The UK is failing to win the war on "e-crime", according to MPs on the Home Affairs committee in its first ever report on online crime. The committee published its "Report on e-crime" on Tuesday following hearings over 10 months, where the MPs heard from senior police officers as well as experts from academia, banks and the IT …
"cyber attack [is] a higher threat than a nuclear attack"
I saw Keith Vaz say this on BBC News today and thought "Wow! That must be *really* serious because we are in *such* danger of a Nuclear Attack from... erm..."
Re: "cyber attack [is] a higher threat than a nuclear attack"
Add one more to the list of those who don't understand the difference between threat and risk (or maybe he does and is just trying to grandstand/mislead people).
Of course the authorities are losing ground to professional criminals
When the best the government can come up with is idiots spouting the same old drivel about how free access to the internet is responsible for completely unrelated crimes. Yes we need experts in IT security hired into on-line criminal investigation and prevention teams, and we need them to spread their knowledge throughout the police forces. But what we don't need is for nannying politicians to continually drag them down with trivial tasks at the whim of Mumsnet and the Daily Mail.
Re: Of course the authorities are losing ground to professional criminals
Your forgot they also need to pay realistic wages.
In repsonse to that link to 'British Medical Association Motions On Homeopathy', may I just add:
'Motions On' - pfft.
The wedge goes in.
> . . .
The elected representatives on the committee also want to see a much tighter internet filtering regime. "It is still too easy for people to access inappropriate online content, particularly indecent images of children, terrorism incitement and sites informing people how to commit online crime," a statement by the Home Affairs Committee explains.
. . . <
Here we go. Now that we have dealt with the thread of The Pirate Bay and will, by the end of the year, have dealt with porn, let's start on the next, undeniable issue.
By putting "terrorism incitement", a vague term, and "informing people how to commit online crime" into the same sentence as "indecent images of children", it is ensured that people will not dare to say 'wait a minute, you can't do that!' .
When is an internet site, comment, blogpost, tweet or whatever a terrorist incitement or an information how to commit online crime? Just telling about proxies, VPN, TOR or PGP might be regarded as doing so.
I think I know what this will end as:
The Great British Internet will revert to being CEEFAX. At least we won't need any more bandwidth upgrades . . .
Didn't the current rulers say something about stopping all this "nanny-state" stuff that the last rulers did? I can't see that they're doing that. This shows how much a politician's pre-election pledge is worth: 0.0
I'm increasingly radicalised every time he opens his mouth. Mr Fawkes had the right idea.
@ Irongut - Re: Keith Vaz
>. . .
Mr Fawkes had the right idea.
This could already be rated as 'terrorism incitement'.
Not funny in the future, but it gets an upvote from me.
Re: @ Irongut - Keith Vaz
Or as the Presidential Hopeful John McCain would sing "Bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb, bomb .... "
What's that? Can't imitate singing politicians either?
Re: Keith Vaz
Well that's El Reg's potential readership down by ~60million
Re: Keith Vaz
Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me Vaz
Re: Keith Vaz
He has always been slippery and utterly corrupt. Erm, allegedly.
"Vaz, a supporter of homeopathy "
What on earth has that to do with anything related to the story? Underhand journo tactics methinks.
It puts the individual in context: I.E. someone who has no understanding of science or statistics. It in fact tells me quite a bit about the individual and completely invalidates their opinion in my eyes on any topic requiring complex statistical analysis or even the most basic grasp of science.
...like, for example, digital policy.
Another nail in the coffin ?
Another would-be nail in the coffin of free speech and independent thought ?
I agree, crime is crime and the police should be resourced properly to deal with it and the banks etc. should report incidences of even low level fraud - otherwise how do the police build up a picture of the scale of the problem. But since when was having a different opinion from someone else, even our Right Honourable Home Secretary, an offense ?
As has been said often enough, one man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'. And when I consider some of the things I did as a 16 or 17 year old - I'd get a five stretch for them now. Homemade explosives ?
If I was an active terrorist in the UK at the moment, I would be campaigning hard against the proposals of the Scottish Parliament to complete the dualling of the A9 from Perth to Inverness. After all, some 12 or 15 people a year die on this road and that is more than the average killed by terrorists in the UK since 1945.
Vigilates are go !
"The committee appeared keen for banks, ISPs, search engines, social media sites and many other web-based businesses to start taking action against criminals ..."
Funny, I always thought having the public take the law into their own hands was frowned upon.
Re: Vigilates are go !
It's just a pretext to replace democracy with (yet more) corporatocracy.
That won't end crime, or frankly even slow it down, it'll just ensure that only the "right" sort of criminals are punished (i.e. everyone but the rich), whilst extending the definition of "crime" to anything that doesn't put big wads of greasy cash into the elite's pockets.
More of the same, then.
my bank looked at me funny when I was setting up the e-banking passwords for my account because I chose completely random sequences of numbers and letters as passwords/security questions
"You'll never remember those" the clerk said
"I dont intend to, internet banking aint secure as long as people can load your PC with malware, and I'll never be using it"
But seriously, when the banks set up accounts for people, whats wrong with putting out a big notice saying 'your bank will not e.mail you asking for your name/login details'
Or better still, giving out a live CD (OS of your choice) and saying "use this to boot your pc, then use the banking app and then turn your PC off"
or am I being too simple.....
PS Vaz can f*** off..... since every1 hates him , I thought I'd join in :)
Flogging a dead horse ....is sub-prime support territory and shows a lack of everything to hold dear
In the report, the MPs criticised banks for "simply reimbursing the victims with no pursuit of the perpetrators" for cases involving low-level credit card or electronic banking fraud. "Banks must be required to report all e-crime fraud to law enforcement," it said.
What is one to think of Honourable Members/MPs whenever insolent banks are trading insolvently and perpetrating global fraud with all manner of dodgy debt instrument/mis-sold security plan ….. and then simply reimbursing them [the banks] with future fantasy cash piles which they [systems admin and MPs] expect to be paid for/covered from increased taxation and imposed austerity cuts on the masses to disguise the simple fact that money is simply printed and its wealth giving properties are invented as if by magic from thin air … and as is needed to keep the Grand Ponzi from crashing and the AAA team in clover?
Methinks that is akin to colluding and aiding the enemy of the people and a most dishonourable fraud and universal scandal which is a disgrace yet to be targeted for summary bloody execution of radical and revolutionary remedy against leading perpetrators/co-conspirators by a growing smarter by the second, much better educated new generation of virtual leaders/novel and not ignoble systems administrators/flashing drivers/zeroday vulnerability exploit engineers/cleverer bods and AI boffins with real command and remote control of the virtual machine scene and ITs bots.
And Keith Vaz is not spouting hot thin air, although he is being ineffectively enigmatic and not unusually melodramatic [well, he is a careering MP, isn't he] whenever he says …. ""The threat of a cyber attack to the UK is so serious it is marked as a higher threat than a nuclear attack." …… however, it should be noted that cyber attacks are always only really directed and effective against right dodgy corrupt regimes and systems invariably thoroughly deserving of the attention and greater intelligent gamesplay?
So what is all the fuss about, Keith?
Report on e-crime
After clicking on the house of commons link I was very unsurprised to learn that they are still hooked on chasing pedoterrorists.
I predict e-crime will only go up as we get laws banning the use of certain words in search engines.
"It is still too easy for people to access inappropriate online content, particularly indecent images of children, terrorism incitement and sites informing people how to commit online crime," a statement by the Home Affairs Committee explains.
The Home Affairs Committee are a bunch of fucking idiots. Yet another bunch waving the paedophile and terrorism flags in the same sentence and -alarmingly- manage to introduce a 3rd category. As someone who works on the intertubes, I *NEED* to know how online crime is being done this week, to work out defensive measures for myself and my clients.
Accessing kiddieporn is not the same as producing it (although the argument could be made that viewing it is enabling it)
Accessing sites that incite a 'terrorist' POV is absolutely not the same thing as being a terrorist. You may be following a link; you could have gone there to laugh at them if the rhetoric is suitably frothing; you could be doing research; or just be interested. And who's defining 'terrorism' anyway? From a certain point of view; having your house carpet-bombed purely because you live in an oil-producing country could be counted as terrorism...it's the eternal "terrorist or freedom fighter" debate. Even viewing and approving of an extreme point of view is not at all the same thing as having any intention of putting anything into action. "Intent" is a big part of law, and they want to short-circuit that and go straight to "knowing about = guilty of the action". Cunts.
Trying to limit acces to sites informing people how to commit online crime is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard of. They claim that the UK is the top hacking target of 25 countries and they want to limit citizen's ability to look up how it works. How short-sighted and ignorant is is possible to be? Because these twats are surpassing my most pessimistic guesses. So the UK is a top target and they want their citizens whistling innocently through the minefields, totally clueless to the danger they are in. Unbefuckinglievable.