ Ì·˜ ·Ú·Û¯ÂıÂ› ÚfiÛıÂÙË
ÏËÚÔÊfiÚËÛË, ÒÛÙÂ Ó· ÙÔÔıÂÙËıÔ‡ÌÂ Â› ÙÔ˘ ı¤Ì·ÙÔ˜
ÙÂÏÂÛ›‰ÈÎ·.
μ·ÛÈÎ‹ ı¤ÛË ÙÔ˘ ™˘Ó‰¤ÛÌÔ˘ Ì·˜ Â›Ó·È fiÙÈ ÂÂÈ‰‹ ÙÔ
™¯¤‰ÈÔ ··ÈÙÂ› ÙË ÌËÓÈ·›· Î·Ù·‚ÔÏ‹ ÛÂ‚·ÛÙÔ‡
¯ÚËÌ·ÙÈÎÔ‡ ÔÛÔ‡ ÂÎ Ì¤ÚÔ˘˜ ÙˆÓ ÌÂÏÒÓ ¯ˆÚ›˜
Ù·˘Ùfi¯ÚÔÓ· Ó· ÂÁÁ˘¿Ù·È Î·È Ó· ‰È·ÛÊ·Ï›˙ÂÙ·È Ë
ÌÂÏÏÔÓÙÈÎ‹ ÙÔ˘ ·fi‰ÔÛË Ë Û˘ÌÌÂÙÔ¯‹ ÛÂ ·˘Ùfi ı·
Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Â›Ó·È ÛÂ ÚÔÛˆÈÎ‹ Î·È ÂıÂÏÔÓÙÈÎ‹ ‚¿ÛË.
∂ÎÙÈÌÔ‡ÌÂ fiÙÈ Î·Ó¤Ó·˜ ‰ÂÓ ÌÔÚÂ› Ó· ÁÓˆÚ›˙ÂÈ Ù·
ÚÔÛˆÈÎ¿ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ¿ ‰Â‰ÔÌ¤Ó· Î·È ¿ÏÏÂ˜
˘Ô¯ÚÂÒÛÂÈ˜ ÙˆÓ ÌÂÏÒÓ ÙÔ˘ ∂ÈÌÂÏËÙËÚ›Ô˘ Î·È ˆ˜ ÂÎ
ÙÔ‡ÙÔ˘ Ù˘¯fiÓ ÂÈ‚ÔÏ‹ ÙË˜ Û˘ÌÌÂÙÔ¯‹˜ ÛÂ ¤Ó· Ù¤ÙÔÈÔ
¶·Ú·Î·ÏÔ‡ÌÂ fiˆ˜ ÔÚ›ÛÂÙÂ Û˘Ó¿ÓÙËÛË Ì·˜ ÁÈ·
ÏËÚ¤ÛÙÂÚË ÂÓËÌ¤ÚˆÛË Ì·˜ ÒÛÙÂ Î·È ÂÌÂ›˜ ÌÂ ÙË ÛÂÈÚ¿
Ì·˜ Ó· ÂÓËÌÂÚÒÛÔ˘ÌÂ Ù· ÂËÚÂ·˙fiÌÂÓ· Ì¤ÏË Ì·˜».
ΔÔ ı¤Ì· ‰È·ÛÊ¿ÏÈÛË˜ ÂÓfi˜ ·ÍÈÔÚÂÔ‡˜ ÂÈ¤‰Ô˘ ‰È·‚›ˆÛË˜
ÛÙËÓ ÙÚ›ÙË ËÏÈÎ›· Â›Ó·È ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfi Î·È ·ÊÔÚ¿ fiÏÔ˘˜ Ì·˜
Û˘ÏÏÔÁÈÎ¿ Î·È ·ÙÔÌÈÎ¿. ΔÔ Û¯ÂÙÈÎfi Δ·ÌÂ›Ô ™˘ÓÙ·ÍÈÔ‰ÔÙÈÎÒÓ
¶·ÚÔ¯ÒÓ ªÂÏÒÓ ÙÔ˘ ∂Δ∂∫ ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡ÛÂ ÂÓ‰Â¯ÔÌ¤Óˆ˜ Ó· Â›Ó·È
ÌÈ· Î·Ï‹ Â¤Ó‰˘ÛË ÁÈ· Î¿ÔÈÔ˘˜ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ Û˘Ó·‰¤ÏÊÔ˘˜. ΔÔ ¢™
ÙÔ˘ ™˘Ó‰¤ÛÌÔ˘ ÙÔÔıÂÙÂ›Ù·È Î·Ù’ ·Ú¯‹Ó ·ÚÓËÙÈÎ¿ Î·È ˙ËÙ¿
ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚË ÏËÚÔÊfiÚËÛË ÁÈ·Ù› Û’ ·˘Ùfi ÙÔ ÛÙ¿‰ÈÔ Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È Ë
Û˘ÌÌÂÙÔ¯‹ Ó· Â›Ó·È ˘Ô¯ÚÂˆÙÈÎ‹ ÁÈ· Ù· Ì¤ÏË ÙÔ˘ ∂Δ∂∫, ÙÔ
ÌËÓÈ·›Ô ÎfiÛÙÔ˜ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ Î·È ‰È·¯ÚÔÓÈÎ¿ ·˘Í·ÓfiÌÂÓÔ Î·È ÔÈ
ÌÂÏÏÔÓÙÈÎ¤˜ ·Ô‰fiÛÂÈ˜ ‰ÂÓ ‰È·ÛÊ·Ï›˙ÔÓÙ·È. £ÂÚÌ‹ ·Ú¿ÎÏËÛË
Û’ fiÏÔ˘˜ Ó· ·Û¯ÔÏËıÔ‡ÌÂ ÌÂ ÙÔ ı¤Ì· ÚÔÛˆÈÎ¿ Î·È ‰ÈÂÍÔ‰ÈÎ¿
ÁÈ·Ù› Ì·˜ ·ÊÔÚ¿ ¿ÌÂÛ·.
∫·ÈÓÔÙÔÌ›· ΔÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›· Î·È Marketing
™Â Ï‹ÚË ·ÓÙ›ıÂÛË ÌÂ ÙËÓ ÎÚ›ÛË Ô˘ ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›˙ÂÈ Ë ·ÁÎfiÛÌÈ·
ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›· ˘¿Ú¯Ô˘Ó ·Ú·‰Â›ÁÌ·Ù· ·ÓıÚÒˆÓ Î·È ÂÙ·ÈÚÂÈÒÓ
È‰È·›ÙÂÚ· ÛÙÔ ¯ÒÚÔ ÙË˜ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›·˜ ÔÈ ÔÔ›Â˜ ‰ÂÓ Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È Ó·
ÂËÚÂ¿˙ÔÓÙ·È ·fi ÙËÓ Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚË Î·Ù¿ÛÙ·ÛË Î·È Â›Ó·È ÛÂ ı¤ÛË
Ó· Î·ÈÓÔÙÔÌÔ‡Ó Î·È Ó· ·ÍÈÔÔÈÔ‡Ó ÙË ÁÓÒÛË, ÙËÓ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›· Î·È
ÙÔ marketing ÁÈ· ÙË ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›· Ó¤ˆÓ ÚÔ˚fiÓÙˆÓ, ˘ËÚÂÛÈÒÓ Î·È
·ÁÔÚÒÓ Ô˘ ÂÍ˘ËÚÂÙÔ‡Ó Î·ÈÓÔ‡ÚÁÈÂ˜ ·Ó¿ÁÎÂ˜ Ô˘ ‰ÂÓ
˘‹Ú¯·Ó ÚÔËÁÔ˘Ì¤Óˆ˜. ™‡ÌÊˆÓ· ÌÂ ÙËÓ ∂˘Úˆ·˚Î‹ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹
«∏ Î·ÈÓÔÙÔÌ›· Û˘Ó›ÛÙ·Ù·È ÛÙËÓ ·Ú·ÁˆÁ‹, ÙËÓ ·ÊÔÌÔ›ˆÛË Î·È
ÙËÓ ÂÎÌÂÙ¿ÏÏÂ˘ÛË ÌÂ ÂÈÙ˘¯›· ÙˆÓ Ó¤ˆÓ ÂÈÙÂ˘ÁÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÛÙÔÓ
ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎfi Î·È ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎfi ÙÔÌ¤·» ( ∂˘Úˆ·˚Î‹ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹, 2003).
∏ Î·ÈÓÔÙÔÌ›· Î·È Ë ·Ú·ÁˆÁÈÎfiÙËÙ·/ ·ÓÙ·ÁˆÓÈÛÙÈÎfiÙËÙ· Â›Ó·È ÔÈ
‰‡Ô ¤ÓÓÔÈÂ˜ Ë ·ÍÈÔÔ›ËÛË ÙˆÓ ÔÔ›ˆÓ ı· ‚ÔËı‹ÛÔ˘Ó ÙËÓ ∂∂ ÛÙÔ
Û‡ÓÔÏÔ ÙË˜ ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È Ù· ÎÚ¿ÙË Ì¤ÏË Ó· ·Ó·Ù˘¯ıÔ‡Ó ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎ¿
Î·È Ó· ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›ÛÔ˘Ó ÌÂ ÂÈÙ˘¯›· ÙÈ˜ ¿ÏÏÂ˜ ‰˘Ó·ÌÈÎ¤˜
ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›Â˜.
Δ¤ÙÔÈ· ·Ú·‰Â›ÁÌ·Ù· ÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÔ˘Ó ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›Â˜ fiˆ˜ ÙËÓ
ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›· ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎ‹ ‰ÈÎÙ‡ˆÛË˜ Facebook, ÙËÓ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›·
·Ó·˙‹ÙËÛË˜ ‰Â‰ÔÌ¤ÓˆÓ Google, ÙË ‰È·‰ÈÎÙ˘·Î‹ ÂÁÎ˘ÎÏÔ·›‰ÂÈ·
Wikipedia, ÙË ‰È·‰ÈÎÙ˘·Î‹ ˘ÂÚ·ÁÔÚ¿ Amazon ‹ Î·È ÙË
‰È·‰ÈÎÙ˘·Î‹ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›· ‰ËÌÔÚ·ÛÈÒÓ ebay. ¶·Ú¿ÏÏËÏ· ÌÂ ·˘Ù¤˜
ÙÈ˜ Ó¤Â˜ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›Â˜ Û˘ÓÂ¯›˙Ô˘Ó Ó· ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁÔ‡Ó Î·È ¿ÏÏÂ˜ ÈÔ
ÁÓˆÛÙ¤˜ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›Â˜ fiˆ˜ Ë ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›· ÏÔÁÈÛÌÈÎÔ‡ Microsoft Î·È Ë
ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›· Apple Ë ÔÔ›· ¤¯ÂÈ ÂÂÎÙÂ›ÓÂÈ ÙÈ˜ ‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈfiÙËÙÂ˜ ÙË˜
ÛÂ ÌÈ· ÛÂÈÚ¿ ·fi ·ÁÔÚ¤˜ Î·È ÚˆÙfiÙ˘· ÚÔ˚fiÓÙ· Î·È ˘ËÚÂÛ›Â˜
ÛÙÔÓ Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚÔ ¯ÒÚÔ ÙË˜ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜, ÙˆÓ ÂÈÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÒÓ Î·È
ÙÔ˘ ıÂ¿Ì·ÙÔ˜. ∫·È ÔÈ ‰‡Ô ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›Â˜ Â›Ó·È ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ‹Ì·Ù· ÙÔ˘
ÂÚ·ÛÌ¤ÓÔ˘ ·ÈÒÓ· ÛÙ· Ù¤ÏË ÙË˜ ‰ÂÎ·ÂÙ›· ÙÔ˘ 1970 Î·È ·˘Ù‹ ÙËÓ
ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô Î·Ù¤¯Ô˘Ó ÙÈ˜ ‰‡Ô ÚÒÙÂ˜ ı¤ÛÂÈ˜ ·fi ÏÂ˘Ú¿˜
ÎÂÊ·Ï·ÈÔÔ›ËÛË˜ ÌÂ ÙËÓ Apple Ì¿ÏÈÛÙ· Ó· Î·Ù¤¯ÂÈ ÙËÓ ÚÒÙË
ı¤ÛË. ΔÔ Î˘ÚÈfiÙÂÚÔ ÁÓÒÚÈÛÌ· ·˘ÙÒÓ ÙˆÓ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂÈÒÓ ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È
ÌfiÓÔ Ë ·fiÏ˘ÙË ÁÓÒÛË Î·È Î·ÙÔ¯‹ ÚÔËÁÌ¤ÓË˜ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›·˜
·ÏÏ¿ Î·È Î·Ù¿ÏÏËÏË ·ÍÈÔÔ›ËÛË ÙÔ˘ Marketing Î·È ‹ ¤ÌÊ˘ÙË Ê‡ÛË
ÁÈ· ÂÈÙ˘¯›· (drive).
Δ· ÚÔ˚fiÓÙ· ÙË˜ Apple ‰È·ÎÚ›ÓÔÓÙ·È ¿ÓÙÔÙÂ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÚˆÙÔÙ˘›·
ÙÔ˘˜, ÙËÓ Î·ÈÓÔÙÔÌ›· ÙÔ˘˜, ÙÔÓ È‰È·›ÙÂÚÔ Û¯Â‰È·ÛÌfi Î·È Â˘ÎÔÏ›·
¯Ú‹ÛË˜. Δ· ÈÔ ÚfiÛÊ·Ù· ·Ú·‰Â›ÁÌ·Ù· ·ÊÔÚÔ‡Ó Ù· Î·ÈÓÔÙfiÌ·
ÚÔ˚fiÓÙ· iPod, iPhone Î·È iPad. Δ· ÙÚ›· ÚÔ˚fiÓÙ· ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈÎ¿
ÙÔÔıÂÙËÌ¤Ó· ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎÒÓ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁÈÒÓ ÙË˜
ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜, ÙˆÓ ÂÈÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÒÓ, ÙÔ˘ ıÂ¿Ì·ÙÔ˜ Î·È ÙÔ˘ ˘ÏÈÎÔ‡
„˘¯·ÁˆÁ›·˜ Î·È ÂÓËÌ¤ÚˆÛË˜ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÂÓ ÔÏÏÔ›˜ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ‹ÛÂÈ
Ó¤Â˜ ·ÁÔÚ¤˜ Î·È ¤¯Ô˘Ó ‰ÒÛÂÈ ÙËÓ Â˘Î·ÈÚ›· ÛÂ ¿ÏÏÂ˜ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›Â˜
Ó· ·ÚÔ˘ÛÈ¿ÛÔ˘Ó ·Ó¿ÏÔÁ· ÚÔ˚fiÓÙ· Î·È ˘ËÚÂÛ›Â˜.
°È· ·Ú¿‰ÂÈÁÌ· ÙÔ iPod ¤¯ÂÈ ‰ÒÛÂÈ Ó¤· ÒıËÛË ÛÙËÓ ÒÏËÛË
ÌÔ˘ÛÈÎ‹˜ Î·È ÚÔÁÚ·ÌÌ¿ÙˆÓ ˘fi ÙË ÌÔÚÊ‹ video Ì¤Ûˆ ÙÔ˘
‰È·‰ÈÎÙ‡Ô˘ Î·È ÙË˜ Ó¤·˜ ˘ËÚÂÛ›·˜ iStore È‰ÈÔÎÙËÛ›·˜ ÙË˜ Apple.
H ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›· ‚Â‚·›ˆ˜ ÏËÚÒÓÂÈ ‰ÈÎ·ÈÒÌ·Ù· ÛÙÔ˘˜ ·Ú·ÁˆÁÔ‡˜
ÙÔ˘ ˘ÏÈÎÔ‡ ·fi ÙÔ ¤Ó· ‰ÔÏ¿ÚÈÔ ∞ÌÂÚÈÎ‹˜ Ô˘ ¯ÚÂÒÓÂÈ ÁÈ· Î¿ıÂ
ÙÚ·ÁÔ‡‰È.
ªÈ· ·ÚfiÌÔÈ· ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈÎ‹ ÚÔÒıËÛË˜ ÚÔ˚fiÓÙˆÓ fiˆ˜ ‚È‚Ï›·,
ÂÚÈÔ‰ÈÎ¿ ÂÊËÌÂÚ›‰Â˜ Î·È ·ÈÁÓ›‰È· ÚÔˆıÂ› Ë ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›· Î·È ÌÂ
ÙÔ ÈÔ ÚfiÛÊ·ÙÔ ·Ú¿‰ÂÈÁÌ· ·˘Ù‹˜ ÙË˜ Î·ÈÓÔÙfiÌÔ˘
‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈfiÙËÙ·˜ ÌÂ ÙËÓ ·Ú·ÁˆÁ‹ Î·È ‰È¿ıÂÛË ÛÙËÓ ·ÁÔÚ¿ ÙÔ˘
ÚÔ˚fiÓÙÔ˜ iPad. ΔÔ iPad Â›Ó·È ¤Ó·˜ ËÏÂÎÙÚÔÓÈÎfi˜ ˘ÔÏÔÁÈÛÙ‹˜
˘fi ÌÔÚÊ‹ Ù·ÌÏ¤Ù·˜ ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô Û˘Ó‰˘¿˙ÂÈ ÔÏÏ¤˜ ˘ÊÈÛÙ¿ÌÂÓÂ˜
ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁ›Â˜ ÛÂ ¤Ó· ÂÚÈÂÎÙÈÎfi Î·È Î·ÏÔÛ¯Â‰È·ÛÌ¤ÓÔ Û‡ÓÔÏÔ.
ªÂÙ·Í‡ ·˘ÙÒÓ ÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÔÓÙ·È Ë ·Ó¿ÁÓˆÛË ËÏÂÎÙÚÔÓÈÎÒÓ
‚È‚Ï›ˆÓ, ‰È·‰ÈÎÙ˘·Î¿ ·ÈÁÓ›‰È·, Ë ÏÔ‹ÁËÛË ÙÔ˘ ‰È·‰ÈÎÙ‡Ô˘ Î·È
Ë ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›· ˘ÏÈÎÔ‡. ∂›ÛË˜ ÙÚ¤¯ÂÈ ÔÏÏ¤˜ ÂÊ·ÚÌÔÁ¤˜ Ô˘
¤¯Ô˘Ó ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁËıÂ› ÁÈ· Ù· ÚÔËÁÔ‡ÌÂÓ· Ì¤ÏË ÙË˜ ÔÈÎÔÁ¤ÓÂÈ·˜
i (iPhone Î·È iPod) ∞fi ÙËÓ ÂÈÛ·ÁˆÁ‹ ÙÔ˘ ÛÙËÓ ·ÁÔÚ¿ ÙÔ ∞Ú›ÏÈÔ
ÙÔ˘ 2010 Ì¤¯ÚÈ Î·È ÙËÓ 1Ë πÔ˘Ó›Ô˘ 2010 ¤¯Ô˘Ó ‰È·ÙÂıÂ› ‰‡Ô
ÂÎ·ÙÔÌÌ‡ÚÈ·.
ªË¯·Ó‹Ì·Ù· ·Ó¿ÁÓˆÛË˜ ‚È‚Ï›ˆÓ, ÂÊËÌÂÚ›‰ˆÓ Î·È ÂÚÈÔ‰ÈÎÒÓ,
e-book readers, ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÚÔˆı‹ÛÂÈ ÛÙËÓ ·ÁÔÚ¿ Î·È ¿ÏÏÂ˜
ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›Â˜ fiˆ˜ ÙËÓ Amazon ÌÂ ÙÔ Kindle, Ë Sony ÌÂ ÙÔ Reader
Î·È Ù· ‚È‚ÏÈÔˆÏÂ›· Barnes & Noble ÌÂ ÙÔ Nook ·ÏÏ¿ Î·Ó¤Ó·
·fi ·˘Ù¿ Ù· ÚÔ˚fiÓÙ· ‰ÂÓ Î·Ù¿ÊÂÚÂ Ó· ¤¯ÂÈ ÙËÓ ÂÌÔÚÈÎ‹
ÂÈÙ˘¯›· ÙÔ˘ iPad, ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô Ê˘ÛÈÎ¿ ÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÂÈ Î·È ¿ÏÏÂ˜
ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ¤˜ ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁ›Â˜.
Ÿˆ˜ ¤¯Ô˘ÌÂ ‹‰Ë ÛËÌÂÈÒÛÂÈ ·˘Ùfi Ô˘ Î¿ÓÂÈ Ù· ÚÔ˚fiÓÙ· ÙË˜
Apple ÙfiÛÔ ÍÂ¯ˆÚÈÛÙ¿ Î·È ‰ËÌÔÊÈÏ‹ Â›Ó·È Ô ÚˆÙfiÙ˘Ô˜
Û¯Â‰È·ÛÌfi˜, Ë ÎÔÌ„fiÙËÙ· Î·È Ë Â˘¯ÚËÛÙ›· Î·È Ë ·ÚÌÔÓÈÎ‹
Û‡˙Â˘ÍË ÙË˜ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›·˜ ÌÂ ÙÔ Marketing. √È Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈÎ¿
ÂÈÙ˘¯ËÌ¤ÓÂ˜ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂ›Â˜ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÔ‡Ó ÍÂ¯ˆÚÈÛÙ¿ ÚÔ˚fiÓÙ· ·ÏÏ¿
¤¯Ô˘Ó ÙËÓ ÈÎ·ÓfiÙËÙ· Ó· Ù· ÚÔˆı‹ÛÔ˘Ó ÛÙËÓ ·ÁÔÚ¿ Î·È Ó·
‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ‹ÛÔ˘Ó ·ÁÔÚ¤˜ Î·È ·Ó¿ÁÎÂ˜ ÂÎÂ› Ô˘ ‰ÂÓ ˘¿Ú¯Ô˘Ó.
ŸÌˆ˜ ÚÔ˜ ÙÈ fiÏ· ·˘Ù¿; ¶ÔÈfi Â›Ó·È ÙÔ Ì¿ıËÌ· ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ∫‡ÚÔ ‹
Î·È ÙËÓ ∂˘ÚÒË ·fi Ù· ÈÔ ¿Óˆ; °È·Ù› Ë ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈÎ‹ ÙË˜
§ÈÛÛ·‚fiÓ·˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·ÓÙ·ÁˆÓÈÛÙÈÎfiÙËÙ· ¤¯ÂÈ Ô˘ÛÈ·ÛÙÈÎ¿
·ÔÙ‡¯ÂÈ; ¶fiÛË ÛËÌ·Û›· ¤¯ÂÈ ÙÔ «ÚÔÙÂÛÙ·ÓÙÈÎfi ‹ıÔ˜» Ô˘
ÙfiÛÔ ·Ú·ÛÙ·ÙÈÎ¿ ¤¯ÂÈ ÂÚÈÁÚ¿„ÂÈ Ô Max Weber; £· ÌÔÚ¤ÛÂÈ
Ë ÁËÚ·È¿ ‹ÂÈÚÔ˜ Ó· ·ÓÙ·ÁˆÓÈÛıÂ› ÌÂ ÂÈÙ˘¯›· ÙËÓ ÎÚ·Ù·È¿
∞ÌÂÚÈÎ‹ Î·È ÙÈ˜ ·Ó·‰˘fiÌÂÓÂ˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›Â˜ ÙË˜ ∫›Ó·˜, ÙË˜ πÓ‰›·˜,
ÙË˜ Taiwan ÙË˜ ™ÈÁÎ·Ô‡ÚË˜ Î·È ÙË˜ μÚ·˙ÈÏ›·˜ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ¿ÏÏˆÓ;
ªÔÚÂ› ÌÈ· ¯ÒÚ· Ó· ÂÈ‚ÈÒÛÂÈ ¯ˆÚ›˜ ‚ÈÔÌË¯·Ó›· ‚·ÛÈ˙fiÌÂÓË
ÌfiÓÔ ÛÙÈ˜ ˘ËÚÂÛ›Â˜; ΔÈ ‰¤ÔÓ ÁÂÓ¤Ûı·È; ŸÏ· ·˘Ù¿ Ù· Ô˘ÛÈ·ÛÙÈÎ¿
ÂÚˆÙ‹Ì·Ù· ı· ÌÂ›ÓÔ˘Ó ˆ˜ Ù¤ÙÔÈ· Ì¤¯ÚÈ ÙËÓ ÂfiÌÂÓË ¤Î‰ÔÛË.
£· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ÛËÌÂÈˆıÂ› fiÙÈ ÛÂ ÔÚÈÛÌ¤ÓÔ˘˜ Î‡ÎÏÔ˘˜ ÂÈÎÚ·ÙÂ›
·ÓËÛ˘¯›· fiÙÈ Ë ∂˘ÚÒË ı· Â›Ó·È Ë ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›· ÛÂ ÛÂÈÚ¿ ÂÈÙ˘¯›·˜
Î·È fiÙÈ ÙÔ Ì¤ÏÏÔÓ ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È ‰ÈÎfi ÙË˜. ∏ ·ÓËÛ˘¯›· ÙÔ˘˜ ‚·Û›˙ÂÙ·È
Û Ù· ÔÏÏ¿ ‰ÔÌÈÎ¿ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù·, ÛÙÈ˜ ‰È·ÊÔÚ¤˜ ÌÂÙ·Í‡ ÙˆÓ
¯ˆÚÒÓ ÌÂÏÒÓ ÙÔ˘˜ Ô˘ Î·ıÈÛÙÔ‡Ó ·‰‡Ó·ÙË ÙËÓ Û˘ÓÔ¯‹, Ë
·ÓÙ·ÁˆÓÈÛÙÈÎfiÙËÙ· Â›Ó·È ¯·ÌËÏ‹, ÙÔ ÎÔÈÓfi ÓfiÌÈÛÌ· Î·ıÒ˜ ¤¯ÂÈ
ÔÏÈÙÈÎfi Î·È fi¯È ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎfi ˘fi‚·ıÚÔ Î¿ıÂ ¿ÏÏÔ ·fi
ÛÙ·ıÂÚÔÔÈËÙÈÎfi ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›Ô Â›Ó·È, Ô ÏËı˘ÛÌfi˜ ÁÂÚÓ¿, Î·È ÔÏÏ¿
¿ÏÏ·.
H ıÂÌ·ÙÔÏÔÁ›· ÙË˜ ¤Î‰ÔÛË˜ ÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÂÈ ÌÈ· ÛÂÈÚ¿ ·fi
ÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔÓÙ· Î·È ÔÈÎ›Ï· ¿ÚıÚ· Ô˘ Î·Ï‡ÙÔ˘Ó ¤Ó· Â˘Ú‡ Ê¿ÛÌ·
ıÂÌ¿ÙˆÓ Î·È ÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÂÈ Ù· ·ÎfiÏÔ˘ı· ¿ÚıÚ·:
review process). ∏ ™˘ÓÙ·ÎÙÈÎ‹ ÔÌ¿‰· ÂÓı·ÚÚ‡ÓÂÈ fiÏÔ˘˜ ÙÔ˘˜
Û˘Ó·‰¤ÏÊÔ˘˜ Ó· ·ÍÈÔÔÈ‹ÛÔ˘Ó ÙÈ˜ ‰˘Ó·ÙfiÙËÙÂ˜ ÙË˜
ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ÛÙËÓ ¤ÓÙ˘Ë Î·È ËÏÂÎÙÚÔÓÈÎ‹ ÌÔÚÊ‹ ÙË˜ ÁÈ· ÙË
‰È¿¯˘ÛË ÙË˜ ·Ú·ÁfiÌÂÓË˜ ÁÓÒÛË˜ ·fi ÂıÓÈÎ¿ Î·È ‰ÈÂıÓ‹
ÂÚÂ˘ÓËÙÈÎ¿ ¤ÚÁ·.
√ XÚ›ÛÙÔ˜ ∂ÏÏËÓ›‰Ë˜, Â›Ó·È ¢ÈÂ˘ı˘ÓÙ‹˜ ÛÙË °ÂÓÈÎ‹ ¢ÈÂ‡ı˘ÓÛË
¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ (DIGIT) ÙË˜ ∂˘Úˆ·˚Î‹˜ ŒÓˆÛË˜, ™ÙÔ ¿ÚıÚÔ ÙÔ˘
ÌÂ Ù›ÙÏÔ “E-SIGNATURES: A EUROPEAN UNION VISION”
·ÚÔ˘ÛÈ¿˙ÂÈ ÙÔ fiÚ·Ì· ÙË˜ ∂∂ ÛÂ Û¯¤ÛË ÌÂ ÙÈ˜ ËÏÂÎÙÚÔÓÈÎ¤˜
˘ÔÁÚ·Ê¤˜ Î·È ÂÍ·ÁÁ¤ÏÏÂÈ ÙËÓ ÚfiıÂÛË ÙË˜ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹˜ Ó·
˘ÈÔıÂÙ‹ÛÂÈ ÙË Û¯ÂÙÈÎ‹ Ú·ÎÙÈÎ‹ Î·È Ó· ÂÚÁ·ÛÙÂ› ÁÈ· ÙËÓ Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚË
·Ô‰Ô¯‹ ÙË˜.
∏ ¤Î‰ÔÛË Û˘ÌÏËÚÒÓÂÙ·È ÌÂ ÙË ÌfiÓÈÌË ÛÙ‹ÏË ÙÔ˘ ¢Ú·. º›ÏÈÔ˘
¶ÂÏÂÙÈ¤, ÌÂ ¤Ó· ·ÎfiÌË ·ÊÈ¤ÚˆÌ· ÛÙÔ˘˜ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ˘˜ ¿Ó‰ÚÂ˜ Î·È
ÂÓ›ÔÙÂ Á˘Ó·›ÎÂ˜ ÛÙÔ˘˜ ÒÌÔ˘˜ ÙˆÓ ÔÔ›ˆÓ ·ÙÔ‡ÌÂ ÁÈ· Ó·
ÊÙ¿ÛÔ˘ÌÂ „ËÏ¿. ∞˘Ù‹ ÙËÓ ÊÔÚ¿ Ë Î·Ù¿ıÂÛË ÙÈÌ‹˜ ·ÊÔÚ¿ ÙÔÓ
Alan Mathison Turing ( 1912 -1954) ÌÈ· ¿ÎÚˆ˜ ÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔ˘Û·
Ê˘ÛÈÔÁÓˆÌ›·.
£ÂÌ·ÙÔÏÔÁ›·:
√ ¡fiÙË˜ πÏÈfiÔ˘ÏÔ˜, Â›Ó·È ÂÈÎÂÊ·Ï‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ΔÌ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ ∞ÛÊ¿ÏÂÈ·˜
¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ Î·È ¢ÈÎÙ‡ˆÓ, ÙÔ˘ √Ì›ÏÔ˘ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂÈÒÓ Innova, USA.
ΔÔ ¿ÚıÚÔ ÙÔ˘ ÌÂ Ù›ÙÏÔ “Protection of Critical Data Using
Information Centric Approach” Î·Ù·ÁÚ¿ÊÂÈ ÙËÓ ·Ó¿ÁÎË ÁÈ· ÌÈ·
ÎÂÓÙÚÈÎÔÔÈËÌ¤ÓË ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈÎ‹ ·ÛÊ¿ÏÂÈ·˜ ÛÂ Â›Â‰Ô
ÔÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌÔ‡.
√ Prof. Emeritus Eugene Schultz Û˘ÌÌÂÙ¤¯ÂÈ Ù·ÎÙÈÎ¿ ÛÙ·
Û˘Ó¤‰ÚÈ· ÙÔ˘ ™˘Ó‰¤ÛÌÔ˘ ÁÈ· ÙË ∞ÛÊ¿ÏÂÈ· ÙË˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚ›·˜ Î·È
ÂÚÁ·Û›Â˜ ÙÔ˘ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÊÈÏÔÍÂÓËıÂ› Î·Ù’ Â·Ó¿ÏË„Ë ÛÙË
¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹. ΔÔ ¿ÚıÚÔ ÙÔ˘ ÌÂ Ù›ÙÏÔ “Myths About Password
Settings and Other Nonsense: How Information Security Tortures
Users in the Name of Security” Û¯ÔÏÈ¿˙ÂÈ ÌÂ Î·˘ÛÙÈÎfi ÙÚfiÔ ÙÈ˜
ÌÂıÔ‰ÔÏÔÁ›Â˜ Ô˘ ·ÍÈÔÔÈÔ‡ÓÙ·È ÁÈ· ÙË ‰È·ÌfiÚÊˆÛË ÎÏÂÈ‰ÈÒÓ
·ÛÊ·ÏÂ›·˜.
√ ¢Ú. Ã·Ú¿Ï·ÌÔ˜ μÚ·Û›‰·˜, Â›Ó·È ∂ÎÙÂÏÂÛÙÈÎfi˜ ¢ÈÂ˘ı˘ÓÙ‹˜
ÙÔ˘ CARDET Î·È ∞Ó·ÏËÚˆÙ‹˜ ∫·ıËÁËÙ‹˜ ÛÙÔ ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ
§Â˘ÎˆÛ›·˜. ™ÙÔ ¿ÚıÚÔ ÙÔ˘ ÌÂ Ù›ÙÏÔ “Teacher Use Of ICT In
Cyprus Primary Schools” ∫·Ù·ı¤ÙÂÈ Ù· Î‡ÚÈ· ·ÔÙÂÏ¤ÛÌ·Ù·
ÚfiÛÊ·ÙË˜ ¤ÚÂ˘Ó·˜ ·Ó·ÊÔÚÈÎ¿ ÌÂ ÙË ¯Ú‹ÛË ÙˆÓ ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁÈÒÓ
ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ Î·È ÂÈÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÒÓ ÛÙË ‰ËÌÔÙÈÎ‹ ÂÎ·›‰Â˘ÛË ÙË˜
∫‡ÚÔ˘.
μÈ‚ÏÈÔÁÚ·Ê›·:
ETEK (2010). ∂Ù·ÈÚÈÎ‹ πÛÙÔÛÂÏ›‰·
http://www.etek.org.cy/page.aspx?page_id=154
∞Ó·ÎÙ‹ıËÎÂ 05 πÔ˘Ó›Ô˘ 2010
CIA Fact Book (2010).
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
∂˘Úˆ·˚Î‹ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹ (2003).
«∫·ÈÓÔÙÔÌ›· Î·È ¶ÔÏÈÙÈÎ‹ ÙË˜ §ÈÛÛ·‚fiÓ·˜»
(http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/research_innovation/research_in_support_of_other_policies/n26021_el.htm).
Statistical Service of Cyprus (2009). “STATISTICAL ABSTRACT
2008” General Statistics Series I, Report No. 54, Nicosia, Cyprus
∏ ‡ÏË ÙÔ˘ ÂÚÈÔ‰ÈÎÔ‡ ÔÏÔÎÏËÚÒÓÂÙ·È ÌÂ ÌÈ· ÂÓfiÙËÙ· ‰˘Ô
Û‡ÓÙÔÌˆÓ ÎÂÈÌ¤ÓˆÓ ÌÂ ÙÔ˘˜ ·ÎfiÏÔ˘ıÔ˘˜ Ù›ÙÏÔ˘˜ Î·È Û˘ÁÁÚ·ÊÂ›˜
(·) “Knowledge Management in Developing and Delivering
Software Products” ÙÔ˘ ∞Ó‰Ú¤· Ã·Ù˙Èˆ¿ÓÓÔ˘, (‚) “How to Share
Knowledge Through Product Cross-EvaluationÙË˜” ÙË˜ ∫·ÙÂÚ›Ó·˜
¡ÂÔÊ‡ÙÔ˘ Ô˘ ·ÔÙÂÏÔ‡Ó Ì¤ÚÔ˜ ÙË˜ ‰È¿¯˘ÛË˜ ÙË˜ ÁÓÒÛË˜ ·fi
ÙÔ ∂˘Úˆ·˚Îfi ¶ÚfiÁÚ·ÌÌ· “Cornet Extra Project”. ™Ùfi¯Ô˜ ÙÔ˘
Û˘ÁÎÂÎÚÈÌ¤ÓÔ˘ ÚÔÁÚ¿ÌÌ·ÙÔ˜ Â›Ó·È Ë ‚ÂÏÙ›ˆÛË ÙË˜
·ÓÙ·ÁˆÓÈÛÙÈÎfiÙËÙ·˜ ÙˆÓ ÌÈÎÚÒÓ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂÈÒÓ ÛÙÔ ¯ÒÚÔ ÙË˜
·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË˜ ÏÔÁÈÛÌÈÎÔ‡. °È· ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚ· ·Ó·ÊÔÚÈÎ¿ ÌÂ ÙÔ
ÚfiÁÚ·ÌÌ· ÌÔÚÂ›ÙÂ Ó· ÂÈÛÎÂÊÙÂ›ÙÂ ÙËÓ ÈÛÙÔÛÂÏ›‰·
http://www.cornet-extra.eu/. Δ· ÎÂ›ÌÂÓ· ·˘Ù¿ ‰ÂÓ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÂÚ¿ÛÂÈ
Ì¤Û· ·fi ÙËÓ ‰È·‰ÈÎ·Û›· ÙË˜ ·ÍÈÔÏfiÁËÛË˜ ÙˆÓ ÔÌÔÙ›ÌˆÓ (peer
Δ∞ ¡∂∞ ª∞™
Ο Σύνδεσμος μας το πρώτο εξάμηνο του 2010 έχει
αναλάβει τη διοργάνωση και συν-διοργάνωση
πολύπλευρων δραστηριοτήτων, επαγγελματικών
και κοινωνικών εκδηλώσεων.
∂∫¢∏§ø™∂π™
∂Î‰‹ÏˆÛË ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÎÔ‹ ÙË˜ ‚·ÛÈÏfiÈÙÙ·˜
Ÿˆ˜ Î¿ıÂ ÊÔÚ¿, Ô ∫˘ÚÈ·Îfi˜ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜
ÁÈfiÚÙ·ÛÂ ÙÔÓ ÂÚ¯ÔÌfi ÙÔ˘ Ó¤Ô˘ ¤ÙÔ˘˜ ÌÂ ÙËÓ Î·ıÈÂÚˆÌ¤ÓË
ÂÎ‰‹ÏˆÛË ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÎÔ‹ ÙË˜ ‚·ÛÈÏfiÈÙÙ·˜. ΔÔ ¿ÚÙ˘
Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÔÔÈ‹ıËÎÂ ÛÙÈ˜ 20 π·ÓÔ˘·Ú›Ô˘, ÛÙËÓ ∂ÌÔÚÈÎ‹ ™ÙÔ¿
§Â˘ÎˆÛ›·˜ Î·È ÂÚÈÏ¿Ì‚·ÓÂ ‰Â›ÓÔ, ÌÔ˘ÛÈÎ‹ Î·È ÎÏ‹ÚˆÛË ÌÂ
ÏÔ‡ÛÈ· ‰ÒÚ· ÁÈ· Ù· Ì¤ÏË, ÙÔ˘˜ Û˘ÓÂÚÁ¿ÙÂ˜ Î·È ÙÔ˘˜ Ê›ÏÔ˘˜
ÙÔ˘ ™˘Ó‰¤ÛÌÔ˘.
∏Ì¤Ú· ÙË˜ °˘Ó·›Î·˜
™Ù· Ï·›ÛÈ· ÙˆÓ ÂÔÚÙ·ÛÌÒÓ ÁÈ· ÙË ‰ÈÂıÓ‹ ∏Ì¤Ú· ÙË˜ °˘Ó·›Î·˜
(8/03/2010) Ô ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ˜ ‰ÈÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛÂ ‰‡Ô ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎÔ‡
ÂÚÈÂ¯ÔÌ¤ÓÔ˘ ÂÎ‰ËÏÒÛÂÈ˜:
1. ™˘Ó¤‰ÚÈÔ «Women in ICT – The Way Forward»
™Â Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›· ÌÂ ÙË ¢ÈÂ‡ı˘ÓÛË ÙË˜ ∂˘Úˆ·˚Î‹˜ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹˜ ∫ÔÈÓˆÓ›· ÙË˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚ›·˜ Î·È ª¤ÛˆÓ (European Commission
– Information Society and Media), ‰ÈÔÚÁ·ÓÒıËÎÂ 2‹ÌÂÚÔ
Û˘Ó¤‰ÚÈÔ ÁÈ· ÙÔ ˙‹ÙËÌ· ÙË˜ °˘Ó·›Î·˜ ÛÙËÓ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹ ÌÂ
¤ÌÊ·ÛË Ù· ∂˘Úˆ·˚Î¿ ¶ÚÔÁÚ¿ÌÌ·Ù·. ΔËÓ ¤Ó·ÚÍË ÙÔ˘ Û˘ÓÂ‰Ú›Ô˘
Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÔÔ›ËÛÂ ÌÂ ÂÈÛ·ÁˆÁÈÎ‹ ÔÌÈÏ›· Ô ∫˘‚ÂÚÓËÙÈÎfi˜
∂ÎÚfiÛˆÔ˜ ÙË˜ ∫‡ÚÔ˘ ÎÔ˜ ™Ù¤Ê·ÓÔ˜ ™ÙÂÊ¿ÓÔ˘.
2. ¢È¿ÏÂÍË ™Ù¤Ê·ÓË˜ ™ÔÏˆÌÔÓ›‰Ô˘
ΔÔ CCS ÛÙ‹ÚÈÍÂ ¤ÌÚ·ÎÙ· ÙËÓ ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ· ÙË˜ ÚÒÙË˜ ∫‡ÚÈ·˜
Ô˘ ¤ÊÙ·ÛÂ ÛÙÔ ¡fiÙÈÔ ¶fiÏÔ ™Ù¤Ê·ÓË˜ ™ÔÏˆÌÔÓ›‰Ô˘ Î·È ¤ÙÛÈ
ÌÂÙ¿ ÙÔ Ù¤ÏÔ˜ ÙË˜ ·ÔÛÙÔÏ‹˜ ÙË˜ ‰ÈÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛÂ ‰È¿ÏÂÍË fiÔ˘ Ë
›‰È· ÂÚ›ÁÚ·„Â ÙÈ˜ ÂÌÂÈÚ›Â˜ ÙË˜ ÛÙÔ ÎÔÈÓfi.
¶¤Ú·Ó ·fi 200 ·ÚÂ˘ÚÈÛÎfiÌÂÓÔÈ ·Ú·ÎÔÏÔ‡ıËÛ·Ó ÌÂ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ
ÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔÓ ÌÈ· ÔÏ‡ ˙ˆÓÙ·Ó‹ ·ÚÔ˘Û›·ÛË ÌÂ ÔÙÈÎÔ·ÎÔ˘ÛÙÈÎfi
˘ÏÈÎfi Î·È ÌfiÚÂÛ·Ó Ó· ÂÎÙÈÌ‹ÛÔ˘Ó ÙËÓ ÙÂÚ¿ÛÙÈ· ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ· ÙˆÓ
Á˘Ó·ÈÎÒÓ Ô˘ ‰È¤Ó˘Û·Ó ÂÎ·ÙÔÓÙ¿‰Â˜ ¯ÈÏÈfiÌÂÙÚ· ÛÂ ·ÓÙ›ÍÔÂ˜
Û˘Óı‹ÎÂ˜ ÛÙËÓ ∞ÓÙ·ÚÎÙÈÎ‹ ÁÈ· Ó· ÊÙ¿ÛÔ˘Ó ÙÔ ¢ÂÎ¤Ì‚ÚÈÔ ÙÔ˘
2009 ÛÙÔ ÁÂˆÁÚ·ÊÈÎfi ¡fiÙÈÔ ¶fiÏÔ.
ECDL
™˘ÌÌÂÙÔ¯‹ ÛÙËÓ ∂Î·È‰Â˘ÙÈÎ‹ ŒÎıÂÛË 2010
ΔÔ ECDL ∫‡ÚÔ˘ Ô˘ ·ÓÙÈÚÔÛˆÂ‡ÂÙ·È ·fi ÙÔÓ ∫˘ÚÈ·Îfi
™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜, Û˘ÌÌÂÙÂ›¯Â ÛÙËÓ ∂Î·È‰Â˘ÙÈÎ‹ ŒÎıÂÛË
Ô˘ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÔÔÈ‹ıËÎÂ ÛÙÔ˘˜ ¯ÒÚÔ˘˜ ÙË˜ ∫Ú·ÙÈÎ‹˜ ŒÎıÂÛË˜
∫‡ÚÔ˘ ÙÔÓ ºÂ‚ÚÔ˘¿ÚÈÔ 2010. ΔÔ ÂÚ›ÙÂÚÔ ÙÔ˘ ECDL ÓÙ‡ıËÎÂ
ÌÂ Ù· ÏÔÁfiÙ˘· Î·È Ù· ¯ÚÒÌ·Ù· ÙÔ˘ ÔÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌÔ‡ ÁÈ· Ó· ˘Ô‰Â¯ÙÂ›
¯ÈÏÈ¿‰Â˜ Ì·ıËÙ¤˜ Ô˘ ÂÈÛÎ¤ÊÙËÎ·Ó ÙËÓ ŒÎıÂÛË. ∫·Ù¿ ÙË
‰È¿ÚÎÂÈ· ÙË˜ ŒÎıÂÛË˜ ÔÈ ÓÂ·ÚÔ› Â›¯·Ó ÙËÓ Â˘Î·ÈÚ›· Ó·
Û˘ÌÌÂÙ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÛÙÔÓ ÚˆÙfiÙ˘Ô ‰È·ÁˆÓÈÛÌfi ÌÂ Û˘ÌÏ‹ÚˆÛË ÂÓfi˜
ÛÙ·˘ÚÔÏ¤ÍÔ˘ Î·È Ó· ÎÂÚ‰›ÛÔ˘Ó ÏÔ‡ÛÈ· ‰ÒÚ· ÙÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›·˜.
∂ÈÏ¤ÔÓ, ÛÂ fiÏÔ˘˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ÂÈÛÎ¤ÙÂ˜ ‰fiıËÎ·Ó ·Ó·ÌÓËÛÙÈÎ¿
‰ˆÚ¿ÎÈ· ·fi ÙÔ ECDL Î·È ÙÔ CCS.
™À¡∂ƒ°∞™π∂™
∏Ì¤Ú· Î·ÚÈ¤Ú·˜
ΔÔ ΔÌ‹Ì· ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙËÌ›Ô˘ ∫‡ÚÔ˘
‰ÈÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛÂ ∏Ì¤Ú· Î·ÚÈ¤Ú·˜ ÁÈ· Ì·ıËÙ¤˜ Ï˘ÎÂ›Ô˘ Ô˘
ÂÓ‰È·Ê¤ÚÔÓÙ·È Ó· ·ÎÔÏÔ˘ı‹ÛÔ˘Ó ÙÔ Â¿ÁÁÂÏÌ· ÙË˜
¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜. ΔÔ CCS ˘ÔÛÙ‹ÚÈÍÂ ·˘Ù‹ ÙËÓ ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ·,
·Ú·ı¤ÙÔÓÙ·˜ ‰È¿ÏÂÍË ÛÙÔ˘˜ Ì·ıËÙ¤˜ Î·È ÚÔÛÊ¤ÚÔÓÙ·˜ ‰ÒÚ·
Î·È ÂÓËÌÂÚˆÙÈÎfi ˘ÏÈÎfi ÛÂ fiÏÔ˘˜ ÙÔ˘˜ Û˘ÌÌÂÙ¤¯ÔÓÙÂ˜.
E-Skills Week
ΔÔÓ ÂÚ·ÛÌ¤ÓÔ ª¿ÚÙÈÔ, Ì·˙› ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ¶·ÁÎ‡ÚÈÔ ™‡Ó‰ÂÛÌÔ
∂È¯ÂÈÚ‹ÛÂˆÓ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ (CITEA) ÙÔ CCS Û˘ÌÌÂÙÂ›¯Â ÛÙÔ
∂˘Úˆ·˚Îfi ¤ÚÁÔ «E-Skills Week 2010» ÌÂ ÛÙfi¯Ô ÙËÓ ÚÔÒıËÛË
ÙˆÓ „ËÊÈ·ÎÒÓ ‰ÂÍÈÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ ÛÙÔ˘˜ Ó¤Ô˘˜. ΔÔ ¤ÚÁÔ ÂÚÈÏ¿Ì‚·ÓÂ
ÙË ‰ÈÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛË Î·È ÂÎÙ¤ÏÂÛË ÔÈÎ›ÏˆÓ ‰Ú¿ÛÂˆÓ Î·È
‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ fiˆ˜ Û˘ÌÌÂÙÔ¯‹ ÛÙËÓ ∂Î·È‰Â˘ÙÈÎ‹ ŒÎıÂÛË,
¤Î‰ÔÛË ÂÓËÌÂÚˆÙÈÎÔ‡ Ê˘ÏÏ·‰›Ô˘ ÁÈ· top Â·ÁÁ¤ÏÌ·Ù·
ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜, ™˘˙‹ÙËÛË ™ÙÚÔÁÁ˘Ï‹˜ ΔÚ·¤˙Ë˜ ÌÂ ı¤Ì· ÙËÓ
Î·ÙÔ¯‡ÚˆÛË ÙÔ˘ Â·ÁÁ¤ÏÌ·ÙÔ˜, ËÌÂÚ›‰Â˜ Î·ÚÈ¤Ú·˜ ÛÂ
¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈ· Î·È ÂÚÈÔ‰Â›· ÌÂ ÙÔ Virtual Bus ÛÂ ¯ˆÚÈ¿ ÙË˜
∫‡ÚÔ˘.
§ÔÁÈ·›ÁÓÈÔÓ
°È· ‰Â‡ÙÂÚË Û˘ÓÂ¯fiÌÂÓË ¯ÚÔÓÈ¿ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÔÔÈ‹ıËÎÂ Ô
‰È·ÁˆÓÈÛÌfi˜ ·È¯ÓÈ‰ÈÒÓ ÁÈ· ËÏÂÎÙÚÔÓÈÎÔ‡˜ ˘ÔÏÔÁÈÛÙ¤˜
«§ÔÁÈ·›ÁÓÈÔÓ» ÁÈ· Ì·ıËÙ¤˜ Î·È ÊÔÈÙËÙ¤˜ ·fi ÙÔ ΔÌ‹Ì·
¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙËÌ›Ô˘ ∫‡ÚÔ˘ fiÔ˘ ‹Ù·Ó Û˘Ó‰ÈÔÚÁ·ÓˆÙ‹˜ ÙÔ CCS Î·È ¯ÔÚËÁfi˜ ÙÔ ECDL. ™ÙÔ ‰È·ÁˆÓÈÛÌfi
Û˘ÌÌÂÙÂ›¯·Ó ÂÎ·ÙÔÓÙ¿‰Â˜ ÓÂ·ÚÔ› Î·È ÂÈ‚Ú·‚Â‡ÙËÎ·Ó ÔÈ
Î·Ï‡ÙÂÚÔÈ ÛÙËÓ ÙÂÏÂÙ‹ Ï‹ÍË˜ Ô˘ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÔÔÈ‹ıËÎÂ ÙÔÓ
∞Ú›ÏÈÔ ÛÙÔ ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ ∫‡ÚÔ˘. √ ¶ÚfiÂ‰ÚÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ CCS ÎÔ˜
∫ÒÛÙ·˜ ∞ÁÚfiÙË˜ ·Ú¤‰ˆÛÂ Ù· ¤·ıÏ· –¯ÚËÌ·ÙÈÎ¿ ÔÛ¿ ·fi
ÙÔ ECDL- ÛÙÈ˜ ÓÈÎ‹ÙÚÈÂ˜ ÔÌ¿‰Â˜.
∞§§∞°E™ ™Δ∞ ™Δ√πÃ∂I∞ ∂¶π∫√π¡ø¡I∞™ ™∞™;
∂¡∏ª∂ƒø™Δ∂ ª∞™!
°È· Ó· ÂÍ·ÎÔÏÔ˘ıÂ›ÙÂ Ó· Ï·Ì‚¿ÓÂÙÂ ÙÔ ÂÚÈÔ‰ÈÎfi ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹ Î·È ¿ÏÏÂ˜
ÏËÚÔÊÔÚ›Â˜ ÙÔ˘ ∫˘.™˘.¶. ·Ú·Î·ÏÒ ÂÓËÌÂÚÒÛÙÂ Ì·˜ ÁÈ· Ù˘¯fiÓ ·ÏÏ·Á¤˜
ÛÙË ‰ÈÂ‡ı˘ÓÛË, ÙËÏ¤ÊˆÓÔ Î·È ËÏÂÎÙÚÔÓÈÎ‹ ‰ÈÂ‡ı˘ÓÛË Û·˜.
CHANGE OF YOUR CONTACT DETAILS?
LET US KNOW!
To make sure you continue receive Pliroforiki Magazine and other CCS
information, please inform us of any changes in your address,
telephone and email.
E-SIGNATURES:
A EUROPEAN
UNION VISION
Christos Ellinides
The need to rely on a document's authenticity (origin and integrity) is
stronger than ever in today’s electronic business environment. Electronic
signature capabilities enable information systems to deliver important
documents and information inside and outside an organization with
added assurances that the information arrives exactly as it was intended,
with certification of its origin. An electronic signature simplifies business
processes, cuts delays, risks of fraud and physical document handling
costs. For this purpose, and thanks to a rich palette of supporting
technologies available in today's market, businesses and administrations
adopt electronic signature solutions in their operational environment.
The European Commission is committed to pursue the adoption of
eSignatures, internally within the organisation, and to lead by example on
the road towards an open and transparent eGovernment.
WHAT IS AN ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE?
An electronic signature simplifies business processes, cuts
delays, risks of fraud and physical document handling costs. For
this purpose, and thanks to a rich palette of supporting
technologies available in today's market, businesses and
administrations adopt electronic signature solutions in their
operational environment.
A handwritten signature gives legal value to a paper document as
a means to ensure the identity of the signatory, the authenticity
of the document, and to prevent the signatory from denying later
having signed the document. An electronic signature gives the
same legal value to an electronic document. An electronic
signature is data in electronic form logically associated with other
electronic data serving as a method of authentication. A simple
electronic signature may thus be a name at the bottom of an
e-mail.
By contrast, an advanced electronic signature is strongly linked
to the signatory and guarantees the integrity of the signed
document, even long time after the signature. If any bit of the
signed document is changed, the advanced signature breaks like
a seal. The only existing technology able to produce electronic
signatures matching this definition today is called public key
infrastructure or PKI because it is based on public key
cryptography.
Advanced electronic signatures work in four essential steps:
1. An "electronic identity" or eID i.e. a public digital certificate
associated to a private key is issued to the signer.
2. The signer creates a signature with his/her private key.
3. The relying party verifies the signature with validation
software.
4. The signature may be extended to ensure the protection of
validating evidence for use even after a long period of time.
The fact that advanced electronic signatures use cryptography,
could mislead some to believe that signing a document leads to
its encryption with the signer's private key. This is indeed false,
as a signed document is not encrypted, anyone can still read it.
A signed document may additionally be encrypted if needed, but
this is another process that has nothing to do with its signature.
Encryption is actually another application of public key
cryptography which ensures confidentiality between a sender and
a receiver by encrypting the document with its receiver's public
key. A signed electronic document comes instead in clear text,
along with a signature as accompanying metadata; it is signed
by the signer's private key. Signing is therefore not encrypting.
Nevertheless, both applications rely on the same PKI principle of
disclosing, for example in the organisation's directory, a digital
certificate associating its owner's identity information to a "public"
key, while a mathematically corresponding private key is kept as
a secret by the owner. In a signature key pair, the private key
signs and the public key verifies the signature. Conversely, in an
encryption key pair the public key encrypts, and the private key
decrypts.
We do not need to examine here the maths behind the generation
of such public/private key pairs, nor the inner processes of
encryption/decryption or signature/verification. A wide range of
specialised products is available today, which encapsulate the
corresponding cryptographic processes in dedicated software
libraries, services and equipment for integration in applications.
Measures taken to guarantee the authenticity of the certificate
information and the exclusive control of the corresponding signing
key by its legitimate owner typically vary from one organisation
to another.
Indeed, these measures reflect the specific risks and trust model
prevailing in the organisation's activity sector and legal context,
as embodied in its Public Key Infrastructure.
In accordance with the European Union (EU) Directive on e-signature
[1], one cannot deny the legal effect of any signature just because
it is electronic. Furthermore, legal equivalence with a handwritten
signature is to be presumed for an advanced e-signature if the private
key and corresponding certificate abide by additional rules. These
rules are set in the Directive [2] in the form of definitions for qualified
certificates, and secure signature-creation devices. Advanced esignatures based on a qualified certificate and created with a
secure-signature creation device are thus by definition legally
equivalent to handwritten signatures all across EU member states.
Such signatures are usually called qualified e signatures.
SUCCESS OF PKI
PKI, the technology behind advanced electronic signatures was
instigated some 30 years ago! The hype surrounding it in the late
1990's resulted into a negative perception: PKI ended up
appearing too complex, not integrated into applications, facing an
issue with smartcard readers, too expensive, and not really
needed. Nevertheless, it is now enjoying a slow but sure recovery
from this "trough of disillusionment", as per Gartner's coined term,
which is typical of new technologies.
Truly, deployments of national electronic identity cards (eID)
benefit from economies of scale. Governments deliver eIDs, health
cards, government employee cards, and driver licences. All EU
member states have plans for citizen eID; these are already
deployed in Belgium, Estonia, Italy and Austria, just like in
Australia and Asia. In the short term, a theoretical potential of 95%
of EU population will be covered by an eID scheme.
International initiatives like ICAO-conformant electronic passport,
digital tachograph, and eID harmonization address cross-border
deployments.
The requirements for qualified signatures eliminate a number of
implementation choices compared to advanced signatures. Using
today's technology, they mandate for instance the reliance on a
secure smartcard at the exclusion of any other type of private key.
This contrasts with the multiple possible implementations variants
for "non-qualified advanced signatures" as these may be using
regular smartcards, but also USB sticks, server signing controlled
via one-time-passwords on SMS, tokens or even less securely
protected "software" certificates. The certificate issuance process
is likewise specifically constrained for qualified certificates, e.g.
requiring a face-to-face encounter of the applicant with a
representative of the registration authority. The Directive declares
this set of additional measures necessary and sufficient to ensure
legal presumption of equivalence of such electronic signatures
with handwritten signatures all throughout EU.
While the requirements for qualified signatures are accepted in
EU to provide a very high degree of security for natural persons
in a general and open context, this does not mean that an
advanced signature which is not qualified cannot be secure
enough against the risks of a specific application domain and the
business context of the given deploying organisation. However,
an interesting aspect of the qualified signature definition is that it
provides a standard level of trust across EU, therefore a sound
legal and technical basis for interoperable signatures, across
applications, but also across EU borders.
PKI complexity is being taken away from many business and
corporate authentication and e-signature projects as they pick up
on National eID schemes, and benefit from a wide offer for
outsourcing the implementation of new applications. Software
editors like Adobe or Microsoft integrate now this technology in
their applications to secure electronic documents. Smartcard
readers benefit from more standards and off the shelf support and
eID schemes will drive suppliers towards interoperable smartcard
solutions.
With the legal framework mandated by the EU Directive, existing
and future legislation will drive the adoption of PKI and advanced
signature in Europe. Governments therefore find themselves in
the driver's seat.
INTEROPERABLE ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES
Electronic signature is a key enabler for a trusted information
society, conditioning the advent of e-government, and an efficient
Single Market. Through the 1999 Directive the European
Commission provided a common legal framework, and made
provision for the designation of a list [3] of generally recognised
standards for electronic-signature products. European
Standardisation Organisations (ESOs) like CEN and ETSI provided
such standards.
As discussed above, technical solutions are now deployed in
various countries. However, these solutions generally fail to
support cross-border interoperability. Indeed, the business case
for interoperable eSignatures is often unclear at the level of a
single application, and a number of legal, technical or
organisational issues make these hard to deploy.
To address these issues and give a new political impetus to
interoperable electronic signature and eID, the Commission
adopted an action plan in November 2008 [4], with an explicit
goal of facilitating the provision of cross-border public services
in the Single Market.
One of the flagship actions of this plan mandates ESOs to
rationalise the eSignature standardisation framework to make
related standards more open and inclusive, presented in
comprehensive but user-friendly documentation, oriented on
business practices, and adequately promoted and maintained.
Another flagship action aims at the publication of a "Trusted list"
of qualified certificate providers to facilitate the practical
recognition of signatures based on these certificates across
borders. Other actions concern eSignature format, minimum
requirements for the supervision of qualified certificate providers
by member states, and eID interoperability. Studies on crossborder interoperability of eSignatures, mutual recognition of
eSignatures for eGovernment applications, on a European
federated validation service and on eID solutions in member states
are included in this action plan of the European Commission.
ESIGNATURE FOR AN ECOMMISSION
As a public administration, the European Commission (EC) is also
working on its own internal project to facilitate the introduction of
electronic signatures in its own internal and external exchanges.
This project is called “Electronic Signature Service Infrastructure”
(ESSI) and constitutes a key requirement for the dematerialisation
of its processes.
Within the framework of the eCommission strategy [5] in 2005,
the Commission confirmed the need to rely on electronic
documents authenticity and to guarantee the same level of
security and access control as for physical documents. Moreover,
the Commission's own provisions on electronic and digitised
documents [6] and Implementing Rules [7] determine the
conditions of validity of electronic and digitised documents and
define the framework of the electronic signature at the
Commission.
The Commission declared recently in the Digital Agenda [8] that
it will "lead by example on open and transparent eGovernment by
creating in 2010 and implementing an ambitious eCommission
2011-2015 action plan including full electronic procurement". The
Commission thus adopts e-Signature for efficiency as well as
political reasons.
The Commission will implement eSignature both internally and
with its external partners. While only a few isolated ad-hoc
initiatives were deployed until now, a Commission-wide
eSignature infrastructure is now being progressively deployed with
the ESSI project, to enable the systematic integration of eSignature into the Commission's information systems and
processes. It is based on the legal framework mentioned above
and on an in-depth requirements study including usability and
interoperability across applications but also across borders. ESSI
therefore supports qualified as well as advanced (and simple)
eSignatures. ESSI considers the following two elements as
independent deliverables for organisational purposes:
- a public key infrastructure (PKI) service that issues, delivers
and manages the certificates, and
- an application platform that supports the actual eSignature
creation and verification.
Regarding the PKI, an ad-hoc study showed that the most efficient
solution for EC to provide qualified certificates for its staff is to
limit its own role to that of a local registration authority in a
scheme where qualified certificates are actually bought from an
existing qualified certification service provider that will be
contracted at EC level.
Regarding the application platform, a market solution based on
interoperability standards is being deployed. A first real-life
application integrating this solution and service was deployed
within the context of the implementation of the Service Directive.
Since January 2010, this application enables the Commission for
the first time ever to guarantee the authenticity of information
published on the Europa web site via the use of an electronic
signature. Conformance to the European standards of this
particularly visible signature was confirmed by ETSI.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the need to rely on a document's authenticity
(origin and integrity) is stronger than ever in today’s electronic
business environment. Electronic signature capabilities enable
information systems to deliver important documents and
information inside and outside an organization with added
assurances that the information arrives exactly as it was intended,
with certification of its origin. Electronic signatures also increase
the signatory's control of his/her electronic transactions with an
information system, thus raise the trust that the organisation has
in the corresponding process.
The European Commission is committed to pursue the adoption
of eSignatures, internally within the organisation, and to lead by
example on the road towards an open and transparent
eGovernment.
The ESSI application platform offers signature creation, validation
and extension services including trusted time-stamping to EC
applications for standard Directive-conformant and interoperable
signature formats. It is technically agnostic to the origin of
certificates used for signing, i.e. to the particular authorities and
PKI managing them, leaving it to each application to constrain
these as desired by a signature or validation policy of its choice.
REFERENCES
1. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of
13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2000/l_013/l_01320000
119en00120020.pdf
2. See Annexes I, II and III of the Directive
3. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2003/l_175/l_17520030
715en00450046.pdf on the publication of reference numbers of generally recognised standards for electronic signature products in accordance with Directive 1999/93/EC.
4. Action Plan on e-signatures and e-identification to facilitate
the provision of cross border public services in the Single
Market http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:07
98:FIN:EN:PDF
5. Section 3.1 "e-Commission 2006-2010: enabling efficiency
and transparency"
http://www.cc.cec/home/dgserv/digit/ict_strategy/e_comm/
docs/doc/eComm-2006-2010_CS_EN_V414_PostCIS.pdf
6. Commission decision of 7 July 2004 amending its Rules of
Procedures http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_251/l_25120040
727en00090013.pdf
7. Implementing rules for the provisions on electronic and digitised documents http://www.cc.cec/sg_vista/cgi-bin/repository/getdoc/COMM_PDF_SEC_2005_1578_1_EN.pdf
8. "A Digital Agenda for Europe", http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/documents/digital-agenda-communication-en.pdf , 19 May 2010.
AUTHOR
Christos Ellinides is currently responsible for
the provision of high quality corporate I.T.
support services, infrastructure solutions, I.T.
training, and corporate infrastructure solutions
for information systems to the European
Commission, and whenever pertinent to other
European Institutions and Members States.
He has delivered lectures and presentations on I.T. and Business
matters on a pan-European level and is an active member in
several I.T. and Management professional bodies. He has been a
director and board member in a number of organisations with
substantial international exposure.
Previous to his current position, Mr. Ellinides held a number of
posts in the I.T. industry including the functions of CIO and CEO
in a variety of business industries located mainly in Cyprus and
Greece.
À¶√μA§∂Δ∂ Δ√ Aƒ£ƒ√ ™∞™ ™Δ∏¡ ¶§∏ƒ√º√ƒπ∫H!
√ ∫˘.™˘.¶. Î·ÏÂ› Ù· Ì¤ÏË ÙÔ˘ Î·È ¿ÏÏÔ˘˜ Â·ÁÁÂÏÌ·Ù›Â˜, ÂÈ¯ÂÈÚËÌ·Ù›Â˜, ÂÚÂ˘ÓËÙ¤˜ Î·È
·Î·‰ËÌ·˚ÎÔ‡˜ ÙÔ˘ ÎÏ¿‰Ô˘ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜ Ó· ˘Ô‚¿ÏÔ˘Ó Ù· ¿ÚıÚ· ÙÔ˘˜ ÁÈ· Ù· ÂfiÌÂÓ·
ÙÂ‡¯Ë ÙÔ˘ ÂÚÈÔ‰ÈÎÔ‡!
Δ· ¿ÚıÚ· ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó· ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÔÓÙ·È ÛÂ ÔÔÈ·‰‹ÔÙÂ Ù˘¯‹ ÙÔ˘ ÙÔÌ¤· ÙË˜ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜,
Î·È Ó· ˘Ô‚¿ÏÏÔÓÙ·È ÛÂ Û˘ÓÂ¯‹ ‚¿ÛË ÛÙË Û˘ÓÙ·ÎÙÈÎ‹ ÂÈÙÚÔ‹ Ë ÔÔ›· ı· ÂÓËÌÂÚÒÛÂÈ ÁÈ·
ÙËÓ ·Ú·Ï·‚‹ ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÈÌ¤ÓÔ˘ Î·ıÒ˜ Î·È ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ô‰Ô¯‹ (‹ ·fiÚÚÈ„Ë) ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÈÌ¤ÓÔ˘
Î·È ÙÔ ÚÔ‚ÏÂfiÌÂÓÔ ¯ÚfiÓÔ ‰ËÌÔÛ›Â˘ÛË˜.
¶·Ú·Î·ÏÒ ÂÏ¤ÁÍÙÂ ÙÈ˜ Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¤˜ ÏÂÙÔÌ¤ÚÂÈÂ˜ Î·È Ô‰ËÁ›Â˜ Ì¤Ûˆ ÙË˜ ÈÛÙÔÛÂÏ›‰·˜ Ì·˜
www.pliroforiki.org Î·È ˘Ô‚¿ÏÂÙÂ Ù· ÎÂ›ÌÂÓ¿ Û·˜ Ì¤Ûˆ ËÏÂÎÙÚÔÓÈÎÔ‡ Ù·¯˘‰ÚÔÌÂ›Ô˘ ÛÙË
‰ÈÂ‡ı˘ÓÛË [email protected] .
SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLE AT PLIROFORIKI!
The CCS invites articles from CCS Members, other IT and business Professionals,
researchers, academics and the IT Industry for the next issues!
Articles and papers may deal on any aspect of Information Technology and submitted
on a continuous basis to the editorial committee who will acknowledge receipt of the
paper or article and notify the author(s) about the acceptance (or rejection) of the paper
and the planned publication time.
Please review the details and instructions through our website www.pliroforiki.org and
submit your articles/papers via email to [email protected] .
PROTECTION OF
CRITICAL DATA
USING INFORMATION
CENTRIC APPROACH
Notis Iliopoulos
Technology and business models are changing and the main focus
is openness, collaboration and convergence of technologies. This
new ecosystem brings new threats regarding information security.
All these threats targeting critical corporate information and not
the underline technology which host the information. In order to
protect critical information there is a need for a information centric
approach regarding information security.
A first step towards the adoption of the information centric
approach is the effective implementation of a Data Protection
Strategy. The article proposes a data protection strategy and
outlines the steps towards the effective implementation of the
strategy.
Always have on mind that
you cannot implement
everything at once. This is
why you need a plan, you
need to set your priorities,
and you need to know
where to begin.
THE NEW PLAYGROUND
While technology and business models change the way we work,
perimeters, borders, or boundaries may be shrinking or maybe
still exist, but they traverse across traditional borders of
enterprises and systems.
This new business / technology ecosystem, reflects the loss of
the traditional shape of enclosing an entity with traditional forms,
such as the enterprise perimeter, or host platform system.
Instead, this shapeless perimeter surrounds the information, from
wherever it is to wherever it is going.
Add to this the ever-changing mix of customers, business
partners and suppliers and the fact that at any given time an
organization can have all of these relationships with another
organization, leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that it is
the information that needs protection, not just the infrastructure
that houses and transports the information throughout its
lifecycle.
In this new Corporate reality we need to emphasize on the power
of the end user. Since the traditional perimeter does not exist and
the intellectual property of the Company is digitalized, it’s relatively
easy to gain access to product plans, marketing strategies,
business processes, and technology innovations. Furthermore it’s
also easy to share Corporate intellectual, assets since technology
makes it easy.
Technology advancements for the next years also include
applications with social collaboration features (partners,
customers). As a consequence, Corporate competitive advantage
could be on your screen everywhere you are.
NEW THREATS AND CHALLENGES FOR
INFORMATION SECURITY
A number of new threats and challenges regarding information
security have been introduced, due to the adoption of new technology
and business models, which require openness and collaboration. The
following are considered as the most important sources of threats:
o Mobility and Convergence of technologies.
o Leakage of critical Corporate information.
o Computer crime and Electronic fraud.
o Software Applications Security.
o Legal and Regulatory requirements.
o Personal Data Handling by third parties.
o Critical Infrastructure dependency on technology.
o Virtualization.
All of the above are also “side effects” of the new systems and
software development technologies, which are widespread in
order to support the new technology and business models.
These new technologies are developed without having adopted
information security principles. Furthermore, their early wide
spread adoption can result in serious data leakages.
Examples of such technologies are the following:
o Virtualization and fabric computing.
o Social networks and social software.
o Cloud computing and cloud platforms.
o Web mashups.
o Augmented reality.
o Contextual computing.
o Semantics.
The combination of new business requirements and the
technology used in order to implement them, posses new data
protection challenges which are summarized in the following bullet
points:
o Need to protect shared infrastructure and data in the extended
ecosystem. Ex: Tighter integration with suppliers/customers.
o Distributed data makes data discovery, protection and
disposal difficult.
o Globally distributed operations means distributed threats.
o Multiple communication channels such as email, IM, Web,
Voice, Video pose unique mitigation challenges.
o Technologies such as Web 2.0 pose unique challenges of
integration and control.
Step 1: Risk Assessment
o
Identification of existing counter-measures.
DATA PROTECTION STRATEGY
o
Identify business processes that create high risks of critical
information loss.
o
Risk estimation and determination of acceptable level of risk.
o
Determination of required counter-measures.
In order to protect critical intellectual assets (usually called
information) there is a need to adopt a specific data protection
strategy.
The proposed strategy is comprised by the following steps:
o Risk Assessment – Protection of Confidential Information.
o Identification and Classification of Critical information.
o Development of information protection policies and
procedures.
o Deploy technologies that enable policy compliance and
automatic enforcement.
o Communicate with and educate stakeholders to create a
compliance culture.
o Integrate information protection practices into businesses
processes.
o Continues audit to ensure that the information protection
procedures and practices adopted by the organization are
being implemented consistently and effectively.
As in every information security initiative, risk assessment is the
first step. In this case it’s targeting critical data and the required
outcome of the risk assessment process is to define specific
strategy with specific Protection Requirements and Priorities
towards the execution of the strategy.
In order to meet the expected results the risk assessment process
should be comprised by the following activities:
o Identification of critical information.
As an outcome the following should be among the expected
deliverables or the risk assessment process:
o Identification of critical information.
o
Access privileges to critical information.
o
Internal flow of information.
o
Flow of critical information to third parties.
o
Risks and countermeasures for critical data.
Step 2: Identification and Classification of
Critical information
During that step, it is expected to really focus on the information
considered as Critical for the Organization.
The first activity will be to adopt and start using a specific
Classification and Management scheme. The particular scheme
will provide the guidelines on the Classification usage and the
process to be followed in order to classify the critical data.
Furthermore, for each level of the scheme in use (e.g. top secret,
confidential, public) will be specific guidelines concerning the
handling, sharing and disposal of the information.
Information ownership scheme is another important issue of the
process. This is because the owner of the information is the one
to decide upon the classification level of the information. Usually,
information owners are the heads of the business units of the
Organization and not the technical managers.
Further to the adoption of a classification scheme, it is very
important to establish specific Protection requirements for each
information classification level. This will indicate the level of
protection should be maintained.
Enforcement of the whole process requires specific
Responsibilities for Management and Employees. Those
responsibilities need to be documented and become part of
employee’s job profiles.
Each critical data classification category requires different
management processes. These processes – requirements is
recommended to be documented and become part of the
Organization’s Information Security Management System.
The classification process it self, need to be enforced not only
through a policy, but through a procedure that will guide the
Organization. The procedure should also define the requirements
as well as the time interval of it’s execution.
Step 4: Deployment of policy compliance and
enforcement technologies
In order to maximize the effectiveness of the critical data
protection strategy, we could adopt technology advancements in
the areas of policy compliance and enforcement.
As far as the critical data policy enforcement concerns, we should
look for technology capable of performing the following:
o Transparent operation for the end user.
Another important issue is the adoption of Information exchange
requirements. Since openness and tele-working are becoming
commodity, same holds for specific requirements regarding the
exchange of critical data.
o
Policy enforcement.
o
Monitoring of information usage and end user behavior.
o
Capable to protect critical information at the end point,
network and storage level.
One last important point for information classification is that the
process as well as the protection and exchange requirements is
not an once off process. It is a repeatable process in order to
keep up to date with the various types of information that flows
o
Enforce access control policies.
in and out of the Organization, and the classification of them.
Step 3: Development of protection policies and
procedures
Having assess the risk and classify the critical information, it Is
time to document the appropriate policies in order to enforce the
classification process as well as the critical information protection
and exchange requirements.
Primarily it is recommended to begin with the documentation of
the Information Classification Policy adopted in the previous step.
The policy will set the requirements regarding when and by whom
the classification will take place.
Following the policy, the specific Protection controls for each
classification category should be documented as well.
Regarding Compliance monitoring, the technology should
automate the process of auditing against policy conformance. In
order to achieve that, the technology should supports the
following points:
o Map policy and compliance requirements, transform them to
management and technical requirements.
o
Configuration analysis for the systems with critical data.
o
Self assessment tool.
Step 5: Communicate with and educate
stakeholders
Step 7: Continues Audit and Conformance
assessment
Technology is not 100% effective, so if we really want to
strengthen the protection of our critical information, we should
rely on people who are using them.
The effective implementation as well as the adequacy of the
strategy should be audited.
People can be transformed to the most effective security control,
but in order to do so we need to educate them. The target is to
create corporate culture for critical data protection.
One important audit point is the assessment of existing protection
controls adequacy. The controls identified should be assessed
for effectiveness and conformance with policy and procedures
for critical data protection.
Furthermore, we need to communicate the corporate procedures,
roles and responsibilities relevant to critical data. Emphasis should
be given to compliance requirements related to critical data.
We can also use automated compliance assessment tools, but
we need to primarily specify the audit process as well as the audit
points.
Training is also a tool towards the protection of critical data.
Training should focus on relevant procedures, protection controls,
classification process, audit process and requirements,
monitoring and protection tools, regulatory requirements.
KEEPIT WORKING …
Step 6: Integrate information protection
practices into businesses processes
Information protection should be an integral process to the way
the organization operates and does business.
As first step to provide value to the business is to identify the key
business processes where information is at risk. This is where
you should focus on the beginning of the critical data strategy
implementation.
This is where should make use of technical controls to control
the use and flow of critical information. In addition to that
monitoring technologies could be used to ensure automated
integration of information protection procedures into the work
flows involving electronically stored or transmitted data.
Successful critical data protection is about having a strategy and
effectively implementing it. So, do adopt a critical data protection
strategy and implement it. Not necessarily a perfect one, since
there not a perfect one. Establish a strategy good enough for your
security needs.
At a first place we need to adopt an Information centric approach
and decision-making, meaning that we follow and protect the
information and not the underline infrastructure where the
information lives in.
Another important issue is to always have on mind that you
cannot implement everything at once. This is why you need a
plan, you need to set your priorities, and you need to know where
to begin.
The strategy should be audited. Continues follow up and audit is
among the most important tools to effective implementing your
strategy.
The automation of policy enforcement & conformance monitoring
is a nice tool to have. Be careful there, set your requirements
before you invite the vendors.
Don’t you ever forget that Information Security is a Management
tool aiming to support Corporate Objectives. Treat it as so if you
want the management to pay attention to your strategy.
REFERENCES
1. Information Security Strategy, A Framework for InformationCentric Security Governance, A White Paper by: The Open
Group Security Forum and Cyberspace Law Committee,
Business Law Section, American Bar Association, October
2007.
2. SA Comments to Hathaway on Improving Information Security
Architecture, Carnegie Mellon CyLab, Information Security for
the Next Century, Why we need an information-centric
approach to data protection, Dr. Pradeep Khosla.
3. White Paper: The Information-Centric Security Architecture,
By: Jon Oltsik Enterprise Strategy Group, July 2007.
4. New Technology Prevents Data Leakage – [George Lawton,
IEEE Computer Magazine, 2008].
5. 7 Steps to information protection [Naomi Fine, Esq., President
and CEO of Pro-Tec Data (www.pro-tecdata.com), 2008].
AUTHOR
Notis Iliopoulos is the head of the Information
and Networks Security Division, of Innova
Group of Companies. He works in the
information security sector for 13 years
having experienced both the service provision
as well as the security officer positions.
His professional experience includes implementation of various
information security projects in many different operational
environments. His research interests include Risk Assessment
Methods and Techniques, Protection of Privacy and personal data,
Methods and Techniques for user authentication.
¢π∞º∏ªπ™Δ∂IΔ∂ ™Δ∏¡ ¶§∏ƒ√º√ƒπ∫H!
¢È·ÊËÌ›˙ÔÓÙ·˜ ÛÙÔ ÂÚÈÔ‰ÈÎfi ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹ ÚÔˆıÂ›ÙÂ ÙÈ˜ ˘ËÚÂÛ›Â˜ Î·È Ù· ÚÔÈfiÓÙ· Û·˜
ÛÂ ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚÔ˘˜ ·fi 1000 ·Ó·ÁÓÒÛÙÂ˜, Â·ÁÁÂÏÌ·Ù›Â˜ ÂÈ‰ÈÎÔ‡˜ Î·È Ê›ÏÔ˘˜ ÙË˜
¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜, ÙË˜ ΔÂ¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›·˜ Î·È ÙˆÓ ∂ÈÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÒÓ ÛÙËÓ ∫‡ÚÔ!
°È· ÏËÚÔÊÔÚ›Â˜ Û¯ÂÙÈÎ¿ ÌÂ ÙÈÌ¤˜ Î·È ÎÚ·Ù‹ÛÂÈ˜ ÁÈ· Ù· ÂfiÌÂÓ· Ì·˜ ÙÂ‡¯Ë, ÂÈÎÔÈÓˆÓ‹ÛÙÂ
ÌÂ ÙËÓ ÀÂ‡ı˘ÓË ¢ËÌÔÛ›ˆÓ ™¯¤ÛÂˆÓ ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡ ™˘Ó‰¤ÛÌÔ˘ ¶ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÈÎ‹˜
ÃÚÈÛÙ›Ó· ¶··ÌÈÏÙÈ¿‰Ô˘ ÙËÏ. 22460680, email: [email protected] .
ADVERTISE IN PLIROFORIKI!
By advertising in Pliroforiki you are promoting your services and products to more than
1000 readers, professionals, specialists and friends of Computers, Information,
Technology and Communications Industry in Cyprus!
For information regarding prices and reservations you can contact the Cyprus Computer
Society Public Relations Officer Christina Papamiltiadou at tel. 22460680,
email: [email protected] .
MYTHS ABOUT
PASSWORD
SETTINGS AND
OTHER NONSENSE:
HOW INFORMATION SECURITY
TORTURES USERS IN THE NAME OF
SECURITY
E. Eugene Schultz
Typical organizations have information security standards that require a
certain password length, password expiration every 30 to 90 days, password
complexity, and more. Information security staff members who routinely
prescribe these settings might believe that their organization is meeting “best
practice” standards. Research on password settings over the past years,
however, suggests that many widely accepted and used settings do not help
security appreciably. Instead, many of these settings not only inconvenience
users, but in many cases make them less able to remember their passwords.
The problem is not limited to passwords, either. Third-party authentication
and other technology designed to improve security too often are not at all user
friendly. This paper discusses how information security tortures users in the
name of security and suggests solutions.
INTRODUCTION
The major goals of information security are to protect the
confidentiality of information, integrity of information, systems, and
applications, and availability of information, systems, and
applications. In the pursuit of these goals information security
practices select and implement three major types of controls,
technical, physical and administrative. Despite attempts to automate
these controls as much as possible to avoid the need for human
intervention, some controls invariably require interaction with users.
Having users enter passwords, one of the most common types of
controls, is, in fact, the most common authentication-related user
task. Provided that the interaction sequence for password entry is
reasonably simple and intuitive, users can accomplish this task
rapidly and easily. But restrictions with respect to passwords that
users can select based on certain settings or parameters—
password length, age, combinations of characters that are allow,
and more—are another entirely different matter. This paper explores
the nature of these restrictions with the goal of weighing the costs
versus benefits of each and also reviews research studies to
determine whether empirical support for widely held preconceptions
concerning the value of certain restrictions are in fact true. If not,
information security may in effect be torturing users—forcing them
to engage in actions that are difficult for humans to perform—in
the name of security, even though these actions are of little or no
benefit from a security perspective.
THE “STRAW MAN”—BENCHMARKS FOR
PASSWORDS
A good starting point in examining the issue whether widely
prescribed and used password settings are effective from a
security perspective is to look at commonly used benchmarks for
passwords. One of the most widely used password benchmarks
have been developed by the Center for Computer Security
(www.cisecurity.com). For example, consider the following
Windows XP Windows benchmarks published by this
organization:
- Minimum password age - 1 day
- Maximum password age - 90 days
- Minimum password length: 8 characters
- Password complexity - Enabled
- Password history - 24
- Store passwords using reversible encryption –
Disabled
The first setting affects how long a user must keep the current
password before the user is allowed to change it. The major
reason for recommending a value other of 0 is to prevent users
from changing their passwords when the are required to do so,
then changing their passwords right back to the ones they had
previously. The second setting requires users to change their
passwords a minimum of once every 90 days. The third requires
users to have at least eight characters in their passwords. In a
Windows system that uses English, password complexity requires
that a password contain at least three of the four following types
of characters: an uppercase English alphabet character, a
lowercase English alphabet character, a number and a special
character such as % or &. Finally, reversible encryption means
encryption based on the Data Encryption Standard (DES) for
which encryption is incredibly easy to break. Disabling reversible
encryption is thus critical from a security point of view (although
disabling it may break compatibility with older Windows systems
and applications). Each of these settings except for minimum
password age and reversible encryption, neither of which has
been the focus of any usability research, will now be analyzed.
PASSWORD AGE
Research shows that frequent password changes are not good
from a memorability standpoint.
Bunting found that “proactive interference” from older passwords
creates difficulty for users trying to remember their current
passwords [2]. When users feel that they cannot remember their
passwords, they write them down, thereby often violating their
organization’s security policy. A survey of 3,050 Web users
performed by Rainbow Technologies discovered that 55 percent
of those surveyed confessed to writing down at least one
password [6]. Eight percent of survey respondents indicated that
they wrote down every password that they had. A subsequent
survey showed that 50 percent of users surveyed reported that
they had written down at least one password, 10 percent reported
that they always wrote their passwords down, and approximately
50 percent revealed that they frequently needed to have their
passwords reset because they forgot them. The point here is that
requiring users to change passwords frequently (e.g., once every
30 days, as is often required by banks) causes proactive
interference, a form of memory interference, that results in failure
to remember passwords. Users then turn to prohibited
procedures, such as writing down passwords, thereby
compounding the problem.
Another line of evidence concerning password age is less direct,
but nevertheless very applicable. Today’s password cracking tools
(e.g., Cain and Able) are incredibly fast, so fast that the attempted
cracking rate of Windows password cache password files (which
are .PWL Files) on a Pentium 100 is 1,000,000 passwords per
second [3]. In other words, 1,000,000 candidate passwords can
be compared to entries in .PWL files every second to determine
if any candidate password matches any entry in .PWL files. A
typical recovery rates for ZIP or ARJ passwords on a Pentium
100 is 10,000,000 passwords per second on a fast or dual
Processor PC [3]. Perhaps most astounding is the fact that
Distributed.net's Project Bovine RC5-64 computer can try 76.1
Billion passwords per second [3]! Given the speed with which
passwords can now be cracked and given that someone (such
as an attacker) who cracks a password is likely to use it right
away to verify that it is valid, the difference between a password
ago of 30 and 90 days, or even between 15 and 120 days, is
now really quite inconsequential.
MINIMUM PASSWORD LENGTH
A very short password, e.g., five characters in length, is an easy
target for password crackers. But given the incredible speed of
brute force password cracking, a password that is nine characters
long is functionally no stronger than one that is eight characters
long. Although the time difference depends on the amount of
memory and processor speed on the computer on which a
password cracking program runs, the time difference to crack a
password consisting of one additional character is likely to be in
seconds. The same applies to comparing a ten character long
password to a nine character long one.
There is, however, a huge exception to the rule that increased
password length does not make that much difference as far as time
needed to crack passwords using modern password cracking tools.
They tools, as good as they are, do not even attempt to crack
Windows passwords that are at least 15 characters long. So a user
who selects a horrible password such as “AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA”
would at least survive even the most proficient password cracking
tool’s attempts to crack that password.
PASSWORD FILTERING/
PASSWORD COMPLEXITY
Windows XP’s password complexity setting is more properly
known as a “password filtering” setting. Password filters restrict
the choice of characters that can be used in a password in an
attempt to reduce the problem of users selecting passwords that
are otherwise too easy to crack. Filtering rules usually impose
restrictions on user-generated passwords, such as the previously
described restrictions that the Windows XP’s password
complexity setting imposes.
To test the notion that password filters help passwords resist
cracking attempts, Vu, Proctor, Bhargay-Spanzel, Tai, Cook and
Schultz conducted an experiment in which seven password
restrictions were imposed upon users who had to create
passwords for their accounts [8]. The restrictions were that the
password must:
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
Be at least 6 characters long
Contain at least one uppercase letter
Contain at least one lowercase letter
Contain at least one digit
Contain a special character (e.g., ! or #)
Be unique from the passwords generated for the other
accounts
ñ Not contain the user’s username or any variant of it
Users had to choose and remember passwords for 1, 3 or 5
accounts. The lc5 password cracking tool was used to attempt
to crack all passwords for a total of four hours. Significantly fewer
of the passwords from the 5-accounts group were cracked than
for the 3-accounts group (40 percent versus 60 percent,
respectively), but there the difference between these groups and
the 1-account group was not statistically significant. There was
no significant difference between groups in terms of the time
needed to create each password and the login time. Forgetting
was significantly highest for the 5-accounts group, e.g., 69
percent of the 5-accounts group was unable to recall the
password for at least one of the five accounts, in contrast to 19
percent for the 3-accounts group and 15 percent for the 1account group. Furthermore, passwords that users created had
to satisfy seven password criteria, yet about half of these
passwords were cracked within four hours
The results of this study have important implications for password
settings, one of the most fundamental of which is that proactive
password restrictions do not necessarily result in more crackresistant passwords. The fact that such a high percentage of
passwords were cracked by a password cracker (lc5), one that
is by today’s standards not all that powerful is additional support
for this conclusion. Furthermore, having to remember more
passwords that have been created under restrictions resulted in
greater forgetting. The cost-benefit ratio of password filtering is
thus questionable.
A good way to generate a password that fulfills complexity
restrictions, but it potentially easier to remember is to create a
passphrase. For example, the first characters in each word in
“These are the times that try men’s souls” can be used to create
a password, “Tattttms.” Do passphrases improve memory when
filtering rules are used? Vu, Proctor, Bhargav-Spantzel, Tai, Cook,
and Schultz undertook a study in which one group of participants
had to create a passphrase that conformed to complexity
restrictions [8]. Another group had to create passphrases under
the same restrictions, but also had to insert one digit and one
special character into the passphrase. Results indicated that
creating passphrases yielded more crack-resistant passwords
only when users were also told to embed a digit and special
character into the passphrase. Embedding a digit and special
character also resulted in less ability to remember passwords
during both short-term and long-term recall. Embedding digits and
special characters resulted in significantly more time needed to
generate and recall passwords and almost twice as many errors
before they could recall the password. These results suggest that
the widely held assumption that requiring users to create
passphrases to improve both resistance to cracking and
password memorability is more myth than fact.
controls selection process, but it is generally not. Instead, too
often information security professionals develop a negative
attitude towards the user community and then prescribe more
security awareness and training for users as the solution to the
problem. Unfortunately, “user resistance to security” is too often
in reality “user resistance to user-unfriendly security tasks!”
OTHER SECURITY METHODS
Users also have numerous problems with other security methods
that many information security professionals think are perfectly
fine. For example, Proctor, Lien, Salvendy and Schultz conducted
research on usability considerations in third-party authentication
methods, methods that require something besides passwords
during the authentication process [5]. These researchers
conducted task analyses, breaking down users’ tasks into
individual, sequential steps to evaluate the number of task required
in biometric-, smart card- and password-based authentication. In
general, the greater number of steps needed to complete a task,
the more difficult the task is for users—more time is likely to be
required, and the number of errors is likely to increase. Proctor et
al. discovered that in comparison to password authentication,
biometric devices necessitated 10 additional task steps.
Compared to password-based authentication, smart cards
required 14 additional task steps.
Results suggest an explanation concerning why third-party
authentication methods have not gained in popularity as much as
security needs would appear to mandate. Having to perform
numerous additional steps in third-party authentication presents
a significant usability hurdle to users, one that in all likelihood
produces a great deal of user frustration and ultimately resistance
to this type of authentication. In addition, certain steps identified
in the task analyses were much more likely to result in user errors
than others. For instance, inserting a smart card correctly into the
card reader necessitated a series of steps that required exact
orientation and manipulation of the smart card so that it could be
put directly into the reader. Failure to orient and manipulate the
smart card precisely resulted in errors on users’ part.
USER RESISTANCE TO SECURITY MEASURES
Tasks and systems that have poor usability design cause users
to resist them (e.g., [1]). Resistance can manifest itself if
numerous ways—negative statements, hostile behaviors,
passiveness, failure to pay attention, circumventing security
controls altogether, and in numerous other ways. Minimizing or
eliminating altogether user resistance by considering the impact
of human usability design should be a major part of the security
A REALISTIC ASSESSMENT OF PASSWORDRELATED RISKS
Finally, it is important to consider the threats associated with
password-related risks. Many information security professionals
believe that password cracking tools lead to the greatest
password-related risks. Although this used to be the case, most
current attack methods do not involve password cracking,
because it is not all that efficient— it almost always entails brute
force password attacks—and also because gaining access to a
password file requires superuser privileges, something that is not
always easy to do if one is not a system administrator. Writing
down passwords on slips of paper occurs even less than does
password cracking nowadays.
Currently, keystroke and tty sniffers are the major threat vectors
for password-related risk. Attackers perform reconnaissance
activity that includes discovering individuals who frequently send
email to each other and then craft special messages that appear
to come from someone with whom one user frequently exchanges
email messages. These messages either contain malware
embedded within an Abode Reader attachment or a URL, which
if clicked causes the browser to be redirected to a malicious Web
site. Ultimately, perpetrators take control of targeted machines
and then plant keystroke or tty sniffers to capture passwords and
other credentials such as banking PIN numbers [7]. By now it
should be apparent that the quality of passwords as well as other
password characteristics and rules (such as forbidding users to
write down their passwords) make little difference in terms of the
likelihood of success with today’s password attacks. Why then
do we fight such well-meaning, but ill-advised battles with users
over password settings such as the length, age, and complexity
of passwords, or whether or not passwords can be written down?
CONCLUSION
In many ways, we torture users. Many of our beliefs and practices
concerning passwords (and also other forms of authentication)
clash with empirical research results. We have in reality invented
our own “folklore” and then somehow labeled it “best practices.”
It is also extremely unlikely that many commonly used password
policy settings produce anything close to a favorable cost-tobenefit ratio when the lost productivity of users who have to enter
one password after another to satisfy password restrictions and
also call the help desk when they cannot remember their difficultto-crack, but also difficult-to-remember passwords. So why do
we not instead switch to the use of one-time passwords,
passwords that users do not have to create according to often
difficult restrictions and that if captured during a login attempt, do
attackers no good whatsoever?
REFERENCES
1. Al-Ghatani, S. S., & King, M. (1999). Attitudes, satisfaction
and usage: Factors contributing to each in the acceptance of
information technology. Behaviour & Information Technology,
18, pp. 277-297.
2. Bunting, M (2006). Proactive interference and item similarity
in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory & Cognition, 32(2), pp. 83-96.
3. Lockdown.co.uk (2009). Password Recovery Speeds: How
long will your password stand up? July 10, 2009 from
http://passwordresearch.com/stats/statindex.html
4. Proctor, R. W., Lien, M. C., Vu, K.-P. L., Schultz, E. E., &
Salvendy, G. (2002). Improving computer security for
authentication of users: Influence of proactive password
restrictions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 34, pp 163-169.
AUTHOR
Dr. Eugene Schultz, CISM, CISSP, is the Chief
Technology Officer at Emagined Security, an
information security consultancy based in
California. He has authored numerous books
and published papers, on information security
matters, incident response, and intrusion
detection and prevention. Gene was the
Editor-in-Chief of _Computers and Security_
from 2002 - 2007, and is currently an associate editor of
_Network Security_. Gene is a SANS instructor, he is on the
technical advisory board of 3 companies and has also been
5. Proctor, R.W., Lien, M., Salvendy, G. & Schultz, E.E. (2000).
A task analysis of usability in third-party authentication.
Information Security Bulletin, 5 (3), pp. 49 – 56.
6. Rainbow Technologies, 2003. Password survey results (June
2003). Retrieved November 14, 2005, from
/http://mktg.rainbow.com/mk/get/pwsurvey03S.
7. Schultz, E.E. (2009). The new intrusion detection.
Presentation at the SoCal Security Forum, Long Beach, CA,
October 29, 2009.
8. Vu, K.-P. L., Proctor, R. W., Bhargav-Spanzel, A., Tai, B.-L.,
Cook, J., & Schultz, E. E. (2007). Improving password
security and memorability to protect personal and
organizational information. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 65, pp 744-757.
professor of computer science at several universities. He has
received the NASA Technical Excellence Award, the Department
of Energy Excellence Award, the ISACA John Kuyers Best
Speaker/Best Conference Contributor Award, the Vanguard
Conference Top Gun Award, the Vanguard Chairman's Award, the
National Information Systems Security Conference Best Paper
Award, and the ISSA's Professional Achievement and Honor Roll
Awards. He founded and managed the U.S. Department of
Energy's Computer Incident Advisory Capability (CIAC) and he is
a co-founder of FIRST, the Forum of Incident Response and
Security Teams. He is currently a member of the accreditation
board of the Institute of Information Security Professionals (IISP).
TEACHER USE OF
ICT IN CYPRUS
PRIMARY SCHOOLS
Charalambos Vrasidas
This paper presents findings from a large-scale evaluation of teachers using
technology in Cyprus public schools. A questionnaire was sent to 1051 teachers
through stratified sampling procedures, in order to examine how teacher use
technology and what barriers do they face. The findings shed light to the
complexities of integrating ICT in teaching and learning. The research reported
is the first of its kind to be conducted in the Cyprus context.
Teachers are willing to integrate technology into their teaching. However, even
though they realize the benefits of ICT integration, a lot of teachers today seem
resistant to integrating technologies and using online learning environments.
Data collected and analyzed, illustrate that this is due to several factors, such
as lack of time, the ill-structured design of the school curriculum, the lack of
infrastructure and tools to better support teachers and learners.
INTRODUCTION
RESEARCH METHODS
Attempts to integrate technology in education provoke a variety
of responses from teachers that range from enthusiasm and
skepticism to fear and uncertainty. A long history of technology
use in education reveals that the first reaction is to use new
technology in the same traditional ways as the old technology.
Old curricula and pedagogical approaches should be reformed,
and if necessary replaced, to take advantage of the affordances
of the new media. Research has shown that computers are used
less often in the classroom than in other organizations. In order
for education innovations to succeed, systemic approaches and
the collaboration of all stakeholders, including teachers, are
required [3,7,9].
The study investigated the following two key questions:
1. How do teachers use ICT?
A major issue emanating from research on teacher preparation
has to do with the provision of ongoing teacher support to
continue integrating technology into their teaching. Ongoing
professional development is essential for school improvement,
and it can empower teachers to address the challenges they face
in their everyday teaching [4,5,6]. Professional development is a
growing need as schools attempt to reform themselves and as
new policies are established for teacher certification and school
accountability. Teachers do not just need support in the form of
workshops, but instead they need to have access to support
throughout their careers as they try to integrate technology into
the curricula and seek to improve their teaching. One-time
workshops and teacher preparation during the course of one
semester are not sufficient [1,8,10].
Data for this project were collected and analyzed using both
quantitative and qualitative methods. In order to develop the
survey instrument, we conducted qualitative research in four
schools. We collected participant observation data from teachers
using technology in the classroom, interviews with teachers and
interviews with administrators. In order to develop the 8-page
instrument for the survey, we relied heavily on the findings from
the qualitative data (e.g. interviews and observations). In addition,
we reviewed other instruments, and consulted with experts in the
field. A first draft instrument was developed and pilot-tested with
10 teachers and 4 experts. Following the pilot, we finalized the
instrument and administered it to a sample of 1051 teachers using
stratified sampling procedures. The total population of primary
school teachers in Cyprus, during 2008-2009 was 4150. We
ensured that all counties and regions of Cyprus were represented
from both rural and urban settings. The response rate of the
questionnaire was 50.5% (531 out of 1051).
CONTEXT
During the last five years, the international R&D center CARDET
led several large scale evaluations and developmental research
programs supported by the Cyprus Research Promotion
Foundation, the Republic of Cyprus, EU Structural Funds, and the
European Commission. The focus of these projects was on the
use of technology by teachers and the effectiveness of existing
professional development programs offered. One of the key issues
that came out was the importance of both formal and informal
ways for teacher lifelong learning, and the role that online
environments can play to support them. In this brief paper we
present the summary of findings from evaluation work conducted
to investigate the issues and the effectiveness of teacher use of
technology. The ideas presented come from 2 projects:
ñ A Framework for Preparing Teachers to Teach with ICT (Partly
supported by the Life Long Learning Programme, Leonardo
Da Vinci, Transfer of innovation)
ñ Development of an e-learning model for teacher professional
development (Partly supported by the Cyprus Research
Promotion, Republic of Cyprus, and EU Structural Funds)
2. What barriers do teachers face in using technology in the
classroom?
The project research team that investigated and evaluated the
case studies was led by the international Research Center
CARDET. Partners for different parts of the research presented
here were the Open University of Cyprus, the Open University of
the UK, the University of Piraeus, the International Council for
Educational Media, the University of Nicosia, the Cyprus
Pedagogical Institute, and INNOVADE LI LTD.
During data analysis, we followed the inductive and deductive
stages used in interpretive and case study research. Interview
transcripts, class documents, meeting minutes, memos,
observation notes, student artifacts, and survey results were all
analyzed. Upon entering the inductive stage, we organized all the
transcripts, field notes, and documents. We used data displays,
concept maps, and tables to illustrate findings of the evaluation.
After we collected and organized all the data, we read through the
data three times and generated assertions. Once we generated
assertions from the data as a whole, we entered the deductive
stage. In this stage, we engaged in detailed examination of the
data corpus and looked for data to confirm or disconfirm our
assertions. Moreover, statistical analysis of quantitative data
included tables and diagrams, whereas authentic excerpts were
extracted from the qualitative data.
RESULTS
Even though the authors have studied all research questions
related to this study, this section discusses only findings on the
factors that affect teachers’ efforts in technology integration and
the challenges they face. Findings revealed two kinds of factors
affecting teachers’ efforts of technology integration: 1) factors
that facilitate teachers’ efforts, such as teacher professional
development and support, and 2) factors that suspend or prevent
their efforts, such as lack of infrastructure. Emerging assertions
from data analysis are discussed in the sub-sections below.
With respect to the use of technology, teachers indicated that they
used ICT daily (or almost daily), as follows:
ñ 72.3% for preparing educational material,
ñ 67.7% for preparing tests and assignments,
ñ 44.8% for preparing lesson plans,
ñ 35.4% used ICT in the classroom.
However, the interesting finding is that very few teachers prepared
activities for students to use ICT. The findings showed that
teachers asked students to use ICT almost daily, as follows:
ñ 15% for playing educational games,
Teachers are willing to
integrate technology into
their teaching. However,
even though they realize
the benefits of ICT
integration, a lot of
teachers today seem
resistant to integrating
technologies and using
online learning
environments.
ñ 13.9% for working collaboratively on assignments in the
classroom,
ñ 12.9% for using internet for completing school work,
ñ 12.4% for working individually on the computer in order to
complete school work,
ñ 6.1% for working in the classroom on word processing tasks.
Regarding barriers to ICT integration, the findings are in alignment
with the findings from the 24 case studies. According to the
survey results, teachers cited the factors below as important
barriers in using ICT:
ñ 81.4% the length of the curriculum that needs to be covered
during the year,
ñ 71,7% time constraints for ICT integration in the classroom,
ñ 60.4% time required for preparing ICT-based activities,
ñ 53.5% availability of infrastructure,
ñ 50.7% lack of quality content,
ñ 50.2% lack of in classroom support for teachers,
ñ 43.4% lack of participation of teachers in decision making,
ñ 37% need for professional development.
The amount of content and the length of the Curriculum to
be covered during a school year
The most important barrier that emerged from these studies was
the curriculum. A total of 81.4% of the teachers indicated the
length of the curriculum as one of the most important barriers in
integrating ICT in the classroom. This explains the challenges that
numerous teachers encounter in their efforts to integrate
technology in the classroom. The pressure to cover the required
content and the limited timeframe were two factors that concerned
participating teachers, especially in the final grade of high school.
One of the teachers stated during the interview: “It is impossible
to be able to cover all the content and curriculum requested by
the ministry in a school year.” Furthermore, since the current
curriculum and school manuals do not include ICT integration,
there is lack of supporting material for each learning unit.
Teachers therefore, need to spend excessive amounts of time to
find, assess, revise and adjust learning materials, activities and
tools to fit the needs of their students and the curriculum.
The Importance of Time for Planning and Implementation
Time was one of the factors mentioned by all teachers in several
occasions. In the large scale survey, 71,7% teachers cited the
time required for integrating ICT in the classroom as an important
barrier, and 60.4% cited the time required for preparing ICT-based
activities as barrier. Planning for lessons that integrate ICT is a
time consuming activity from the teachers’ perspective. This is
one of the main reasons that teachers do not use technologies in
their classroom. As one teacher stated during the qualitative part
of the study,
Collaborative and Situated Professional Development
Good professional development is both situated in teachers’
everyday practice, and distributed across communities, tools, and
contexts [2]. Therefore, professional knowledge is distributed
among learners, teachers, and their physical and socio-political
and historical worlds. Building one-size-fits-all models is a typical
error made by professional development program designers.
Schools, teachers, and students do not come in standard forms;
they are irreducibly unique. It is therefore important that programs
be planned taking into account teachers’ individual needs and
experiences, their learning styles, the contexts of their schools,
and the stage they have reached in their career.
One of the key issues that came out of the interviews and survey
data was the need to move professional development activities
closer to the school. Teachers expressed the need for having
frequent support at the school level. Another issue was the need to
support collaborative and informal professional development. An
interesting finding from this survey is that 70% of teachers
expressed the importance of collaboration and informal learning for
professional development and the ways in which online
communities and social networking (both face to face and online)
help them grow as professionals. Collaborative work among
teachers and experts anchors the process of learning to use
technology in an exploration of what it is to teach and learn the
subject. The design teams connect teacher educators, technology
experts, and K-12 teachers in schools, with the goal of developing
curricula in specific content domains which make good use of ICT.
RECOMMENDATIONS
“These lessons with the use of technology
require too much time…I can’t just prepare
them like that…I need at least 1-2 days and I
only have time in the afternoons. I need to
find materials, websites, check them
thoroughly… are they going to work out well
with my students or not?”
In addition, teachers mentioned that the implementation of ICTrelated activities requires a lot of time. The curriculum and the
evaluation system are designed in such a way that they do not
allow for teachers to have time to use ICT since they have to focus
on covering the required content. This is one of the main reasons
that teachers avoid to experiment with ICT integration and engage
in reflective activities on the benefits of technology. For example,
a teacher mentioned that even though she realizes the benefits of
using simulations with her students, they take too much time to
complete; time which is beneficial for her students to experiment
and engage in inquiry-based learning, yet leaving her with even
less time to cover the required content.
The findings from this survey shed light to the complexities of
integrating ICT in teaching and learning. The research reported is
the first of its kind conducted in the Cyprus context. Findings
reveal that teachers are willing to integrate technology into their
teaching practices. However, even though they realize the benefits
of ICT integration, a lot of teachers today seem resistant to
integrating technologies. This is due to several factors that were
revealed through the findings, such as lack of time, the illstructured design of the school curriculum, and lack of
infrastructure. In order to aid the endeavors of teachers in
integrating technologies, more robust professional development
programs need to be developed that would continuously provide
support in order for teachers to be able to overcome the
aforementioned problems and challenges faced when attempting
to integrate technology. Moreover, better coordination and
organization of the professional development programs is
necessary, as well as improvements in the school curriculum,
infrastructure upgrades, and availability of software programs and
supporting learning materials.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research presented in this paper is partially supported by the
following projects:
ñ “A Framework for Preparing Teachers to Teach with ICT”
(EUPT3) (Partly funded by the European Commission Lifelong
Learning Programme, Leonardo da Vinci- Transfer of
Innovation, grant contract: LLP-LdV-TOI-09-CY-167918).
ñ “Development of an e-learning model for teacher professional
development” (Partly supported by the Cyprus Research
Promotion, Republic of Cyprus, and EU Structural Funds,
contract: ∞¡£ƒø¶π™Δπ∫∂™/¶∞π¢π(μπ∂)/0308/06).
REFERENCES
1. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher
learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8),
3-15.
2. Chitpin, S. & Evers, C. W. (2005). Teacher professional
development as knowledge building: A Popperian analysis.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(4), 419-433.
3. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the
classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Gross, D., Truesdale, C. & Bielec, S. (2001). Backs to the
Wall: Supporting teacher professional development with
technology. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(2-3),
161-183.
5. Manke, M. P., Ward, G., Lundeberg, M. A. & Tikoo, S. (2005).
An effective model of professional development in technology
for multiple constituencies: The Technology Leadership Cadre.
In C. Vrasidas and G. V. Glass (Eds). Preparing teachers to
teach with technology (pp. 343-358). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing, Inc.
6. Radinsky, J., Smolin, L. & Lawless, K. A. (2005).
Collaborative curriculum design as a vehicle for professional
development. In C. Vrasidas and G. V. Glass (Eds). Preparing
teachers to teach with technology (pp. 369-380). Greenwich,
CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
7. Vrasidas, C. & Glass, C V. (2004). (Eds.). Online professional
development for teachers. Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing, Inc.
8. Vrasidas, C. & Glass, C V. (2005). (Eds.). Online professional
development for teachers. Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing, Inc.
9. Vrasidas, C., Zembylas, & Glass, C V. (2009). (Eds.). ICT for
education, development, and social justice. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing, Inc.
10. Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice,
developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of
professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes
(Eds). Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 3-31). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
AUTHOR
Dr. Charalambos Vrasidas is co-founder and
Executive Director of CARDET – Centre for
the Advancement of Research &
Development in Educational Technology
(http://www.cardet.org), a non-profit research
and development centre based in Cyprus.
He is also Associate Professor of Learning Technologies and
Innovation at the University of Nicosia. He currently serves on the
Executive Committee of the International Council for Educational
Media, an UNESCO affiliated organization. He is currently the
Editor-n-Chief of Educational Media International, a peer-reviewed
scholarly journal published by Taylor and Francis.
KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT IN
DEVELOPING AND
DELIVERING SOFTWARE
PRODUCTS
Andreas Hadjioannou
Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes:
perception, learning, communication, association and reasoning.
Knowledge Management comprises a range of practices used in an
organization to identify, create, represent, distribute and enable
adoption of insights and experiences. There are a number of
techniques that can be employed by a software development
department or company that can foster knowledge and create a
knowledge management culture within an organization. Based on
research performed by the Cornet - EXTRA project, a number of
techniques are available that can foster knowledge management.
Some of these techniques are outlined in this article.
Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary [1] as (i)
expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or
education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject,
(ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and
information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience
of a fact or situation.
Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes:
perception, learning, communication, association and reasoning.
The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident
understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific
purpose if appropriate again and again. Knowledge Management
(KM) on the other hand comprises a range of practices used in
an organization to identify, create, represent, distribute and enable
adoption of insights and experiences. Such insights and
experiences comprise knowledge, either embodied in individuals
or embedded in organizational processes or practice. Sharing this
valuable knowledge is a potential source of improvements in an
organization, developing personal skills and practices
improvements.
Research and case studies show that these so called “Knowledge
Brokers” employees could help others through on-the-job-training,
participate in workshops and discuss topics during lunch time or
near the coffee-machine or answer via e-mail. The role of a
knowledge broker is often given to senior staff with a lot of expertise
in the company. Knowledge brokers should also be people with
good communication skills and/or a lot of (external) contacts.
Case studies show that experience transfer and knowledge
management strongly increase effectiveness and thereby
competitiveness. Nevertheless, research shows that few
companies have a systematic way of utilizing experiences and
knowledge management.
Casual Event is a technique that can be used to foster the creation
of knowledge brokers distributing knowledge and information of
who knows what internally in an informal way. In addition
knowledge and expertise could be represented in “yellow pages”
or “who’s who” systems. That is, the knowledge is represented
in a list containing the employees and their role or technical skills
instead of being represented inside articles inside knowledge
based repositories. Even when such systems are available, the
role of Knowledge Broker could play an important role in order to
solve the problem of identifying the required expertise and
selecting who to acquire it from.
In a Software Development environment knowledge gained
through learning / training process may be distinguished from
knowledge management as the latter provides a greater focus on
the experienced gained from previous projects, which eventually
constitutes an asset of the IT company of department for future
projects. Knowledge Management is an important asset to a
Software development environment as it can provide improved
performance, competitive advantage, innovation, sharing of
lessons learned, and continuous improvement of the developed
code. It can help individual programmers and development teams
to share valuable insights in analysis, design and programming
techniques that if managed and organized properly may
tremendously reduce redundant work, increase the quality and
performance of code produced, help avoid reinventing the wheel
per se, reduce training time for new employees and help retain
intellectual property.
There are a number of techniques that can be employed by a
software development department or company that can foster
knowledge and create a knowledge management culture within
an organization. Based on research performed by the Cornet EXTRA project, a number of techniques are available that can
foster knowledge management that are based on knowledge
sharing, sharing experiences, history of a project, retrospectives,
lessons learned, and promotion of knowledge culture. These
techniques can be grouped under the four known Schools of
Knowledge Management: organizational, systems, engineering
and Cartographic.
Inside a software development environment, experienced
employees should often be solicited to share their knowledge by
writing articles, creating training material, etc. Unfortunately,
producing knowledge is not an easy task. These experienced
employees are sometimes unable to share their knowledge
because of a lack of time, a lack of incentive to do so or a lack
of teaching skills. Furthermore this requires the formalization of
their knowledge.
A huge amount of information is regularly produced in an
organization during project execution. Information concerns
different levels, personal work and skills, development methods
and models, best practices on project management, tools etc.
Another approach to sharing knowledge between projects, is to
connect people who have similar interests in a network to discuss
common topics. Such networks are often referred to as
“communities of practice”, and can have several benefits, from
concrete help to solve problems to focus on establishing common
practices in the organization. The Technical Information Meeting
or TIM technique is a very simple and easy way to gather and
share information in the organization. Its objective is to organize
continuously and regularly topical meetings to get employees
actively involved and informed across projects.
Another technique is based on the “Lessons learned” report which
is developed at end of every project. “Lessons learned” can be
defined as the learning gained from the process of performing the
project. Lessons learned may be identified / performed at any
phase / stage of a project. Preparing and sharing lessons learned
is the process of gathering, documenting and analyzing feedback
on events that happened during a project for the benefit of project
teams working on future projects.
The main argument for making knowledge explicitly available is
to make it reusable, and the reuse makes up for the cost of
codifying the knowledge into an explicit format. Knowledge
repositories is a common approach for using databases to store
employee expertise, knowledge, experience and documentation,
usually about a particular domain of expertise, within a company.
In a repository, you find knowledge that is summarized, and
integrated across sources. Knowledge repositories are typically
used to make it easier to retrieve explicit knowledge for all or many
employees in a company.
The history of activities of how a particular project has evolved
and completed is important knowledge for every IT project.
Detailed information of issues raised and how these issues were
resolved from the beginning to the completion of a project are
valuable empirical information which must be maintained and
referenced. A Project Diary is a project artifact which allows
project managers to record all project issues and related follow
up actions ensuring the smooth running of the project.
Retrospective analysis is another way to share knowledge
following the completion of a project or major milestone. The
method is performed in a workshop and is intended to be short,
effective, and yield immediate and visible outcomes to motivate
the project team for further such activity. It recognizes that the
largest part of organizational learning happens in a project setting,
and attempts to elevate this knowledge from a project setting and
up to the company level.
When an organization is implied in a software process
improvement, conducting an assessment or an audit helps
determining the state of its current software processes. In the
ideal case, the assessment leads to a concrete action plan for
software process improvements. It gives an accurate snapshot
of the current process practices situation of the organization.
Sharing this knowledge on good and bad practices is of great
benefit for the organization and source of practices improvement.
It is often useful to describe or map development and delivery
processes in order to standardize how this is done and how work
is transferred from one department to another. This is especially
important when processes change frequently or if new personnel
join a project. A process guide can be seen as a structured,
workflow-oriented, reference document for a particular process,
and exists to support participants in carrying out the intended
process. For a process guide to be useful, it must not only be
tailored to the specific needs of a company, but also be made
available for example on the company’s intranet or through the
development environment.
During a software development project, various artefacts, in the
form of electronic documents, are produced. Artefacts of the
project are of different kinds and can include documents used for
project management (project plans, budgets, resource
allocations), quality documentation and technical reports and
articles. Such documents contain a large amount of knowledge
about the project and should be stored and shared in the
Experience Base of the organization, that is, the place where all
the packaged information which can be useful to everyone in the
software development process is stored, retrieved and managed.
If you would like to know more about these techniques and other
useful methods and tools that will help your organization and your
software development teams retain and reuse knowledge then
you will have to wait until the end of 2010 when the project ends
and techniques are published.
ABOUT THE CORNET - EXTRA PROJECT
The mission of EXTRA is to improve competitiveness of small
European software companies developing and delivering software
products and operating internationally. This will be obtained by
new insights in and increased use of experience transfer and
knowledge management techniques within and in between
companies.
Project Consortium:
ñ ICT Norway (Norway) – Project Leader
– Sintef (Research Organization)
ñ CETIC (Belgium)
ñ CITEA (Cyprus)
– Virtual IT
– Inteliscape
REFERENCES
1. Oxford Dictionaries Online, www.oxforddictionaries.com
[accessed on 1/7/2010]
2. EXTRA Project Website, www.cornet-extra.eu
AUTHOR
Andreas Hadjioannou holds a BSc in Computer
Science and Engineering. His 25+ career in ICT
includes positions such as Software Engineer,
Trainer, Project Manager, IT Manager,
Operations Director and Managing Director for
local and International organizations such as
NCR and Pepsi Cola International.
He is the founder of ICT organizations in Cyprus including Virtual IT
Ltd, in which he is currently the Managing Director. Andreas has
extensive knowledge and experience in the organization and
management of multiple interrelated ICT projects and in formulating
and implementing ICT Strategies and action plans for both private
and public sector organizations.
HOW TO SHARE
KNOWLEDGE
THROUGH
PRODUCT CROSSEVALUATION
Katerina Neophytou
One of the most challenging aspects of software development is
knowledge sharing among the team members within an
organization. Knowledge sharing can be accomplished by
engaging in a cross-evaluation process. This process can be
employed during the testing phase of a project and more
specifically, after the System Testing Phase and before the User
Acceptance Testing Phase of a developed product.
INTRODUCTION/MOTIVATION
During the Testing Phase of the software development cycle,
employees are engaged in different kinds of development
activities. These activities can be related to technical
competencies, problems and issues resolutions that can be
reused in future projects. If these activities are transferred and
shared among the employees during the cross-evaluation phase
it will increase the competitiveness of the organization and the
productivity of the team(s) within an organization.
Cross-evaluation can be used by organizations that are structured
based on multiple development teams. Cross-evaluation is a
technique where a team member of one team evaluates a product
developed by a second team, and a team member of the second
team evaluates the respective product developed by the first team.
The result of this activity is to identify problems, issues and to
come up with proposed actions that will help improve the
development best practices.
This technique can be used towards developing an infrastructure
for testing, tuning and evaluation of information retrieval. It can
also be used for creating test-suites of reusable data which can
be employed by system developers for benchmarking purposes.
WHEN TO USE (CONTEXT OF USE)
The knowledge sharing between and among the team members
must be continuous, on a daily basis with respect to their daily
activities, as well as, scheduled during product cross-evaluation
period. Cross-Evaluation can either be performed in a formal or
informal manner and the project manager(s) or team leader(s)
must keep records of items discussed and then communicate the
findings to the involved team(s).
HOW TO
Cross-evaluation process must be used to encourage frequent
inspection and adaptation of the development cycle findings
through a leadership philosophy that encourages team work, selforganization and accountability which will result in a set of
engineering best practices that allow for rapid delivery of highquality software. There are two levels of cross-evaluation that can
be performed depending on the type of the product:
a. Cross-evaluation on task completion basis.
b. Cross-evaluation on a milestone completion basis or project
completion basis.
Checklist preparation for cross-evaluation
A number of areas of a project must be addressed during the
software development process. For each of the areas it is
recommended that a checklist is in place. Below is a complete
list of the areas that should be addressed towards getting the
desired results:
1. Requirements Analysis and design document checklist –
addressing areas of the Requirements Analysis and design
document as agreed with customer.
2. User interface checklist – addressing the areas of standards
in place for the product/project.
3. Functionality checklist – addressing the all the functional
aspects requested by customer.
4. User Friendliness checklist – addressing issues friendliness
and usability of the system.
5. Performance checklist – addressing issues of response time
and bandwidth consumption.
6. Quality Checklist – addressing issues of coding and
development methods and techniques.
7. Deliverable checklist – addressing the items to be delivered
to customer.
A sample of such a checklist is available below (table 1),
addressing the quality attribute of a product.
Validation of checklist(s) with business analyst
During an informal meeting, the people in charge of the crossevaluation (one from each team) confirm the checklist(s) prepared
with the responsible business analyst towards verifying that all
the findings, as a result of the cross evaluation, have been
addressed and are correct. This will help obtain valuable feedback.
Perform testing (cross-evaluation) based on checklist
The two evaluators proceed with necessary testing using the
checklist prepared and record their findings and comments.
Document Findings/Propose Solutions
All comments are reported in an incident reporting tool which will
facilitate the reporting aspect, resolution aspect, sharing
knowledge aspect and quality aspect of the end product/project.
The findings can be categorised in 4 major types in order to better
manage and have an effective decision management towards their
implementation:
1. Clarifications – areas requiring extended explanation
2. Improvements – ideas to change the existing functionality or
additions to the existing functionality
3. Problems – malfunctions/bugs of the system/product
4. To-do's – items listed in the requirements/design but not
addressed in the system/product
Table 1: Part of Quality checklist. inteli-scape ltd.
QUALITY ATTRIBUTES
TASK DESCRIPTION
Y/N
OWNER
COMMENTS
Functionality (does it match the requirements)
Performance (response time, utilization behavior)
Security (segregation of functionality in roles, provides access to
authorized roles only)
Availability (uptime, recovery time)
Usability (ease of use and training, adequate reporting of key
metrics/categories, input validation)
Interoperability (ability to cooperate with other systems)
Modifiability (ease of design to perform changes, comments)
Reusability (extend parts can be reused in other applications)
Extendability (ability to extend with major functionality)
Integrability (to make separate systems components that work together)
Testability (ability to test)
Traceability (ability to enable/disable log and debug modes)
Auditability (ability to trace user, system, admin actions)
Error Handling (log of descriptive errors)
Archiving
Note: The check list can be as detailed as needed based on the project type and the phase of the project that this activity has been
assigned.
Communicate Findings
Cross-evaluation is also useful to transfer/share Common
Knowledge. Knowledge and the lack thereof (uncertainty) is an
integral part of subsurface evaluation. Leveraging knowledge
within asset teams, across business units and through
communities of practice is the key for creating competitive
advantage and shareholder value. Effective leverage of collectively
held knowledge connecting people and processes improves
project cycle time and mitigates risk. This can be achieved by:
a. Brainstorming Sessions: After the completion of the above all
the involved employees can hold a brainstorming session to
discuss and analyse the findings and define the actions based
on the comments/findings of the project cross evaluator. This
activity is performed in a formal or informal manner.
b. Knowledge Transfer Workshops: After the completion of
major projects and at a scheduled time frame, ex. Every 3
months, the teams can organize workshops where major
issue can be discussed. The project Manager of each team
is responsible to collect and present the most important
findings.
c. Training Sessions: The technical team leader of each team
will be responsible to share with other team members new
development techniques, new technologies, and development
best practises. In addition to that, point out common or
frequent mistakes that were identified during the crossevaluation sessions.
The methods above can lead the Teams develop a unique
approach to improve performance, document asset knowledge
and enable culture change for sharing knowledge.
Figure: Incident reporting system. inteli-scape ltd.
CROSS-EVALUATION BENEFITS
ROLES INVOLVED IN THE CROSS-EVALUATION
Some of the benefits that companies will acquire by adopting
Cross-evaluation are to gain the ability of:
ñ Taking better decisions by leveraging best practices.
Cross-evaluation can involve a number of people from within the
organization. The following key roles are mandatory however:
ñ Technical Team Leader, leads the workshop sessions and
training session.(can be independent but can also be played
by a participant)
ñ Systematically incorporating pre-existing knowledge and
accounting for inconsistent or lack of knowledge
(uncertainties).
ñ Safeguarding new knowledge generated during the study
process for use in further stages of development and by other
teams with common issues or workflow processes.
ñ Providing as an efficient vehicle for targeted QA both on a
task level as well on a holistic multi-disciplinary level.
ñ Enabling full cycle reviews to evaluate performance, capturing
learning and enabling process improvement.
ñ Allowing more interaction between people involved in a project
PREREQUISITES
Below are the prerequisites that must be in place within an
organization towards engaging in a successful and useful product
cross-evaluation:
ñ Project specific Requirements and Design documents
ñ Established Standards and Processes that will facilitate the
flow of work
ñ Promotion knowledge sharing culture
ñ Team member, participates in the brainstorming sessions
ñ Project manager, documents the results and coordinates the
workshops
ñ Team Leader, documents the results and coordinates the
brainstorming sessions.
RESULTS
The main results from product cross-evaluation are:
ñ Cooperative learning and team spirit as feedback from a
person outside the team is welcome and appreciated
ñ Improved organizational factors like teamwork is encouraged
during the brainstorm sessions and efficient feedback is
obtained
ñ Internal/external communication between teams is improved
ñ Updated and improved development techniques
LIMITATIONS
In order to have effective results, this technique must have clear
and effective lines of responsibility and minimal overlapping of
functions. Identify and assign responsibility for core functions in
the development cycle at the right level of the organization.
The time aspect is always a limitation to the software development
cycle. Customers are always demanding and they always would
like the best solution with minimal cost and time schedule. It’s
the provider responsibility to allocate the time needed to proceed
with cross-evaluation in order to deliver a solution that will make
the customer satisfied.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1. http://www.sciencedirect.com
Tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing in a project work context
2. http://www.thataway.org/exchange/categories.php
Issues Addressed Through Dialogue & Deliberation
AUTHOR
Katerina Neophytou
Sales Account Manager
Inteli-scape ltd.
[email protected]
Graduated from Montclair State University (NJ) with a BSc (Hons)
in Business Administration. After graduation, Katerina has enjoyed
a wealth of work experience in the Project Management. For seven
years has been managing software development teams and
delivered with great success numerous products. Her expertise
spans from delivering solutions that exceed the needs of SME as
well as Large Organizations with focus to Quality and Customer
Satisfaction.
Do you know
this man?
Philippos Peleties
Once in a while humanity comes across some minds whose
brilliance shines like a supernova: intense but short. One of those
minds was Evariste Galois, the 20 years old student of
mathematics who traded the prospect of a brilliant life as a
mathematician with the love of a woman.
Another was Alan Turing, the British mathematician whose
contributions to the mathematics of computational logic have
helped not only to underlie the fundamental nature of computation
but also helped in winning a major world conflict: World War II.
Alan Mathison Turing was born in Maida Vale, London, to
Julius Turing, a member of the Indian Civil Service and Sara
Stoney, daughter of the chief engineer of the Madras Railway in
India. That day the calendar read 23 of June 1912.
Alan and his brother John spend their early years in the care of
friends in Hastings, England as his parents travelled back and
forth between England and India where Julius was still employed
as a civil servant.
Young Alan's brilliance in mathematics was recognized during his
early schooling at St Michael's. At the age of 14 Alan was sent
to Sherborne School, prestigious public school. However, his
brilliance was not appreciated by his teachers who favored
classical education to the more specialized field of mathematics.
An indication of the inability of his teachers to grasp the genius
of the man is the letter from his headmaster to his parents that if
their son was to become anything remote to an educated man he
would have to abandon the way he was thinking otherwise there
was no place for him in a public school!
Turing was not discouraged by this. All the opposite. By the age
of 15 he was able to solve complex problems without even having
studied calculus. At the age of 16 he was able to not only
comprehend Einstein's Theory of Relativity but also extend its
questioning to Newton's laws of motion.
As adolescence came to a close it was time for higher studies.
Turing's uninterest in the classics meant that he was not able to
gain entry to his first choice, the Trinity College of Cambridge
University but to his second, King's College of the same
University. In his three years of formal university training he
managed to graduate with distinction in 1934, and in 1935 he
was elected fellow at King's college based on his dissertation on
the central limit theorem.
Turing's seminal paper on computability, On Computable
Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem, was
submitted in 1936. In this paper he reformulated Godel's results
on bounds of proof and computability and proposed a new
formalism on computability, the now famous Turing Machine
(stated as Universal Machine in the paper). This machine, a
theoretical apparatus being comprised of an infinite tape, a
read/write head, and a state transition table, together with an
alphabet and an initial state, forms the basis upon which any serial
computation can be understood and simulated. The interested
reader is urged to further his understanding of this machine by
examining a number of references given at the end of this article.
The Autumn of 1936 found Turing studying under Alonzo Church
at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University in New
Jersey, USA. At the Institute in addition to mathematics he studied
cryptography and binary logic, completing a large portion on an
electromechanical binary multiplier. One month after obtaining his
PhD in June 1938 he left to go back to England. His dissertation
extended the notion of Universal Machine with the addition of
oracles thus allowing for the examination of problems which
cannot be solved by the original Universal Machine formulation.
Back at Cambridge he attended lectures by Ludwig Wittgenstein
concerning the foundations of mathematics and started working
part-time with the Government Code and Cypher School (GCCS).
As the clouds of World War II set upon Europe, Turing was
involved in breaking German cryptographic codes, a task both
difficult, exhaustive and one which required the genius of a man
like Turing. At Bletchley Park, the wartime station of GCCS, Turing,
building upon the Polish cryptanalysis discoveries of the early
30's offered valuable inside in breaking both the German Enigma
and Lorenz ciphers. In order to do this at a practical level he
devised, together with mathematician Gordon Welchman, a
machine, the bombe, an electromechanical code breaker which
assisted in breaking the German ciphers. The bombe was able to
search for possibly correct settings of the German Luftwaffe
Enigma machines and with the help of a fragment of a possible
plaintext deduce whether the proposed enigma settings were valid
or not. In doing so Turing was able to apply logic and logical
deduction in solving a major problem through machinery. This
alone was unheard off at that time.
Turing, being a sucker for a challenge, set his eyes in breaking
the naval Enigma code, which was more difficult than the
Luftwaffe version due to the highest number of rotor positions.
Through a Bayesian statistical methodology which he invented he
was able to break the code in December 1940.
Next in his sight was the Lorenz cipher, a significantly more
complex cipher that that used in both types of Enigma machines.
His work helped Tommy Flowers to build the Colossus computer,
one of the first electronic programmable computers. Colossus's
raw computational power was so great so that it could use brute
force to break the daily changing German codes.
In November of 1942 Turing traveled to the United States to assist
in building with the construction of the bombe in the US. He also
worked in building secure speech devices. Returning to Bletchly
Park in March 1943 he continued his work on cryptanalysis and
later moved to Handslope Park where is further studies electronics
and worked on a portable secure speech device called Dellilah.
However, being late for the war and lacking the ability to be used
with long distance radio transmissions lead to the rejection of the
device by the British military.
In 1945 Turing was awarded the OBE award for his war time
contributions to cryptography. However, much of his work
remained secret for many years. It is widely accepted that his
insights to a number of mathematical problems were pivotal in
the development of cryptanalysis. The quality of his work was
unquestionable. Three pivotal papers he wrote right before the
war on three diverse mathematical problems show that had he
continued on these problems he would have been able to produce
exceptional results.
From 1945 for a period of two years Turing worked on the design
of the Automatic Computing Engine (ACE) computer at the
National Physics Laboratory. ACE, one of first stored program
computers. However, work on building ACE was delayed
considerably due to the wartime secrecy surrounding the
concepts upon which ACE was designed. This did not sit well
with Turing who moved to the University of Manchester, first as
a reader at the Mathematics department and then as the deputy
director at the computing laboratory. This gave him the
opportunity to work on software for Mark1, one of the first true
general purpose digital computers.
Turing’s interest on other aspects of computing such as
computational intelligence, more commonly known as artificial
intelligence. His famous “Turing Test” is still today considered
the defining test of determining whether a machine is intelligent:
a machines is deemed intelligent if a person communicating with
the machine cannot determine that he/she is conversing with one.
In 1948 his quest for machine intelligence has lead him to
develop, together with D. Champernowne, the first chess program.
However, no machine existed which could run his program so in
1952 when Turing played a game of chess with a colleague of
his he had to spend half an hour simulating each and every move
of the program. The end result was that he lost, but in a second
game with another player, Champernowne’s wife, he managed to
win.
Between 1952 and 1954 Turing worked on morphogenesis, an
area in mathematical biology. In a paper titled “The Chemical
Basis of Morphogenesis” Turing described how patterns form in
nature by using reaction-diffusion equations which are
mathematical models describing the changes affected by two
processes on the concentration of one or more substances
distributed in space.
On June 8 1954 Turing committed suicide by eating an apple
laced with cyanide. However, interestingly enough the apple itself,
which was found half-eaten next to his bed, was never tested for
cyanide. His mother insisted that her son was accidentally
poisoned due to the careless storage of various laboratory
chemicals. Why would a bright man like Turing with an equally
bright future and much more to offer in the world of computing,
give an end to his life is not known and may never be known.
What is known, however, is his troubles with the law about his
homosexuality. Being exposed during an a police investigation in
the break-in of his house, Turing was subsequently tried and
convicted of breaking the law and charged with gross indecency
under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885.
Turing was given the choice of either being imprisoned or being
on probation with the added condition of undergoing chemical
castration. His punishment lasted for an entire year, until 1953,
during which he was injected with estrogen hormone injections.
In addition he was stripped of his security clearance and was
prevented in dealing with any cryptographic matters. A short year
later he was found dead.
REFERENCES
1. Turing Machine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine
(accessed 6/6/2010)
3. Turing Machines,
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/introcs/74turing/
(accessed 6/6/2010)
2. A Turing Machine in the Classic Style,
http://aturingmachine.com/ (accessed 6/6/2010)
Δ.£. 27038, 1641 §Â˘ÎˆÛ›·
ΔËÏ. +357 22 460 680
º·Í. +357 22 767 349
www.ccs.org.cy
[email protected]
Cyprus Computer Society
P.O. Box 27038, 1641 Nicosia
Tel. +357 – 22460680
Fax. +357 – 22767349
www.ccs.org.cy
[email protected]

periodiko n19 12-7-10:Layout 1

Transcript

Documenti analoghi

Recupera password WEP, WPA, Messenger, ecc

Dashlane Q1 2014 Personal Data Security

definition of the communication methods

pag. 1

Technological limits of parental control over the

2014-2015 ECP-Grade 8 Health Appraisal Form

Dell Vostro 270s Owner`s Manual

Pdf brochure - Foytina Real Estate Agency

Downloading - Pliroforiki

Dell Vostro 2520 Owner`s Manual

EU-line ICT in Youth work

Incontro con le famiglie e gli studenti – preparazione Meeting Creta Si

user guide

Fanless Series - FabiaTech Driver DownLoad Websit

Coppem News 10

ministry of education, malaysia