Why surveillance doesn't fix broken trust

“Visibility without context is just data overload.” (Explanation with Case Study from GULF) Because knowing everything means nothing if you don’t know what to do with it. And in OT environments, information without relevance isn’t insight, it's interruption. Most OT tools show you everything except what actually matters to the plant manager, the engineer, or the vendor trying to finish the job without breaking the system. 📖 STORY: THE REFINERY MISALIGNMENT IN THE GULF We were working with a large industrial operation in the Gulf, a critical part of the region’s energy supply chain. The company ran multiple sites, from refining units to chemical plants, spread across remote areas with legacy systems and rotating field teams. Their IT leadership had just rolled out a sophisticated OT visibility and threat detection platform. They called it “total visibility.” The OT teams called it something else. Almost overnight, the SOC was flooded with thousands of alerts  triggered by routine maintenance, remote vendor logins, and unmanaged legacy equipment that had been running safely for years. The alerts weren’t just overwhelming. They were unactionable. Field engineers didn’t know what to respond to. The SOC couldn’t tell which alerts truly mattered. Vendor tasks were delayed. Access requests were denied. Production timelines slipped. No breach. No attack. Just friction  from tools that lacked context. 💡 INSIGHT Culture is what determines how people interpret urgency, ownership, and risk. And cybersecurity, especially in OT, isn’t just about controls. It’s about clarity  across: 🧠 IT and OT 🧱 Engineering and security 🤝 Internal teams and external vendors When that alignment breaks, even the best tools break trust. Because it’s not how much you see. It’s how clearly you understand what to do with it. 🔄 SHIFT IN THINKING ❌ Don’t start with dashboards. ✅ Start with context. ❌ Don’t lead with policy. ✅ Lead with partnership. What secures OT environments isn’t just more data   It’s purposeful visibility that respects uptime, safety, and operational flow. ✅ TAKEAWAYS 🔸 Tune your alerts to match operational reality, not just technical severity 🔸 Make risk language understandable across departments 🔸 Give OT teams the clarity they need to act  not just react 🔸 Build trust between SOC, engineering, and vendors before crisis strikes 📩 CTA If you're leading cybersecurity in critical infrastructure or industrial operations and struggling with alert fatigue, misalignment, or tool rejection  DM me. We’ll share the Context-First Visibility Framework we use to turn noise into action and finger-pointing into functional trust. 👇 Where have you seen too much visibility become the real vulnerability? #CyberLeadership #OTSecurity #VisibilityWithContext #OperationalClarity #ITOT #SecurityCulture

"Trust is the New Electricity!" When I continuously speak about trust as the new electricity, I mean this: without it, nothing runs. AI governance, enterprise adoption, health, education, consumer markets, all of them rely on a current of trust flowing between stakeholders. Break that current, and systems stall. A deficit of trust is more than a reputational bruise. It means stakeholders reject new technology before it’s even trialed. It means teams hesitate, delaying adoption and slowing the scaling of enterprise strategy. It means fractured relationships across supply chains, students resisting AI in classrooms, and customers walking away from brands. This is why we must start treating trust as a form of ROI. Unlike quarterly earnings, it doesn’t show up instantly. Trust compounds quietly, like interest, and matures into the long-term viability of your business, institution, or innovation. So what do we do? We make trust intentional. We set it as a target, not an afterthought. That means: Building good AI governance frameworks that turn principles into enforceable practice. Embedding responsible AI into organizational DNA, not just compliance manuals. Treating staff rights, transparency, and human dignity as strategic assets, not obstacles. Including trust metrics in procurement conversations; asking not just what technology costs, but what credibility it earns or risks. The return on trust is resilience: enterprises that can weather scrutiny, institutions that keep public confidence, and technologies that are not merely adopted but embraced. This is why I see 'surveillance creep' as not just a privacy issue but a profound market risk. Lumiera’s latest newsletter captures it sharply: when surveillance seeps quietly into our kitchens, classrooms, and boardrooms, the price is not simply data - it is public trust. And once lost, that is the hardest currency to recover. Read their full piece here: Lumiera Newsletter, Issue 84: https://lnkd.in/eCy33x7B

Employers shouldn’t focus on micro-managing and tracking employees’ every move. Instead, they should focus on transparency. Last month, I did a three part series on overemployment, when people hold two or more full-time, remote jobs without disclosure. One of the solutions/concerns was using tracking devices to monitor employee activity and prevent them from being overemployed. And while I think overemployment can be a bit misleading, I definitely do NOT advocate for surveillance. It erodes trust. Employees may feel uncomfortable being watched. The real focus should be on outcomes, not surveillance. Instead of strict monitoring, companies should establish clear expectations in employment policies. If an employee has another job, whether it is a side business, a volunteer role, or freelance work, transparency is key. Now HERE is how we combat it: encourage open communication. Tracking should be about ensuring performance, not controlling employees' lives. How are people coming along in their projects? Do they know to speak up if they need help? As a leader, are you providing actionable feedback? Transparency is about honesty, integrity, and trust. What do you think? Let me know in the comments. #overemployment #transparency