Iulian F. Popa, associate professor within Babeș-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca, where he teaches cyber security and cyber security governance, analysed the perspectives and challenges of the digitalization in the EU, during the COVID-19 pandemic, in an interview he gave Vladimir-Adrian Costea for the Geostrategic Pulse Magazine.

Vladimir-Adrian Costea: The COVID-19 pandemic suddenly turned a need into a necessity for important fields, where socializing became virtual. How well were we prepared, both on a national and on a European level for this change? Overall, how developed is digitalization in the EU?

Iulian F. Popa: First of all, I don’t believe that the pandemic suddenly turned a need into a necessity. Both the need, and especially the necessity, were present before the pandemic. I would rather say that we are referring to these tendencies as accelerated, at least as far as the need for online interaction and digitalization is concerned. We now see things differently, expectations are way higher, however, we are basically referring to the same situation. To use a technical term, the online worked as backup and we all saw that there is „life online” as well – I take credit for the use of this term. I still believe that not much has changed, we only became aware of the fact that under the influence of certain disruptive factors (fear, physical distancing and the uncertainties caused by the spread of the virus) digitalization has been playing a more important part in our lives. I feel sorry that it takes a tragic scenario to make us aware of this. If we are to refer to Romania and to the national context, I cannot but see that we are a country of contrasts when it comes to digitalization. On one hand we have a very good electronic communications infrastructure, which met the challenges posed by the traffic during the state pf emergency, while on the other, we are the last in the EU from the DESI point of view. I couldn’t say that we have been or that we are prepared, but I am convinced that as far as we are concerned, things will turn out for the better in the upcoming period.

To what extent do discrepancies in digitalization overlap the social cleavages existent on a national and European level? What was in this case the reaction of the authorities?

To put your question into context, I believe that the discrepancies in digitalization do not overlap social cleavages, but they rather increase or decrease them depending on the situation. This is why I believe we must be very careful when we sort out our priorities on matters of public policies. On a national level, just as I have seen during the state of emergency, it is very clear to me that certain delicate situations regarding the access to the internet and to the public electronic services must be improved immediately, especially in underprivileged or rural areas. It is not my place to evaluate the reaction of the authorities, but I believe it is good, even if I wanted it to be more “digital” than “printed”.

Does the need to quickly adjust to remote interaction by using digital tools contribute to the change of mentalities regarding digitalization, or, on the contrary, does it highlight the stereotypes that we see among those who were more reluctant?

Your question is very good. I wish I could provide you with a concrete answer. As I have already said, online interaction definitely changes certain habits, but I am reluctant to believe it changes mentalities. We have been interacting from a distance very well for the past 20 years, however, most of the mentalities and stereotypes change equally slow. I cannot see a direct relation in this case and I cannot find solid arguments to be able to believe it is there. We are actually referring to everyone’s reaction to change. The fact is that that everyday life doesn’t migrate towards the online environment – and I say this despite the fact that the time spent online has increased – instead we are acknowledging that we can use the online environment in a manner we didn’t think possible before the pandemic. To provide you with an example in this direction, I believe that the employment market will look so much differently in a short while. Work from home will become a mainstream concept very soon, even with less expected professions.

During this time access to education is a stringent matter for pupils and teachers who do not own a device connected to the internet. What do you believe are the necessary steps to help these people? Furthermore, how do you see the actions taken on a European level to facilitate the online access to education?

Firstly, I believe that a great deal of these aspects is a national responsibility. I wish the state became more actively involved in this matter. I am referring to its role as a facilitator, to its ability to encourage a vision and projects that have multiple effects on an economic and a social level. Basically, I expect the state should continue and speed, if the case be, the development of the electronic infrastructures and networks. Infrastructure comes accompanied by even more competitively, economic growth and mobility. The future belongs to the digital highway (as well). As far as the actions taken by the EU to facilitate the access to education and to the improvement of digital competences (after all this is what it is all about) I cannot but see that there have been designated policies for a long time, and the pandemic provided the proper environment for this matter to hit the spotlights.

Do you believe that remote activities draw more attention on the opportunities and risks particular to digitalization? To what extent do we understand the way we build an identity online?

I will draw a parallel and make thing easier. Digitalization resembles, to a certain extent, to riding a bicycle. One cannot forget it and it is very difficult to reverse it. So as far as risks and opportunities are concerned – to continue this comparison – I believe we can assimilate them and become aware of them mostly by practicing. It sounds very ironic, but if we come to think about it, this is where we stand. Which is improving our reflexes and habits as a result to our risk exposure, however, in a manner where we “get a taste of” those opportunities. As far as the online identity issue is concerned, if I understood your question correctly, I will try to give you an analyst’s answer, because I wish to leave the core of the matter to sociologists and psychologists for a more accurate answer. I may surprise you, but I do not believe that the online identity is different from the actual identity of an individual. And I am referring to typical, common cases, where the online environment is used peacefully. I believe that the online environment (that is being online) is a means to an end, not the actual end. To this regard, I believe we use the online environment more as a tool. So, we must be very careful how we use that tool. In theory, the online environment is a non-Euclidean space that is a space where everyone is a neighbour to everyone, where physical distancing and time are almost irrelevant. This is why opportunities, but threats as well, are very near to us. I believe this is an issue that substantially influences the way we each see the online identity.

To what extend do European and national IT systems have the necessary mechanisms to make them resilient in the face of cyber-attacks, as we have become addicted to the online environment?

The matter regarding cyber-security is very dear to me and I appreciate the fact that this conversation led us there. I am one of those who believe and argue that cyber-security is a new security dimension (despite the idea according to which classic security dimensions, as they have been theorized by various schools of thought, have a cybernetic dimension), that is cyber-space is a strategic field, just like land, air, naval and space. It is the starting point of our entire conversation. Actually, I believe this is the mindset that should guide the way we approach the matter of increasing our resilience when facing cyber-attacks. I do not know the European context in detail; however, on a national level we are OK. I would like to remind you that Romania is a net provider of IT security and knowledge on a European level, and I am not referring only to government structures, but also to the local cyber-security industry, which is very well placed.

After the pandemic, what are the prospects of (re)defining the paradigm of digitalization of services in the European Union?

The way things are at present in the European Union, I cannot see a shift in the paradigm, neither on a short, nor on a long term. The paradigm of digitalization as I see it, means more prosperity, competitiveness, transparency and, depending on the context, even more security. I do not believe that the pandemic and especially the needs we will have at that time will change this truth. What I see instead is the gradual and significant decrease of the European states dependency on knowledge and technologies necessary for digitalization originating from outside the European Union. Most likely, seeing the large-scale use of potentially disruptive technologies, we will witness an increase in European protectionism. Strategically speaking, it is a long-shot and a subject difficult to digest, however, Europe cannot afford to lose the global battle regarding this matter.