[INFOCON]

[INFOCON] Loving the Cyber Bomb? The Dangers of Threat Inflation in Cybersecurity Policy

2012-02-10T23:00:54Z

Loving the Cyber Bomb? The Dangers of Threat Inflation in Cybersecurity Policy

Jerry Brito and Tate Watkins
Harvard Law School
National Security Journal Volume 3

Abstract

There has been no shortage of attention devoted to cybersecurity, with a wide range of experts warning of potential doomsday scenarios should the government not act to better secure the Internet. But this is not the first time we have been warned of impending dangers; indeed, there are many parallels between present portrayals of cyberthreats and the portrayal of Iraq prior to 2003, or the perceived bomber gap in the late 1950s.This Article asks for a better justification for the increased resources devoted to cyber threats. It examines the claims made by those calling for increased attention to cybersecurity, and notes the interests of a military-industrial complex in playing up fears of a “cyber Katrina.” Cybersecurity is undoubtedly an important policy issue. But with a dearth of information regarding the true nature of the threat, it is quite difficult to determine whether certain government policies are warranted—or if this merely represents the latest iteration of
threat inflation benefitting private and parochial political interests.

...

Conclusion

Cybersecurity is an important policy issue, but the alarmist rhetoric coming out of Washington that focuses on worst-case scenarios is unhelpful and dangerous. Aspects of current cyber policy discourse parallel the run-up to the Iraq War and pose the same dangers. Pre-war threat inflation and conflation of threats led us into war on shaky evidence. By focusing on doomsday scenarios and conflating cyber threats, government officials threaten to legislate, regulate, or spend in the name of cybersecurity based largely on fear, misplaced rhetoric, conflated threats, and credulous reporting. The public should have access to classified evidence of cyber threats, and further examination of the risks posed by those threats, before sound policies can be proposed, let alone enacted.

Furthermore, we cannot ignore parallels between the militaryindustrial complex and the burgeoning cybersecurity industry. As President Eisenhower noted, we must have checks and balances on the close relationships between parties in government, defense, and industry. Relationships between these parties and their potential conflicts of interest must be considered when weighing cybersecurity policy recommendations and proposals.

Before enacting policy in response to cyber threats, policymakers should consider a few things. First, they should end the cyber rhetoric. The alarmist rhetoric currently dominating the policy discourse is unhelpful and potentially dangerous. Next, they should declassify evidence relating to cyber threats. Overclassification is a widely acknowledged problem, and declassification would allow the public to verify before trusting blindly. They must also disentangle the disparate cyber threats so that they can determine who is best suited to address which threats. In cases of cyber crime and cyber espionage, for instance, private network owners may be best suited and may have the best incentive to protect their own valuable data, information, and reputations. After disentangling threats, policymakers can then assess whether a market failure or systemic problem exists when it comes to addressing each threat. Finally, they can estimate the costs and benefits of regulation and its a
lternatives and determine the most effective and efficient way to address disparate cyber threats.

No one wants a “cyber Katrina” or a “digital Pearl Harbor.” But honestly assessing cyber threats and appropriate responses does not mean that we have to learn to stop worrying and love the cyber bomb.

Full article:
http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Vol.-3_Brito_Watkins.pdf

[INFOCON] Building Resilience Against Terrorism: Canada�s Counter-terrorism Strategy

2012-02-09T20:48:24Z

Harper Government confronts terrorist threats through new strategy

OTTAWA, February 9, 2012 — Today, the Honourable Vic Toews, Canada’s Minister of Public Safety, released Building Resilience Against Terrorism: Canada’s Counter-terrorism Strategy. The announcement was made at a Colloquium on Identifying Effective Programming to Prevent Terrorism, a meeting of international counter-terrorism experts and practitioners.

“Our government is committed to keeping our streets and communities safe. Canada’s Counter-terrorism Strategy sets out a clear approach for addressing terrorism, with a focus on building community resilience. I’m pleased to launch it today at an event where experts from around the world are exploring the matter of effective terrorism prevention,” said Minister Toews. “Our Government will take all reasonable measures to address real and persistent threats.”

The Counter-terrorism Strategy will help to prioritize the Government’s counter-terrorism efforts and promote an open discussion with Canadians on the threats we face. It also highlights the importance of cooperation with Canada’s international partners, all levels of government, security intelligence and law enforcement agencies, industry stakeholders and civil society.

The Strategy frames Canada’s counter-terrorism activities under four pillars: Prevent, Detect, Deny and Respond. The Government protects Canadians by preventing individuals from engaging in terrorism, detecting the activities of individuals who may pose a terrorist threat, denying terrorists the means and opportunity to carry out their activities, and responding proportionately, rapidly and in an organized manner to terrorist activities to mitigate their effects.

Countering the complex problem of terrorism demands innovative approaches and a global effort. The Government of Canada launched the Kanishka Project (http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/ai182/kpcp/knsh-eng.aspx), named after the Air India Flight 182 aircraft, to fund research to better understand, prevent and counter terrorism. These research projects will help produce more effective policies and tools for people on the front lines, including community leaders, police, lawyers, and judges.

“Preventing another act of terrorism is the most fitting memorial to the victims of the bombing of Air India Flight 182,” said Minister Toews. “The Counter-terrorism Strategy and the Kanishka Project will help us to address the threat of terrorism in all its forms, and build stronger, more resilient communities.”

Follow Public Safety Canada (@Safety_Canada) on Twitter.

*******************************

Building Resilience Against Terrorism: Canada’s Counter-terrorism Strategy

The first priority of the Government of Canada is to protect Canada and the safety and security of Canadians at home and abroad. Building Resilience Against Terrorism, Canada's first Counter-terrorism Strategy, assesses the nature and scale of the threat, and sets out basic principles and elements that underpin the Government's counter-terrorism activities. Together, these principles and elements serve as a means of prioritizing and evaluating the Government's efforts against terrorism.

The overarching goal of the Strategy is to counter domestic and international terrorism in order to protect Canada, Canadians and Canadian interests.
The first priority of the Government of Canada is to protect Canada and the safety and security of Canadians at home and abroad. Building Resilience Against Terrorism, Canada's first Counter-terrorism Strategy, assesses the nature and scale of the threat, and sets out basic principles and elements that underpin the Government's counter-terrorism activities. Together, these principles and elements serve as a means of prioritizing and evaluating the Government's efforts against terrorism.

The overarching goal of the Strategy is to counter domestic and international terrorism in order to protect Canada, Canadians and Canadian interests.

Foreword

The events of September 11, 2001 changed the way the world viewed terrorism. Canada played a leading role in the international community’s efforts to assist Afghanistan to counter the terrorist threat, to promote global peace and security, and to ensure terrorism does not threaten Canadian interests. But even before that, Canada witnessed the devastating tragedy of the Air India bombing that killed 329 people, most of them Canadians. Canada’s capacity to counter terrorist threats on all fronts has increased significantly. The threat persists, however, and recent events in Norway remind us that threats can come from different directions, and that we cannot afford complacency in the face of a complex and evolving threat.

I am pleased to present this Strategy, Building Resilience Against Terrorism, which sets out Canada’s approach to tackling this global and domestic threat. The Strategy reflects the ongoing and multifaceted activities of government departments and agencies that are involved in counter-terrorism. For the first time it sets out, in a coherent and unified format, how these activities contribute to the Government’s Strategy for countering terrorism.

The Strategy enshrines the Government of Canada’s existing approach to countering terrorism. In conjunction with commitments made in the December 2010 Government of Canada Response to the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182, it will help to organize and prioritize counter-terrorism initiatives and investments and ensure that Government activities address the risks we face.

Ensuring the safety and security of its citizens is a key priority for this Government. This objective cannot be met by the federal government alone. Partnership is key to ensuring this security. Only through working with our international allies, and through effective cooperation with all levels of government and civil society, can we achieve these goals. I firmly believe that it is therefore in our shared interest to understand the terrorist threat—and to understand the Strategy for confronting it. Building Resilience Against Terrorism is an important contribution to this partnership between citizens and Government.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Introduction
The Terrorist Threat
Aim and Fundamental Principles
The Strategy: Prevent, Detect, Deny and Respond
Prevent
Detect
Deny
Respond
Way Forward
Annex A: Roles and Responsibilities Relating to Counter-terrorism
Annex B: Counter-terrorism Legal Framework
Annex C: Implementation Approach
Annex D: List of Acronyms and Glossary

...

Building Resilience Against Terrorism: Canada’s Counter-terrorism Strategy
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/2012-cts-eng.aspx

Building Resilience Against Terrorism: Canada’s Counter-terrorism Strategy (Adobe Acrobat version (PDF 602Kb))
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/_fl/2012-cts-eng.pdf

[INFOCON] Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

2012-01-31T19:13:41Z

Open Hearing: Current and Projected National Security Threats to the United States

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Honorable James R. Clapper
Director of National Intelligence

Full
http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20120131_testimony_ata.pdf

***************************
Terrorism
***************************

The next two to three years will be a critical transition phase for the terrorist threat facing the United States, particularly from al-Qa‟ida and like-minded groups, which we often refer to as the “global jihadist movement.” During this transition, we expect leadership of the movement to become more decentralized, with “core” al-Qa‟ida—the Pakistan-based group formerly led by Usama bin Ladin—diminishing in operational importance; regional al-Qa‟ida affiliates planning and attempting terrorist attacks; multiple voices providing inspiration for the movement; and more vigorous debate about local versus global agendas. We assess that with continued robust counterterrorism (CT) efforts and extensive cooperation with our allies and partners, there is a better-than-even chance that decentralization will lead to fragmentation of the movement within a few years. With fragmentation, core al-Qa‟ida will likely be of largely symbolic importance to the movement
; regional groups, and to a lesser extent small cells and individuals, will drive the global jihad agenda both within the United States and abroad.

...

***********************************************************
Cyber Threats: An Evolving and Strategic Concern
***********************************************************

Major Trends

Cyber threats pose a critical national and economic security concern due to the continued advances in—and growing dependency on—the information technology (IT) that underpins nearly all aspects of modern society. Data collection, processing, storage, and transmission capabilities are increasing exponentially; meanwhile, mobile, wireless, and cloud computing bring the full power of the globally-connected Internet to myriad personal devices and critical infrastructure. Owing to market incentives, innovation in functionality is outpacing innovation in security, and neither the public nor private sector has been successful at fully implementing existing best practices. The impact of this evolution is seen not only in the scope and nature of cyber security incidents, but also in the range of actors and targets. In the last year, we observed increased breadth and sophistication of computer network operations (CNO) by both state and nonstate actors. Our technical advancements
in detection and attribution shed light on malicious activity, but cyber intruders continue to explore new means to circumvent defensive measures.

Among state actors, China and Russia are of particular concern. As indicated in the October 2011 biennial economic espionage report from the National Counterintelligence Executive, entities within these countries are responsible for extensive illicit intrusions into US computer networks and theft of US intellectual property.

Nonstate actors are also playing an increasing role in international and domestic politics through the use of social media technologies. We currently face a cyber environment where emerging technologies are developed and implemented faster than governments can keep pace, as illustrated by the failed efforts at censoring social media during the 2011 Arab Spring revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. Hacker groups, such as Anonymous and Lulz Security (LulzSec), have conducted
distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks and website defacements against government and corporate interests they oppose. The well publicized intrusions into NASDAQ and International Monetary Fund (IMF) networks underscore the vulnerability of key sectors of the US and global economy.

Hackers are also circumventing network security by targeting companies that produce security technologies, highlighting the challenges to securing online data in the face of adaptable intruders. The compromise of US and Dutch digital certificate issuers in 2011 represents a threat to one of the most fundamental technologies used to secure online communications and sensitive transactions, such as online banking. Hackers also accessed the corporate network of the computer security firm
RSA in March 2011 and exfiltrated data on the algorithms used in its authentication system. Subsequently, a US defense contractor revealed that hackers used the information obtained from RSA to access its network.

Outlook

We assess that CNO is likely to increase in coming years. Two of our greatest strategic challenges regarding cyber threats are: (1) the difficulty of providing timely, actionable warning of cyber threats and incidents, such as identifying past or present security breaches, definitively attributing them, and accurately distinguishing between cyber espionage intrusions and potentially disruptive cyber attacks; and (2) the highly complex vulnerabilities associated with the IT supply chain for US networks. In both cases, US Government engagement with private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructures is essential for mitigating these threats.

...

Cyber-Enabled Espionage. FIS have launched numerous computer network operations targeting US Government agencies, businesses, and universities. We assess that many intrusions into US networks are not being detected. Although most activity detected to date has been targeted against unclassified networks connected to the Internet, foreign cyber actors have also begun targeting classified networks.

...

We judge that evolving business practices and information technology will provide even more opportunities for FIS, trusted insiders, hackers, and others to collect sensitive US economic data. Corporate supply chains and financial networks will increasingly rely on global links that can be exploited by foreign collectors, and the growing use of cloud data processing and storage may present new challenges to the security and integrity of sensitive information.

...

[INFOCON] Al-Qaeda's Centre of Gravity: A Discussion with NYPD Intel Chief

2012-01-30T17:30:16Z

[I attended the event last week and it was very interesting, especially the Q&A session. WEN]

Al-Qaeda's Centre of Gravity: A Discussion with NYPD Intel Chief

ICSR, King's College London
http://icsr.info/

On Thursday 26 January, the New York Police Department’s Head of Intelligence Analysis, Mitch Silber, presented the findings of his latest book at an ICSR seminar. In The Al-Qaeda Factor: Plots Against the West, Silber analyses sixteen of the biggest jihadist plots against Western countries in order to determine the precise role, if any, played by the central al-Qaeda organisation.

His findings include the following:

* Al-Qaeda Core’s actual role in plots against the West has been overstated, though their importance as an external inspiration endures

* Much more of the “action of the conspiracies” has taken place in the West, by Westerners, independent of Al-Qaeda.

* Al-Qaeda has not actively recruited in the West; rather the plots are underpinned by a “bottom-up” process, driven by individuals in the West who radicalise and then take the initiative to go overseas for training or to get into the fight. #

* Al-Qaeda has been opportunistic, taking advantage of the Westerners who have shown up on its doorstep to utilise them in plots against the West.

* Post Bin-Laden, given the combination of Westerners who continue to radicalise/mobilise plus the rise of other important nodes in al Qaeda’s worldwide network of allies and affiliates, the threat from al Qaeda type terrorism has not ended.

For a full audio of the presentation
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13850824/silber%20-%20main.mp3

To download a copy Mr. Silber’s Powerpoint presentation
http://icsr.info/news/attachments/1327935997AQFactorslides.Jan.12.ppt

For more information on the book, please click here.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Qaeda-Factor-Plots-Against/dp/0812244028/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327935938&sr=1-1

Reference
http://icsr.info/news/al-qaedas-centre-of-gravity-a-discussion-with-nypd-intel-chief

[INFOCON] IWS Twitter

2012-01-30T16:50:12Z

The IWS twitter can be found at https://twitter.com/#!/wanjaericnaef

Recent Tweets:

Norway convicts two men over al-Qaeda plot on Danish newspaper - Telegraph
11 minutes ago

Facebook scammers leverage the Amazon Cloud:
1 hour ago

SEC Goes After Online Trading Firms That Unwittingly Helped Latvian Hacker | Threat Level
28 Jan

Middle East Cyber Hacking Timeline
26 Jan

A jury has been selected in the trial of nine terror suspects accused of plotting attacks on major London landmarks
26 Jan

Tension in Yemen: Al-Qaida Activity Puts Regime Change in Doubt - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
26 Jan

Cairo Contagion: Military Tracks Uprising's 'Infectious' Ideas | Danger Room | Wired.com
25 Jan

O2 shares your mobile phone number with every website you visit
25 Jan

EC Commission proposes a comprehensive reform of the data protection rules #EU #dataprotection #privacy
25 Jan

Al Qaeda Affiliate Targets US Ships: Report - ABC News #alqaeda #terrorism
25 Jan

Brief Overview Of The Leaked EU Data Protection Regulation edri.org/edrigram/numbe… #EU #privacy Draft
25 Jan

President Mentions Cyber-Threats in State of the Union Address
25 Jan

USA v. Convicted Hacker Kim Schmitz Kim Dotcom - Indictment 4law.co.il/mega5112.pdf #MegaUpload #FBI
24 Jan

10K Reasons to Worry About Critical Infrastructure | Threat Level | Wired.com #CNI #CIP
24 Jan

New EU data laws to include 24hr breach notification #privacy #EU
24 Jan

UK ranks 21st in Europe for privacy protection #cyber #privacy #ICO
24 Jan

File sharing sites snapping shut like scared clams in MegaUpload backwash
24 Jan

Flaws in Videoconferencing Systems Make Boardrooms Vulnerable
24 Jan

Hackers-for-Hire Are Easy to Find
23 Jan

Anonymous dupes users into joining Megaupload attack
23 Jan

One Million Ways to Die - How likely are you, statistically speaking, to die from a terrorist attack
23 Jan

https://twitter.com/#!/wanjaericnaef

[INFOCON] EU Commission proposes a comprehensive reform of the data protection rules

2012-01-25T14:00:25Z

EU Commission proposes a comprehensive reform of the data protection rules

Brussels, 25 January 2012 – The European Commission has today proposed a comprehensive reform of the EU's 1995 data protection rules to strengthen online privacy rights and boost Europe's digital economy. Technological progress and globalisation have profoundly changed the way our data is collected, accessed and used. In addition, the 27 EU Member States have implemented the 1995 rules differently, resulting in divergences in enforcement. A single law will do away with the current fragmentation and costly administrative burdens, leading to savings for businesses of around €2.3 billion a year. The initiative will help reinforce consumer confidence in online services, providing a much needed boost to growth, jobs and innovation in Europe.

"17 years ago less than 1% of Europeans used the internet. Today, vast amounts of personal data are transferred and exchanged, across continents and around the globe in fractions of seconds," said EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, the Commission’s Vice-President. "The protection of personal data is a fundamental right for all Europeans, but citizens do not always feel in full control of their personal data. My proposals will help build trust in online services because people will be better informed about their rights and in more control of their information. The reform will accomplish this while making life easier and less costly for businesses. A strong, clear and uniform legal framework at EU level will help to unleash the potential of the Digital Single Market and foster economic growth, innovation and job creation."

The Commission's proposals update and modernise the principles enshrined in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to guarantee privacy rights in the future. They include a policy Communication setting out the Commission's objectives and two legislative proposals: a Regulation setting out a general EU framework for data protection and a Directive on protecting personal data processed for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences and related judicial activities.

Key changes in the reform include:

* A single set of rules on data protection, valid across the EU. Unnecessary administrative requirements, such as notification requirements for companies, will be removed. This will save businesses around €2.3 billion a year.

* Instead of the current obligation of all companies to notify all data protection activities to data protection supervisors – a requirement that has led to unnecessary paperwork and costs businesses €130 million per year, the Regulation provides for increased responsibility and accountability for those processing personal data.

* For example, companies and organisations must notify the national supervisory authority of serious data breaches as soon as possible (if feasible within 24 hours).

* Organisations will only have to deal with a single national data protection authority in the EU country where they have their main establishment. Likewise, people can refer to the data protection authority in their country, even when their data is processed by a company based outside the EU. Wherever consent is required for data to be processed, it is clarified that it has to be given explicitly, rather than assumed.

* People will have easier access to their own data and be able to transfer personal data from one service provider to another more easily (right to data portability). This will improve competition among services.

* A ‘right to be forgotten’ will help people better manage data protection risks online: people will be able to delete their data if there are no legitimate grounds for retaining it.

* EU rules must apply if personal data is handled abroad by companies that are active in the EU market and offer their services to EU citizens.

* Independent national data protection authorities will be strengthened so they can better enforce the EU rules at home. They will be empowered to fine companies that violate EU data protection rules. This can lead to penalties of up to €1 million or up to 2% of the global annual turnover of a company.

* A new Directive will apply general data protection principles and rules for police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The rules will apply to both domestic and cross-border transfers of data.

The Commission's proposals will now be passed on to the European Parliament and EU Member States (meeting in the Council of Ministers) for discussion. They will take effect two years after they have been adopted.

Background

Personal data is any information relating to an individual, whether it relates to his or her private, professional or public life. It can be anything from a name, a photo, an email address, bank details, your posts on social networking websites, your medical information, or your computer's IP address. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights says that everyone has the right to personal data protection in all aspects of life: at home, at work, whilst shopping, when receiving medical treatment, at a police station or on the Internet.

In the digital age, the collection and storage of personal information are essential. Data is used by all businesses – from insurance firms and banks to social media sites and search engines. In a globalised world, the transfer of data to third countries has become an important factor in daily life. There are no borders online and cloud computing means data may be sent from Berlin to be processed in Boston and stored in Bangalore.

On 4 November 2010, the Commission set out a strategy to strengthen EU data protection rules (IP/10/1462 and MEMO/10/542). The goals were to protect individuals' data in all policy areas, including law enforcement, while reducing red tape for business and guaranteeing the free circulation of data within the EU. The Commission invited reactions to its ideas and also carried out a separate public consultation to revise the EU’s 1995 Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC).

EU data protection rules aim to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular the right to data protection, as well as the free flow of data. This general Data Protection Directive has been complemented by other legal instruments, such as the e-Privacy Directive for the communications sector. There are also specific rules for the protection of personal data in police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA).

The right to the protection of personal data is explicitly recognised by Article 8 of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights and by the Lisbon Treaty. The Treaty provides a legal basis for rules on data protection for all activities within the scope of EU law under Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/120125_en.htm

[INFOCON] Dark Market: Cyber thieves, cyber cops and you (full recording including audience Q&A)

2011-11-30T18:18:31Z

Dark Market: Cyber thieves, cyber cops and you
Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce
15th Sep 2011; 13:00

RSA Thursday

The benefits of living in a digital, globalised society are enormous, but so too are the dangers. The world has become a law enforcer’s nightmare and a criminal’s dream.

Governments and the private sector are losing billions of dollars each year, fighting an increasingly invisible, super-smart breed of criminal: the hacker. The investigation into so-called 'hacktivists' like LulzSec, Topiary and Anonymous has led to the Met quadrupling its cybercrime unit, but are these units really effective, and how can they keep pace with the ever-morphing nature of cybercrime?

We bank online, shop online, date, learn, work and live online. But have the institutions that keep us safe on the streets learned to protect us in the burgeoning digital world? Have we become complacent about our personal security – sharing our thoughts, beliefs and the details of our daily lives with anyone who cares to relieve us of them?

Misha Glenny, historian, journalist, and author of the international bestseller McMafia, explores the three fundamental threats facing us in the 21st century: cyber crime, cyber warfare and cyber industrial espionage.

Chair: John Kampfner, chief executive, Index on Censorship and author of Freedom for Sale (Simon and Schuster, 2010)

http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2011/dark-market-cyber-thieves,-cyber-cops-and-you

Listen to the audio (full recording including audience Q&A)
http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2011/?a=431424

[INFOCON] UK Cyber Security Strategy

2011-11-25T11:27:04Z

... Because prevention is key, we will work to raise awareness and to educate and empower people and firms to protect themselves online. 80% or more of currently successful attacks exploit weakness that can be avoided by following
simple best practice, such as updating antimalware software regularly. ...

*********************************

UK Cyber Security Strategy

...

Our vision is for the UK in 2015 to derive huge economic and social value from a vibrant, resilient and secure cyberspace, where our actions, guided by our core values of liberty, fairness, transparency and the rule of law, enhance prosperity,
national security and a strong society.

To achieve this vision by 2015 we want:

Objective 1: The UK to tackle cyber crime and be one of the most secure places in the world to do business in cyberspace

Objective 2: The UK to be more resilient to cyber attacks and better able to protect our interests in cyberspace

Objective 3: The UK to have helped shape an open, stable and vibrant cyberspace which the UK public can use safely and that supports open societies

Objective 4: The UK to have the cross-cutting knowledge, skills and capability it needs to underpin all our cyber security objectives

...

4. Action: Meeting threats, taking opportunities

Priorities for action
4.5 We will build on the UK’s existing strengths as follows:

• We will continue to improve our detection and analysis of sophisticated cyber threats, with a focus on the UK’s critical national infrastructure, and other systems of national interest.

• As part of this we will pool knowledge and situational awareness as appropriate with partners across business to build a genuinely national response.

• We will enhance our capability to defend against and deter high-end, state-sponsored threats, and to prevent these techniques becoming available to non-state actors.

• We will work internationally to develop international principles or ‘rules of the road’ for behaviour in cyberspace. We will work with other countries on practical confidence-building measures to reduce the risk of escalation and avoid misunderstandings.

• The UK has ratified the Budapest Convention on cyber crime and will work to persuade other countries to develop compatible laws, so that cyber crimes can be prosecuted across borders and cyber criminals are denied safe havens.

• At home we will maintain an effective legal framework and enforcement capabilities to disrupt and prosecute cyber crime. We will make it easier to report cyber crime and ensure that the intelligence from reporting is fed back into effective action and advice to the public. Where appropriate we will use cyber-relevant sanctions to tackle cyber crimes like online bullying or internet scams.

• We will model best practice on cyber security in the Government’s own systems, setting strong standards for suppliers to government to ensure we raise the bar.

• We will promote the development of a cadre of skilled cyber security professionals so that the UK continues to retain an edge in this area, together with the underlying research and development to keep producing innovative solutions

• Because prevention is key, we will work to raise awareness and to educate and empower people and firms to protect themselves online. 80% or more of currently successful attacks exploit weakness that can be avoided by following
simple best practice, such as updating antimalware software regularly.

• We will create a thriving market in cyber security products and services that can win the UK business abroad and contribute to growth. It will also enable us to promote the UK as a good place to do business in cyberspace.

Building capacity to deter and defend against high-end threats

4.6 The 2010 NATO Lisbon Summit highlighted the cyber domain as an area of significant new risk and opportunity for the Alliance. The new Strategic Concept committed the Alliance to:“develop further our ability to prevent, detect, defend against and recover from cyber-attacks, including by using the NATO planning process to enhance and coordinate national cyberdefence capabilities, bringing all NATO bodies under centralized cyber protection, and better integrating NATO cyber awareness, warning and response with member nations”.

4.7 In keeping with the NATO Strategic Concept, and with the agreement of the National Security Council, the NCSP is investing to ensure we take a more proactive approach to tackling cyber threats and exploiting the cyber environment for our own
national security needs.

4.8 In the Ministry of Defence, investment in ensuring military networks and equipment are protected against cyber attack is already underway. The new Joint Forces Command will take the lead in the development and integration of defence cyber capabilities from April 2012.

4.9 As part of this we are creating a new Defence Cyber Operations Group to bring together cyber capabilities from across defence. The group will include a Joint Cyber Unit hosted by GCHQ at Cheltenham whose role will be to develop new
tactics, techniques and plans to deliver military effects, including enhanced security, through operations in cyberspace. We will also consider the future contribution of reservists in bringing in specialist cyber knowledge and skills.

4.10 The Ministry of Defence has recently opened a new Global Operations and Security Control Centre, located at Corsham, to act as a focus for cyber defence for the armed forces. A second Joint Cyber Unit embedded within the centre at Corsham will develop and use a range of new techniques, including proactive measures, to disrupt threats to our information security.

4.11 The Ministry of Defence is also strengthening relations with key allies and with industry to improve our collective awareness of and response to cyber threats, vulnerabilities and incidents.

4.12 Around half of the £650 million funding will go towards enhancing the UK’s core capability, based mainly at GCHQ at Cheltenham, to detect and counter cyber attacks. The details of this work are necessarily classified, but it will strengthen and
upgrade the sovereign capability the UK needs to confront the high-end threat.

...

*********************************************

WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
CABINET OFFICE
25 November 2011
Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General: The UK Cyber Security
Strategy: Protecting and Promoting the UK in a Digital World
______________________________________________________________________
Francis Maude
I have today published the new Cyber Security Strategy for the United Kingdom. I have placed a copy in the Library.

The growth of the internet has transformed our everyday lives.

But with greater openness, interconnection and dependency comes greater vulnerability.

The threat to our national security from cyber attacks is real and growing. Organised criminals, terrorists, hostile states, and ‘hacktivists’ are all seeking to exploit cyber space to their own ends.

This Government has moved swiftly to tackle the growing danger posed by cyber attacks. Our National Security Strategy published last year classed cyber security as one of our top priorities alongside international terrorism, international military crises and natural disasters. To support the implementation of our objectives we have committed new funding of £650m over four years for a transformative National Cyber Security Programme (NCSP) to strengthen the UK’s cyber capabilities.

The new Cyber Security Strategy we have published today sets out how the UK will tackle cyber threats to promote economic growth and to protect our nation’s security and our way of life.

One of our key aims is to make the UK one of the most secure places in the world to do business. Currently, around 6 per cent of the UK’s GDP is enabled by the internet and this is set to grow. But with this opportunity comes greater threats. Online crime including intellectual property theft costs the UK economy billions each year. So we must take steps to preserve this growth, by tackling cyber crime and bolstering our defences, to ensure that confidence in the internet as a way of communicating and transacting remains.

The Government cannot tackle this challenge alone. The private sector - which owns, maintains and creates most of the very spaces we are seeking to defend – has a crucial role to play too. This strategy outlines how we will cement a real and meaningful partnership between the Government and private sector in the fight against cyber attacks, to help improve security, build our reputation as a safe place to do business online, and turn threats into opportunities by fostering a strong UK market in cyber security solutions.

Together with the private sector, we are pioneering a new national cyber security ‘hub’ that will allow the Government and businesses to exchange information on threats and responses. This promises to transform the way we manage cyber attacks and greatly strengthen our security capacity. We will work with the business services sector to raise industry awareness. We will also work with industry to develop private-sector led standards for cyber security that help consumers navigate the market in security products and give firms who are good at security the means to make it a selling point.

The UK is a world leader in cyber security research, development and innovation. GCHQ is the lead in this area and the new strategy aims to capitalise on this through an innovative approach which will explore options with UK industry to harness this expertise and know-how for the benefit of the UK economy.

This strategy also outlines our plans for a new Cyber Crime Unit with the National Crime Agency, to be up and running by 2013. This unit will build on the ground-breaking work of the Metropolitan Police’s eCrime Unit by expanding the deployment of ‘cyber-specials’ giving police forces across the country the necessary skills and experience to handle cyber crimes. We will also ensure that the police use existing powers to ensure that cyber criminals are appropriately sanctioned as well as introducing a new single reporting system to report financially motivated cyber crime through the existing Action Fraud reporting centre.

To defend against significant threats we need to continue the work we are doing to protect and prepare our Critical National Infrastructure. We also need to update our military defence capabilities for a new cyber world; this strategy outlines the creation of a new Joint Cyber Unit hosted by GCHQ which will develop our military capabilities to give the UK a comparative advantage in cyberspace.We will also strengthen the role of the Centre for Protection of the National Infrastructure to increase its reach to organisations that have not previously been considered as part of the critical infrastructure thereby augmenting our ability to protect critical systems and intellectual property.

Prevention and education are also crucial. Get Safe Online is a very good example of how government, industry and law enforcement can work together to address this issue and improve the website by early 2012. In addition, we will work with ISPs to seek a new voluntary code of conduct to help people identify if their computers have been compromised and what they can do about it.

Cyber risks are transnational in nature. We will work with other countries to tackle them. Through the London Cyber Conference, hosted by the Foreign Secretary earlier this month, the UK is taking a lead in addressing international discussions on how we can establish a more focused international dialogue to develop principles to guide the behaviour of Governments and others in cyberspace. We will continue to foster this level of international dialogue through various fora and through international cooperation on tackling cyber crime.

This strategy sets out the change that is needed; we now need to work together to deliver it. The Government will update the House in a year’s time on how we are doing.

********************

Cyber Security Strategy

The new Cyber Security Strategy was published on 25 November 2011.

It sets out how the UK will support economic prosperity, protect national security and safeguard the public’s way of life by building a more trusted and resilient digital environment.

Downloads

The UK Cyber Security Strategy
The UK Cyber Security Strategy - Written Ministerial Statement

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/cyber-security-strategy

[INFOCON] Lone wolf terror suspect arrested in New York City - Press Release and Complaint

2011-11-21T21:34:41Z

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PR- 416-11
November 20, 2011

MAYOR BLOOMBERG, POLICE COMMISSIONER KELLY AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY VANCE UPDATE NEW YORKERS ON ARREST OF SUSPECT IN TERROR CASE

The following are Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s remarks as delivered at City Hall tonight

“Good evening. I’m joined by Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance.

“Yesterday afternoon, New York City police officers arrested a 27-year-old Al Qaeda sympathizer who was plotting to bomb police patrol cars and also postal facilities, as well as target members of our Armed Forces returning from abroad.

“Jose Pimentel of Washington Heights, which is in the northern end of Manhattan, faces terrorism-related charges that District Attorney Vance will discuss in a moment.

“Earlier today, I also described this case to U.S. Congressman Pete King, the chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, who has long been a champion of Federal support for the NYPD’s counter-terrorism efforts.

“The NYPD Intelligence Division did outstanding work in tracking this individual and containing the threat he posed to the city. The police also constructed a duplicate of an explosive device that the suspect built, and then detonated it in a way that he intended to use his weapon. We wanted to show you a video about the resulting damage.

“I should point out that our staff briefed the Governor’s staff on this earlier this evening, and I’ve asked Commissioner Kelly to discuss this case in greater detail. But first, let me make these observations.

“The suspect was a so-called lone wolf, motivated by his own resentment of the presence of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as inspired by Al Qaeda propaganda. He was not part of a larger conspiracy emanating from abroad. He represents exactly the kind of threat FBI Director Robert Mueller and his experts have warned about, as American military and intelligence agencies have eroded Al Qaeda's ability to launch large-scale attacks.

“This case is also reminiscent of another lone wolf plot in 2004 in which two New Yorkers angry over the treatment of prisoners in Iraq plotted to bomb the Herald Square subway station. Like the current case, the Herald Square plot was uncovered by the NYPD Intelligence Division.

“And as with still another case earlier this year in which a lone wolf plotted to attack a large synagogue, the NYPD teamed-up with the Manhattan District Attorney's office to prosecute Pimentel under State terrorism-related statutes.

“Whether launched by lone wolves, Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda affiliates, there have been at least 13 previous terrorist plots since 9/11 targeting New York City. This would be the fourteenth.

“Because of such repeated threats, the NYPD remains focused on preventing another terrorist attack. We assign a thousand officers to counter-terrorism duties every single day. This is just another case where our precautions paid off.

“Now let me ask Commissioner Kelly to provide details.”

*******************
Complaint:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2011/jose_pimentel_complaint.pdf

[INFOCON] UK Foreign Secretary spoke about the role of secret intelligence in foreign policy

2011-11-16T18:13:25Z

... In this speech I will explain how Intelligence is used within Government to inform decisions about foreign and security policy and to help implement it, alongside the work of our diplomats, our Armed Forces and other agencies of government.
I will illustrate the extraordinary importance of the contribution of the Intelligence Agencies as well their ingenuity and resourcefulness. And I will set out what the Government is doing to tackle the lessons of the past, and to strengthen the independent and Parliamentary oversight of the Agencies for the future. ...

Securing our future

16 November 2011

Foreign Secretary William Hague spoke about the role of secret intelligence in foreign policy in a speech on 16 November.

Speaker: Foreign Secretary William Hague

Location: Foreign & Commonwealth Office, London

Good afternoon and thank you all for coming to hear me speak on the role of Secret Intelligence in Britain’s foreign policy. This is an unusual topic for a Foreign Secretary to discuss in public, but there are important reasons to do so and I shall set them out.

I believe it is vital that the British public and Parliament have confidence in the Agencies’ ability to keep us safe and to do so within the framework of the law; and that they also have confidence in government using this capability wisely, and in accordance with our democratic values and principles of domestic and international law.

In this speech I will explain how Intelligence is used within Government to inform decisions about foreign and security policy and to help implement it, alongside the work of our diplomats, our Armed Forces and other agencies of government.

I will illustrate the extraordinary importance of the contribution of the Intelligence Agencies as well their ingenuity and resourcefulness.

And I will set out what the Government is doing to tackle the lessons of the past, and to strengthen the independent and Parliamentary oversight of the Agencies for the future.

As Foreign Secretary I am responsible for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office here; for nearly 15,000 staff in Britain and overseas, our network of 262 Embassies and other diplomatic offices and for the six other Foreign Office Ministers.
But I am also directly responsible, under the overall authority of the Prime Minister, for the Secret Intelligence Service, SIS, and the Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ. My colleague the Home Secretary is responsible for the Security Service, SyS.

We are much more open about the Agencies than we were even twenty years ago. Today I am pleased to welcome Sir John Sawers, the Chief of SIS, Iain Lobban, the Director of GCHQ and Jonathan Evans, the Director General of SyS to this event. It is not that many years ago that the identities of their predecessors were a secret.

But I cannot speak about the Agencies the way I talk about the Foreign Office, and nor would you expect me to. Intelligence operations are secret and must remain so.

The reason that the Agencies operate in secret is so that we can protect the lives of those who we rely on to carry out this dangerous work for us, and so that we do not reveal details of how they do it. Threats are launched at us secretly, new weapons systems are developed secretly and countries or terrorist groups that plan attacks or operations against us do so in secrecy. We need a covert capability to monitor threats and to contribute to timely action against them.

But the need for secrecy places additional importance on the Foreign Secretary’s accountability to Parliament for GCHQ and SIS. This is one of the indispensable foundations of public confidence, and one that I will personally strive to strengthen. I pay tribute to the Intelligence and Security Committee and its predecessors, along with many other individual Parliamentarians who have long made a distinguished contribution in this area.

As Foreign Secretary, I see operational proposals from the Agencies every day, amounting to hundreds every year. The proposals are detailed. They set out the planned operation, the potential risks and the likely benefits of the information to be gained. They include substantial legal sections which set out the basis for the operation and comments from senior Foreign Office officials and lawyers. I discuss these with them and with officials from the Agencies, and I often work closely with the Home Secretary. These are often not easy decisions, and the majority involve judgments about cooperating with other countries. I take ultimate responsibility for these operations, and I do not approve them all.

I do not see my responsibility for SIS and GCHQ as something separate to my role as Foreign Secretary; it is an absolutely integral part of it. Many of the most important priorities in foreign policy, from stabilising Afghanistan and helping Pakistan to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, all have an intelligence component.

Our nation’s Armed Forces, diplomats, Intelligence personnel and police all perform distinct and different roles. The purpose of Government in that regard is to draw on their capabilities and marshall their resources in a way that serves the country’s overall objectives: at home a safe, stable democracy in which our liberties are safeguarded, and abroad a secure and peaceful environment that supports economic growth, prosperity and freedom.

We have come to government determined to draw these capabilities together better than ever before and on the basis of a clear vision of Britain’s role in the world.

We are setting out to strengthen the central role of the Foreign Office, make sustainable the finances of the MoD and to improve the overall strategic direction of foreign policy.

We have a National Security Strategy that calls for the use of all our national advantages - our diplomacy and membership of the UN Security Council, EU, NATO and the Commonwealth, our international development programmes, our Armed Forces and defence diplomacy, our cultural assets and our intelligence services - to build up our nation’s influence in the world, to prevent conflict and to avert threats beyond our shores.

We now have a National Security Council to ensure that this strategic objective runs through the veins of the whole of Government and that policies are not confined to Departmental silos. Whether it is overseeing the mission in Libya, on which the National Security Council met 60 times, or building a whole new set of stronger relationships with countries in Latin America, we need foreign policy to be pursued across the whole of Government. The NSC brings together all the key Cabinet Ministers, the Heads of the Armed Forces and the Heads of the Intelligence Services. They now see the same information and formally discuss policy more frequently than has ever been the case in the past, outside conditions of world war. NSC meetings are minuted and form part of the Cabinet Office record of central government.

And we have ambitious efforts in hand to build up the Foreign Office as an institution, with an expanded reach in the parts of the world that matter most to our security and our economy and a remit to pursue a more expeditionary and creative British foreign policy. We are sending more diplomatic staff to over twenty countries, opening six new Embassies and up to seven new Consulates in the emerging powers, and we have begun the biggest drive ever seen to enhance the diplomatic skills of the Foreign Office.

This intensified national effort is so important because we are at a vital juncture in world affairs.

The shift in economic power and influence South and East in the world, and its dispersal among a larger group of nations, has been accelerated by the global financial crisis. It has real implications for our prosperity and our security. It makes it harder for our nation to earn its living in the world, and means that there are more countries and centres of power which we now need to understand, to influence and in which we must be strongly represented.

At the same time the constant evolution of cyberspace is introducing additional complexity to foreign affairs; fuelling an explosion of new connections between governments, economies and citizens, which is overwhelmingly positive but also permits the transfusion of new threats. The same digital means that are bringing hope and opportunity to millions around the world and fuelling change in the Middle East also empower terrorists, criminals and some states with new means of attack and organisation.

In this period of uncertainty and turbulence it is important that our foreign policy ranges further afield to look for new partners and to tackle global challenges.

Our Intelligence Agencies are vital assets in this whole of Government effort. They harness the skills of people, the latest technology and trusted partnerships to help us address international risk.

They have a fundamental and indispensable role to play in keeping our nation safe and helping us to understand other countries.

Properly used, Secret Intelligence saves both military and civilian lives, protects our economy, stops criminals and makes a critical contribution to our diplomatic and military success.

I see daily evidence of the integrity, skill and professionalism of the men and women of GCHQ, SIS and SyS.

Because I work so closely with them, I know that their values are the finest values of the United Kingdom.

I also know that they rarely receive the recognition they deserve for their contribution.

Like our diplomats they are impartial and loyal crown servants – not servants of any particular government.

It takes a particularly special person as well to work in an environment where your identity is concealed from those around you, your successes, your bravery and the danger you face go largely unnoticed, and in which you may never answer back at public criticism.

To have just a few people with that sense of commitment, loyalty and service to our nation would be something to prize. But we have entire Agencies like that. I count myself lucky to know them and to work with them.
I also know that the Home Secretary has the highest of praise for the work of the Security Service.

We use our Intelligence Agencies for specific needs which only they in Government are equipped to address.

They provide an early warning system against States which take actions which are hostile to us or to our interests – such as developing nuclear weapons – or which they may seek to do so in the future.

All three agencies work closely together and with others around the world to safeguard the security and national interests of the UK against those who try to steal our confidential information in cyberspace or to conduct cyber attacks. GCHQ uses its sophisticated capabilities to identify these electronic attacks and advises Government on how to secure our networks against them. SIS seeks to understand how states approach the cyber world and their overall intent. Working with our allies around the world, our intelligence agencies work closely together to safeguard the UK against future cyber threats and attacks, to exploit cyber tools and applications and to develop operations online.

They disrupt complex plots against the UK, such as when would-be terrorists in Britain travel abroad to gain training in bomb-making. In doing so, SIS and GCHQ work increasingly closely on a daily basis, often as part of a single team, with colleagues and officers from the Security Service and the police, in different parts of the UK and across the world.

In one recent case members of a UK network travelled overseas for terrorist training. The Agencies were able to detect their intentions. Agents recruited by SIS reported on what the group were doing. This revealed that members of the network had discussed mounting attacks in the UK. Once the plot was revealed to us, we were able to approach the Government in question and work with it to arrange the lawful arrest of a key figure in the network which disrupted the conspiracy before such plans could be developed. The Home Secretary and I were kept closely in the picture throughout. In an increasingly interconnected world, this kind of joint operation, with close inter-agency working that is the envy of the world, allows us to focus first and foremost on prosecuting terrorists wherever we can.

Without our Intelligence Agencies, terrorist groups would have free rein to harm British citizens here and abroad, and successful operations like this would not be possible. But they are also a resource that inform the making of foreign policy.
They have the capabilities to find out things that are beyond the reach of everyday diplomacy, filling in some of the blanks in our understanding of other countries and governments. Our Agencies’ ability to derive secret intelligence from human sources, from defectors and from intercepted communications is a vital asset. The better our information is, the more we are equipped as a Government to make the right decisions.

We should be proud of Britain’s role in securing intervention in Libya to and stop Qadhafi from massacring his own people. This diplomatic and military success was also backed by effective intelligence. Throughout the conflict in Libya, the agencies used their global capabilities to provide insight into the intentions of pro-Qadhafi forces and to understand the progress of the battles around Brega, Misrata and finally Tripoli.

They worked to identify key political figures, develop contacts with the emerging opposition and provide political and military intelligence. Most importantly, they saved lives. For example the Qadhafi regime tried to attack the National Transitional Council in Benghazi, and to kill some of the Western representatives in Libya. The Agencies obtained firm intelligence, were able to warn the NTC of the threat and the attacks were prevented.

This also illustrates the Agencies’ ability to develop links with parts of governments in other countries that complement and strengthen our diplomatic and military relationships. For example, they help other countries to develop the capability to tackle security threats which affect them and could threaten us.
Some of the most acute threats to our security arise in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Arabian Peninsula and East Africa. In Afghanistan, our Agencies help the Afghan government to build the capacity of their security services to enable them to take responsibility for their own security. In these other countries the Agencies work to build capacity and willingness among our partners to investigate and disrupt terrorist targets plotting against the UK. This includes the provision of infrastructure support and training, the development of analytical and forensic capabilities to services who have never used them before, and training and education on legal and human rights obligations, responsibilities and ways of working. This work is not easy. It necessarily sometimes requires working with countries that do not fully share our values, but which we want to bring closer to sharing our values. There are examples of such work leading to major improvements in the effectiveness and practi
ces of our partners.
It is also an asset to any Foreign Secretary to be able to draw on the technical skills, cultural expertise, global political understanding, language skills and relationships of GCHQ and SIS. They recruit extraordinarily talented people with cutting edge skills, able to go places, to do things and acquire information that no one else in Government can, and to surge their activities anywhere in the world in response to events. They operate joint teams designed to ensure the seamless operation between home and overseas and between human and electronic intelligence, achieving an overall effect which is greater than the sum of the component parts. I am encouraging this and even closer joint working between the Foreign Office, SIS and GCHQ, so that we get the maximum cross-fertilisation of ideas, generating more proposals and options for Ministers while ensuring that each agency retains its own identity.

In short, the Agencies give us a key national advantage in foreign and security policy. Whether it is their intelligence-gathering and analytical skills, SIS’s agent-running expertise or GCHQ’s cyber expertise, their abilities are recognised as among the very best, and in some areas the best, in the world. They are an essential component of our relationship with the United States, and lend weight and substance to some of our other most important alliances.

Their work in all these areas is built on the extraordinary historical legacy of the achievements of the agencies since their founding before the First World War. With the passage of time, we now know about the astonishing success of the Double Cross system during the Second World War, as a result of which every single German agent in Britain was actually working for us.

We know about the monumental code breaking achievements at Bletchley Park, which meant that we were able to intercept and read many German communications throughout the war, and to secure our own communications better as a result. These successes will be remembered for centuries. The achievements I see from the agencies today are built on this legacy and fully live up to the same standards of technical brilliance, ingenuity and imagination – even if it will fall to future generations to chronicle their contribution now.

But Intelligence does not replace the need for diplomacy, and can never be a substitute for it.

This Government believes that Britain’s national interest is served best when diplomacy is informed by Intelligence, and Intelligence is balanced by diplomatic assessments.

This means that Intelligence is weighed and assessed alongside all other sources of information available to us including diplomatic reporting and the insights of other government departments; judged in the context of the Government’s overall strategy and objectives; and brought together to make careful decisions which are considered in the National Security Council.

We also recognise that serious issues have been raised by the events of recent years that have to be addressed decisively and with clarity.

Intelligence throws up some of the most difficult ethical and legal questions that I encounter as Foreign Secretary, with which my predecessors in this position also have had to grapple.

Some of them relate to the past use of Intelligence in reaching and justifying decisions in foreign policy – the most controversial instance of this, the Iraq War, is currently the subject of an Inquiry.

But we also saw allegations of UK complicity in extraordinary rendition leading to torture. The very making of these allegations undermined Britain’s standing in the world as a country that upholds international law and abhors torture. Torture is unacceptable in any circumstances. It is abhorrent, it is wrong, and Britain will never condone it.

As a Government we understand how important it is that we not only uphold our values and international law, but that we are seen to do so. As a nation we need to be an inspiring example of the values we hold dear and that we want to encourage others to take up. Moral authority in the eyes of the world, once damaged, must be painfully and gradually re-established.

We are answering this challenge in two ways.

First, the Prime Minister took immediate action when we came to Government to announce a Detainee Inquiry, chaired by a distinguished former Appeal Court Judge Sir Peter Gibson, into whether the UK was involved in or aware of the improper treatment of detainees held by other countries. It will begin its formal work as soon as current police investigations are completed. The Government also agreed, and the Prime Minister published, the consolidated guidance issued to intelligence officers and service personnel on the treatment of detainees held overseas by other States. He announced our intention to reach a mediated settlement of the civil claims brought by former detainees of Guantanamo Bay, given that under present legal arrangements, the Agencies could not defend themselves in these cases without further weakening national security. This was achieved in November last year. In the Foreign Office, I have also published for the first time guidance given to all FCO staff on the
need to report any alleged incidents of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that they encounter in the course of their work.

Second, we have brought forward a Justice and Security Green Paper to strengthen our legal arrangements and Parliamentary and independent oversight of the Intelligence Agencies. At its heart are proposals to ensure that cases involving national security information can be heard fairly, fully and safely in our courts, and that we protect British interests by preventing the disclosure of genuinely sensitive material. This includes intelligence information shared with Britain by intelligence partners overseas.

The justice system is not currently equipped to pass judgement in national security cases involving information so sensitive that it cannot be disclosed in a courtroom. This leaves the public with unanswered questions and the security and intelligence agencies unable to state their case and defend themselves. The taxpayer faces the prospect of footing an increasing bill for costly financial settlements because of the lack of an appropriate framework in which civil damages claims involving sensitive material can be heard. And key overseas relations have been strained by pressure to disclose sensitive information belonging to other Governments, including in cases where applicants sought sensitive UK Government-held, but very often foreign government-originated information for disclosure into foreign legal proceedings.

All these difficult issues have contributed to a lack of public trust and damaged our relations overseas. Both must be addressed, which is what our Green Paper sets out to do.

Our proposals are intended to ensure that the mainstream civil court system is equipped to hear national security cases where disclosure of material would be damaging to the public interest. Central to this is the proposed introduction of legislation to make the mechanism known as closed material procedures – already used elsewhere in the UK court system - available in the full range of civil proceedings. This system enables relevant but sensitive material in a case which damage national security if exposed to be considered privately by the judges and a special advocate, appointed to represent the other party’s interests. This would only be used in exceptional instances where it is critical to the case.
Some argue that this proposal runs counter to the principles of open justice.

The Government understands that open justice is a fundamental attribute of our democracy, and that it should only be departed from when it is strictly necessary to achieve the proper administration of justice.
Under our proposals, a closed material proceeding could well represent only a small part of a case, the rest of which would be heard in open court. And it is surely fairer to ensure that sensitive material can be considered in court under these arrangements, than that it is excluded altogether. Our proposals would ensure that the full case can be heard by the judge before reaching a decision. These changes would enable balanced judgments to be reached, the public to have confidence in independent judgement by the Court and the Agencies either to be held to account or to be exonerated.

They are not proposals we have made lightly or without careful thought. We have listened to the Supreme Court’s recent relevant judgments and consulted widely.

The ability of other countries to share Intelligence with us without fear we will have to disclose it here or overseas is absolutely vital to our national interest. This is managed under the Control Principle, a strict rule of intelligence sharing whereby any further use or disclosure of intelligence requires the agreement of the Agency that provided it in the first place. If we cannot uphold the control principle and others do not share information with us, the very real risk is that our security will be jeopardised.
Threats to our security cross borders, whether from organised crime or the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We cannot confront them without cooperating with intelligence partners on the basis of trust. At times, we are dependent on others to stop attacks.

Intelligence really is like a jigsaw in which we very rarely have all the pieces, and rely on others to share the pieces they have with us just as they often rely on us to help them in the same way. It is the analysis of information from our partners along with our own intelligence that enables us to piece together each snippet of information with others to create the fullest possible picture of the threats to our national security and to act against them.

A blend of people, technology and partnerships give us an intelligence edge. If our techniques come to light, adversaries benefit and are able to switch techniques and communications resulting in a loss of knowledge about their plans.

Many agents and sources risk their lives – some lose their lives - to give us the vital information to keep us safe. We have a duty to protect them. And if the countries we work with cannot trust us to protect their sources then they will not share their information with us. We expect the same of them. We take it for granted in diplomacy that we must uphold our agreements and respect the confidences of our partners – the same applies to an even greater degree in intelligence, where lives and critical national interests are at stake.

The Green Paper also includes important proposals to strengthen independent and parliamentary scrutiny of the role of the Agencies. It proposes, for instance, to make the Intelligence and Security Committee a statutory Committee of Parliament, reporting formally to Parliament, and to enable it to take evidence from any Department or body in the wider intelligence community. It also proposes careful consideration of extending the Committee’s remit to include retrospective review of certain operational aspects of the work of the Agencies where there are matters of significant national interest. We also propose that the Committee be given the power to require information from the Agencies, bringing it more in line with Parliamentary Select Committees, but with this power subject to a veto only from the Secretary of State where national security so requires it.

We are confident that taken together these changes represent the most comprehensive effort yet to address the complex issues thrown up by the need to protect our security in the 21st century, and to do so in a way that upholds our values and begins to restore public confidence.

There is no single answer to this, and nor can we ever remove the risks to our country entirely. The effort to safeguard our liberties and values and to live up to them must be a constant throughout public life. It is one of the strengths of our democracy that we are able to recognise where we fall short, and to lay stronger foundations for the future.

So this will be our Government’s approach: drawing a line under the past and creating the right legislative framework so that the interests of national security and justice are reconciled; drawing on the talents and capabilities of the Intelligence Agencies to support national security and ensure our military operations and our diplomacy underpinned by high quality, high-tempo intelligence; and bringing together all our assets and our advantages to support a secure and prosperous future for Britain in the world. As we do so we will always be conscious of the lessons of the past – including the lessons of our achievements as well as the errors we must strive to avoid.

We are fortunate in the United Kingdom to have some of the most ingenious, resourceful and respected Intelligence Agencies in the world. In the 20th century their contribution was so important that historians judge it substantially shortened the most terrible events in the history of mankind. Today their work each day and every hour helps this country and its citizens in a vast range of ways, keeping them safer at home and removing threats to them abroad.

We should have great pride in the history, standards and ethos of these organisations and cherish these strengths. The dedication and professionalism of the people who work for our agencies and the accountability to democratic government within which they operate has few equals, and possibly no equals, among any of their counterparts.

It is important that their work and the legal and political framework in which it takes place is properly understood and publicly appreciated.

But it is also important that where controversies have arisen they are faced up to and dealt with, and where changes are necessary to ensure our Agencies can do the job we expect of them, that we make the case for change with clarity and conviction.

It is for all these reasons that I have given this speech today. I do so with determination that the men and women of the Secret Intelligence Service, Government Communications Headquarters and the Security Service will always be able to do their vital work with the support, not only of the government of the day, but of the wider public as well.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=Speech&id=692973282#

[INFOCON] 11 November 1918: Armistice Day - Remembrance Day

2011-11-11T08:43:22Z

Remembrance is not just about those who fought in the two World Wars of the last century, but also about those involved in the many other conflicts worldwide since 1945 and those still fighting for peace and freedom now. It is also about learning from the past and resolving to make the world a better place to live in the future.

======================
For The Fallen
======================

With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children,
England mourns for her dead across the sea.
Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit,
Fallen in the cause of the free.

Solemn in drums thrill: Death august and royal
Signs sorrow up into immortal spheres.
There is music in the midst of desolation
And a glory that shines upon our tears.

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old;
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again:
They sit no more at familiar tables at home;
They have no lot in our labor of the daytime;
They sleep beyond England's foam.

But where our desires are and our hopes profound,
felt as a wellspring that is hidden from sight,
To the innermost heart of their own land they are known
As the stars that are known to the Night.

As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust,
Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain,
As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness,
to the end, to the end, they remain.

Laurence Binyon
1869 - 1943

======================
In Flanders Fields
======================

IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)
Canadian Army

=========================

Please support the Poppy Appeal:

http://www.poppy.org.uk/

How the Poppy Appeal began

Canadian doctor John McCrae was serving in Flanders with the Canadian Armed Forces when, having seen the poppy survive the bloody conflicts in northern France, he wrote his 1915 poem In Flanders’ Fields.

Moina Michael, an American War Secretary with the YMCA, was moved by this poem to buy poppies with money collected from her work colleagues, and sold them to friends to raise funds for ex-Servicemen. Her French colleague, Madame Guerin, suggested the sale of artificial poppies to the Legion in August 1921 in order to help the ex-Service community in Britain.

The first donations for artificial poppies were given in Britain on 11 November 1921, raising £106,000 – an equivalent spending power of more than £3.1million in today’s terms, a huge sum for the time.

Major George Howson, a young infantry officer, had formed the Disabled Society to help disabled ex-Service people from World War One. Howson suggested to the Legion that Society members should make poppies, and the artificial flowers were designed so that someone who had lost the use of a hand could assemble them with one hand – a principle that has endured. This suggestion led to the foundation of the Poppy Factory at Richmond, Surrey, in 1922, where poppies are still made today.

http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/