Skip to main content
United We Stand – Digitally Divided We Fall

In the coming week, London witnesses a gathering of experts from business, finance, law-enforcement and industry from every corner of the globe. They are here to explore the growing problem of hi-tech crime and what can be done to combat the threat it presents to individuals and a fragile digital economy.



The eCrime Congress has been organised in partnership with the National Hi-tech Crime Unit (NHTCU) and for two days, the Hong Kong Police, The ‘Mounties’, the Met, Interpol, The Department of Homeland Security, FBI and many others, can exchange ideas and information with the Chief Security Officers of the largest international banks and hear both Government and opposition views on the subject.

Can such a gathering make a difference? EURIM’s Philip Virgo has wryly commented, “The only thing saving the information economy from complete collapse, is that organized crime wishes to milk the cow and not kill it” and it is this concern over the growing involvement of organized crime on the Internet that now unites law-enforcement and business across the world.

In the face of fraud, extortion, ‘phishing’ hacking, viruses and worms, the concept of ‘partnership’ has become the watchword in 2004. Chief Superintendent Len Hynds, Director of the NHTCU believes that “With the Internet privately-owned, it’s absolutely essential that a partnership between Government and industry exists to respond to threats from the electronic frontier”. In expressing this opinion, he is finding support from business. “The only way in which we are going to make a collective impact on eCrime”, says Paul Wood MBE, the Managing Director and Chief Security Officer of UBS Investment Bank, “Is when government and industry really start working in partnership rather than in isolation”.

On the opposite side of the Atlantic the experience is no different and Chris Painter, the Deputy Chief - CCIPS, (Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section) at the US Department of Justice argues,” A partnership between the government and the private sector is essential to any effective response to the growing threat posed by electronic crime. Given the speed of advancing technology and the unique and often differing skills law enforcement and industry bring to the table, cooperation expands our tool set and maximizes our chance of success. In addition, partnership fosters trust, the foundation to any program to combat e-crime”.

But can partnership prove effective as a defence against a largely unrestricted environment of the size of the Internet? Bill Thompson the information security investigator at Orange PCS believes “Industry and law enforcement see eCrime from different perspectives but sharing experiences and information are of vital importance if we are to succeed in fighting this new threat”.

Looked upon from the outside however, partnership against crime on the Internet may offer sound common sense, a circling of the wagons against a largely unseen enemy but it also conjures up the proverb, ‘United we stand. Divided we fall’.

With 2004 expected to prove the worst year to date in the story of rising of crime on the Internet, we can only hope that through the exchange of intelligence, ideas and techniques, business and law-enforcement, can find the common ground that will one day lead to a safer and more trustworthy Internet environment. It has never been more urgently needed than it is today and tomorrow may be too late.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Civilisational Data Mining

It’s a new expression I haven’t heard before. ‘Civilisational data mining.’

Let me start by putting it in some context. Every character, you or I have typed into the Google search engine or Facebook over the last decade, means something, to someone or perhaps ‘something,’ if it’s an algorithm.


In May 2014, journalists revealed that the United States National Security Agency, the NSA, was recording and archiving every single cell-phone conversation that took place in the Bahamas. In the process they managed to transform a significant proportion of a society’s day to day interactions into unstructured data; valuable information which can of course be analysed, correlated and transformed for whatever purpose the intelligence agency deems fit.

And today, I read that a GOP-hired data company in the United States has ‘leaked’ personal information, preferences and voting intentions on… wait for it… 198 million US citizens.

Within another decade or so, the cost of sequencing the human genome …

The Nature of Nurture?

Recently, I found myself in a fascinating four-way Twitter exchange, with Professor Adam Rutherford and two other science-minded friends The subject, frequently regarded as a delicate one, genetics and whether there could exist an unknown but contributory genetic factor(s) or influences in determining what we broadly understand or misunderstand as human intelligence.

I won’t discuss this subject in any great detail here, being completely unqualified to do so, but I’ll point you at the document we were discussing, and Rutherford’s excellent new book, ‘A Brief History of Everyone.”

What had sparked my own interest was the story of my own grandfather, Edmond Greville; unless you are an expert on the history of French cinema, you are unlikely to have ever hear of him but he still enjoys an almost cult-like following for his work, half a century after his death.

I've been enjoying the series "Genius" on National Geographic about the life of Albert Einstein. The four of us ha…
The Mandate of Heaven

eGov Monitor Version

“Parliament”, said my distinguished friend “has always leaked like a sieve”.

I’m researching the thorny issue of ‘Confidence in Public Sector Computing’ and we were discussing the dangers presented by the Internet. In his opinion, information security is an oxymoron, which has no place being discussed in a Parliament built upon the uninterrupted flow of information of every kind, from the politically sensitive to the most salacious and mundane.

With the threat of war hanging over us, I asked if MPs should be more aware of the risks that surround this new communications medium? More importantly, shouldn’t the same policies and precautions that any business might use to protect itself and its staff, be available to MPs?

What concerns me is that my well-respected friend mostly considers security in terms of guns, gates and guards. He now uses the Internet almost as much as he uses the telephone and the Fax machine and yet the growing collective t…