CAUSAS DE DESERCIÓN Y ACCIONES TENDIENTES A SU DISMINUCIÓN PROGRESIVA

This paragraph seeks to find the answer to the subquestion which actors are contending in the aftermath of the respective crisis? Recalling the theory on actors, they are the individuals or

organizations that participate in the contest of frames in the relevant arenas that ensue in the aftermath of the respective crisis, and are indicated by the crisis-type rhetoric used. Furthermore, actors are found in two spheres, corresponding with the impacts of crises: the (1) political sphere, concerned with the alteration of levels of political support, and consisting of incumbent actors holding public office, and critic actors criticising public office-holders, and (2) the policy/institutional sphere, concerned with keeping or changing the pre-crisis policy, consisting of status-quo players, concerned with protecting policy from change, and change advocates, concerned with changing policy. To answer the subquestion question, this paragraph will provide an overview of all the actors that have employed crisis type rhetoric in the arenas outlined in 4.1.4, on more than one occasion. Within the data acquired through open sources, the following actors were found to be actively and purposefully participating in the both spheres.16 _{Additionally, it is indicated if an actor is mentioned in the one or more of the} conducted interviews. An overview of the respective actors can be found in figure 4.

Incumbent actors

The incumbent actors were the actors that were formally responsible at the time and occurrence of the Diginotar crisis. Constitutionally, the political responsibility lies with the heads of the departments of the governmental sectors, and by ultimate extension, with the prime minster of the Netherlands. No evidence indicates that the Diginotar crisis is ever scaled to this political level, leaving prime minister at the time, Mark Rutte, out of the picture. Rather, the heads of the two main departments governing the cyber domain, the Ministry of Security and Justice, and the Ministry of Interior, were called upon their responsibility in both the media and official inquiry arena’s. The ministry of Security of Justice was headed by minister Ivo Opstelten, whereas the Ministry of Interior was headed by Piet Hein Donner. Both actively engaged in the contest of frames in the aftermath of the crisis. In the parliamentary arena, both had an equal role, whereas in the media arena, Piet Hein Donner acted as the prime focal point (NOS, 2011). Furthermore, evidence of his active role is found in the multiple instances, for example in Kamerhandelingen (2011: 54:23); and Kamerbrief (2012). In the interview sources, respondents unanimously agreed upon this depiction of his role (Interview A; B; C; D).

16

Although there is a theoretical notice that actors should be regarded multi-dimensionally, meaning that they can be either actor in both spheres, the actors found in this case align in both spheres, and are therefore combined in the overview.

Subsequently, the same is true for Ivo Opstelten. Examples of his role found in open sources are Kamerhandelingen (2011: 2:17:17), and Kamerbrief, (2011c).

Critic Actors

The critics actors are mostly found in the parliamentary inquiry following the crisis. These actors are either oppositional, or coalitional members of parliament, depending on political affiliation. This includes the following ten actors: Ms. Gesthuizen, as a member of Parliament for SP (Kamerhandelingen, 2011: 0:22); (Kamervragen. 2011e). Mr. Heijnen, as a member of Parliament for PvdA (Kamerhandelingen, 2011: 6:23); (Kamervragen. 2011e). Ms. Hachchi, as a member of Parliament for D66 (Kamerhandelingen, 2011: 15:43); (Kamerbrief 2011c). Mr. Verhoeven, as a member of Parliament for D66 (Kamervragen, 2011d); (Kamerbrief 2011c). Mr. El Fassed, as a member of Parliament for GL (Kamerhandelingen, 2011: 20:17); (Kamervragen, 2011c). Ms. Hennis-Plasschaert, as a member of Parliament for VVD (Kamerhandelingen, 2011: 20:17); (Kamervragen, 2011c); mentioned in interview A and B. Mr. Koopmans, as a member of Parliament for CDA (Kamerhandelingen, 2011: 33:40); (Kamerstuk, 2012). Mr. Elissen, as a member of Parliament for PVV (Kamerhandelingen, 2011: 45:51); (Kamervragen, 2011a). Mr. Hernandez, as a member of Parliament for PVV (Kamervragen 2011a); (Kamervragen, 2011b). Finally, Mr. Kortenoeven, member of Parliament for PVV (Kamervragen 2011a); (Kamervragen, 2011b).

Non-public actor

As found in the previous chapter 2, there is reason to believe that due to the characteristics of the cyber domain, non-public actors, such as civilians and private, can have a strong influence in the crisis exploitation process. Although there is no evidence found of non-public actors directly contending in the contest of frames, as acted out in the arenas of mass media and official inquiry, there is evidence suggesting that some private actors had significant influence through the incumbent actors nonetheless. Notably, through the institutions ‘ICT Response Board’ (IRB), and the ‘Cyber Security Raad’ (CSR), that both consist of at least 50% actors from the private sector. Both institutions have been consulted during the crisis and in its aftermath (IVJ, 2012: 20-21). The exact consistency of the Incident Response Board is non- disclosed and flexible (IVJ, 2012: 20). The members of the Cyber Security Council are disclosed, and include representatives of KPN Telecom, CGI, PostNL, ECP, Schiphol Group, and TenneT (NCSS, 2011: 5). Formally, both have an advisory role. Both open sources and the interviews (A-D) however confirm the influence that both actors have had in the aftermath of

the Diginotar crisis on the position of the incumbent actors. In the first press conference after the Diginotar crisis, minister Piet Hein Donner of the Ministry of Interior acknowledged the role that the CSR would play in the policy change that might follow the crisis (NOS, 2011: 13:11).

Figure 4: overview of actors in the Diginotar crisis