It is well accepted today that security is not purely a technology problem. Engineering trustworthy systems requires an understanding of human psychology. It requires effective public policies and laws. It requires the right business models and incentives. And often, one needs all of these elements working in harmony. A typical security analysis looks at risks, threats, and recovery plans, and prescribes technical and non-technical security mechanisms to reduce and mitigate risks. Such analysis is the backbone of good security engineering, but many of the issues are outside the scope of current security education.

From a non-engineer's perspective, subtle technical issues are prevalent throughout security, which frustrate a non-technical person's ability to make decisions in this realm. From an engineer's perspective, many system designs reach a point where human and/or risk management issues are involved, and it is at that point that their university training tends to fail them. Take, for example, electronic voting systems. Successful design, deployment, and operation of an electronic voting infrastructure are beyond what a conventionally- trained engineer can handle. The design process must incorporate the policies, protocols, and practices of the jurisdiction, and must satisfy the voters that the count is correct. The system may need to strike a balance between the business interests of equipment and software vendors who want to keep their intellectual property secrets, and the political and/or policy requirements for a transparent process. Our nation needs to build these systems, but we lack engineers who are qualified to do the job.

This panel will look at the challenges in producing graduates who have the set of skills necessary to be industry leaders in the future? How do we train the technologists and scientists of the future who can integrate technical, legal, financial, and psychological aspects into practical solutions that people can depend on.