By Nick Heath, 6 March 2008 15:28
NEWS
The Conservatives have criticised the government's response to the growing threat from cyber crime and unveiled plans for a national e-crime unit and a dedicated e-crime minister if they win the next election.
Describing the government policy towards e-crime as showing a "lack of clear leadership", shadow home secretary David Davis revealed Tory plans to create a police national cyber crime unit, a minister for e-crime, a fraud and cyber crime complaint centre and to teach "cyber safety" and "cyber security" to children.
Security from A to Z
Click on the links below to find out more...
A is for Antivirus
B is for Botnets
C is for CMA
D is for DDoS
E is for Extradition
F is for Federated identity
G is for Google
H is for Hackers
I is for IM
J is for Jaschan (Sven)
K is for Kids
L is for Love Bug
M is for Microsoft
N is for Neologisms
O is for Orange
P is for Passwords
Q is for Questions
R is for Rootkits
S is for Spyware
T is for Two-factor authentication
U is for USB sticks/devices
V is for Virus variants
W is for Wi-fi
X is for OS X
Y is for You
Z is for Zero-day
Davis also backed silicon.com's calls for Full Disclosure, saying the Conservatives would introduce laws that would force companies to disclose when they lost their customer's details.
Speaking at the e-crime congress in London he mounted a stinging attack on the government's approach to e-crime, in which he called the decision to absorb the National High Tech Crime Unit into the Serious and Organised Crime Office as "absurd".
Davis said that cyber crime attacks to steal and extort money were a multi-billion business that was now worth more than the international illegal drugs trade.
He said: "I see the internet more as a shopping mall for criminals with plenty of ATMs around the place. The government has created data systems that are valuable, vulnerable and attractive to attack.
"But the national approach to this growing threat of cyber crime and cyber terrorism lacks co-ordination, focus or urgency. You are left with the conclusion that the government does not want to do anything about the problem, their thinking seems to be that 'in cyber space nobody can hear you scream'."
Comments
There are 3 comments. Join the discussion
1. Tim Jackson
The front line against cyber crime does not belong in the police at all. Unlike the so called "war on terror", this is a real war being fought across national boundaries by an identifiable enemy.
We need a MILITARY cyber crime unit with all the powers of the SAS to defend our nation against foreign organisations who are attacking and doing real harm to our country and its citizens.
The police are fine for dealing with the parts of attacks launched or organised from within the UK, but to retaliate against bot-net organisers requires that we fight fire with fire.
2. Haydn Rees
A military solution? Is this an early April Fool? This suggestion is farcical.
The SAS have no powers unless you mean the software, and that only has the power of business intelligence and predictive analysis.
Beef up the CESG if you like. Recruit and retain all the geek-coppers and bright squaddies you like. Badge them any way you like; the people who end up fighting cyber-crime will come from a fairly narrow profile because geekiness is not something you can teach. Penitration Testers/Intrusion Detectors don't have to have; a 140+ I.Q.; bad hair; a Computer Science degree; and be part nocturnal, it's just that most of the people who do it, conform to the description.
It's a technical task, most of which is boring. You can't publicise your successes, and everyone else will publicise your failures.
We will be comprehensively stuffed unless we build a large well funded well-regulated private sector InfoSec industry now.
3. MusicFan
"I see the internet more as a shopping mall for criminals" says shadow home secretary David Davis.
Is this how we want a "would be" government to look at our precious internet?
Imagine the snooping laws they would impose on us if this is really how they look upon it.
NO THANKS
Yes we need better protection and awareness but this is not the viewpoint to take.