When it comes to the development of cyber-policy and infrastructure, one should approach it with caution. That caution should be borne from the fact that we do lack better predictive capabilities. That could be why policies in regards to this field can seem to be lagging behind. As the infrastructure becomes more complicated and larger, political policy makers struggle to keep up with these advancements, often being completely out of their depth and unsure of what they are passing legislation on. Guidance from within the field can often be difficult to translate to those outside of it, so even well written policies for the running of one’s digital infrastructure can be misunderstood by members of society who must interact with the technology, but have no education in it. By taking into account that ignorance is likely the biggest hurdle to policy-making, it would be good to make the education of the uninitiated as smooth as possible so that hopefully it can find some way to catch up to the great advancements made in these technological fields.

As for the infrastructure, caution will need to be exercised at all times. This should be done by asking oneself “I could, but should I?”. As things progress and discoveries are made, it may be best to avoid developing more apocalyptical weapons. What is meant, is that perhaps it would be best to avoid developing the digital equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Those pioneers in the digital infrastructure are hopefully cognizant of what their inventions and discoveries mean when they release them to the public. It is too often that an inventor’s invention is turned to unintended purposes once it is released to the public. That is why it is vital that caution be exercised at all times in these pursuits, and hopefully there is some policy there to help protect that discovery from abuse.