back to article's pricey Five Year Plan to see off cyber thugs still in place

UK Chancellor Philip Hammond is due to reaffirm a pledge to spend £1.9bn up until the end of 2020 to bolster the UK’s cyber security strategy in a speech early this afternoon. The updated strategy [84-page PDF] - which doesn’t include any new spending pledges1 - is expected to include an increase in focus on investment in …

  1. Warm Braw

    I was disappointed to hear TBL on Today this morning

    The United Kingdom needs to have a strong but responsible and accountable police force, and GCHQ needs to have the tools to be able to defend us and defend the open internet, he said.

    I'm not really comfortable with GCHQ, an organisation whose involvement in civil society should at the very least be exceptional, becoming the de facto "guardian" of our infrastructure. It's rather like putting the Civil Nuclear Constabulary in charge of the drains.

    1. smudge

      Re: I was disappointed to hear TBL on Today this morning

      "becoming the ... guardian" ???

      They have been the national authority for information security for at least 30 years.

    2. Anonymous Coward

      Re: I was disappointed to hear TBL on Today this morning

      I'm not really comfortable with GCHQ ... becoming the de facto "guardian" of our infrastructure.

      Especially when they seem so conflicted between weakening the security of the Internet and strengthening it.

  2. Anonymous Coward

    The Government's green credentials

    "is due to reaffirm a pledge" = "has recycled an old press release"

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    needed because of increased threats from nation state attackers - That'll be the snoopers charter he's talking about there.

  4. Rich 11 Silver badge

    Magic roundabout

    “It is unclear from where the government will find 50 cybercrime specialists for the NCA when there is such a massive skills shortage within the industry,”

    If 10,000 consultant doctors can be created by the government funding 2,500 additional university places for four years before the NHS's foreign-born doctors leave in disgust, I'm sure that magicking 50 cybercrime specialists from thin air won't be any difficulty whatsoever.

  5. tiggity Silver badge

    Given the paltry fines & no jail time or other repercussions for company bosses for breaches of personal data (e.g. a company headed by wife of a Tory) there is no real incentive for UK business to "invest in cybersecurity".

    So unless Hammond is a total muppet or disingenuous he should not be in the least surprised at dismal "cybersecurity" by UK business.

    But we all know despite blathering on about cybersecurity what it is really about even more blind eyes turned to GCHQ & "security services" acquisition and inspection of citizens data & further legalization of their dodgy data slurping & searching practices.

    1. just another employee


      Did you not read the article ?

      GDPR is coming. Up to 4% of global turnover as a potential fine with it.

      So. He is neither a total muppet or disingenuous.

      You are,

      1. BebopWeBop

        Re: Muppet

        Potential fines, ha ha ha. Until I see it I call you as the muppet.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Muppet

          I call you as the muppet

          Maybe "just another employee" should have read "just another public sector employee", and lives in a world where bureaucrats conjure up fines with all the finesse and evidence base of climate science: "ooh, X% of turnover should do it, Sir Humphrey!"

  6. Andy The Hat Silver badge

    But, to point out the obvious,

    isn't the whole point that GCHQ would have more money for "the creation of offensive cyber capabilities" that could then be sold around the world (as Israel already does)?

    (I assume here that the quote doesn't mean sending rude emails to your ex.)

    1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      Re: But, to point out the obvious,

      isn't the whole point that GCHQ would have more money for "the creation of offensive cyber capabilities" that could then be sold around the world (as Israel already does)? .... Andy the Hat

      Money doesn't create offensive cyber weapons, the smart anonymous capture of extremely aware and spookily wary hearts and minds does, Andy the Hat. And the abiding problem and Catch 22 Catch is that such intelligence as those hearts and minds possess and would present for a fundamentally different future picture programming project, is not captive or attracted or attractive to current government services and international business operations, although the opposite/converse is quite a different matter. Such established status quo arrangements are cash cows and bounteous prey to the virtual brigades of novel foe and fiendish friend exercising practical imagination and persistent determination in ....... well, truly they be untouchable cyber domains with Global Operating Devices in Computer Command and Creative Control of Live Operational Virtual Environments ...... Realities.

      And do yourself a great favour, and note to remember to never forget, such above is a statement of live fact rather than question of running fiction ...... :-) although I will leave it to you and IT to answer, if you care dare share, whether live fact and running fiction are both different and the same thing nowadays.

      And, if you can realise IT for such to be so, is anything possible and deliverable practically immediately.

      Now that's what I would call a Cash Cow to XSSXXX and one hell of a magic weapon to field and wield magnificently.

  7. Valeyard

    just give out grants

    Businesses can have funding to send people (me) to get an OSCP or something then they can take care of themselves (because let's face it, it's business losses that matter to .gov)

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Other than improving education, I'm curious of what the government can actually achieve here.

    Anybody care to wildly speculate?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Anybody care to wildly speculate?

      Yes. This is the normal government policy of BS2DS (Being seen to do something). The key issue here is that when things go shit shaped in some major and (apparently) unforseen manner, the government of the day and the snivel service can say "Oh, not our fault, look how much we spent on cyber security".

      That nearly two billion quid will be pissed up the wall for no gain whatsoever is immaterial - the architects of this policy live only in the Westminster bubble. Curiously, I'm enjoying reading Mein Kampf at the moment, and mindful of the fact that it was written by one of history's most prized villains, it is interesting to note the manner in which the author very succinctly identified the flaws of representative democracy. As Winston noted (quoting anon), democracy is indeed the worst form of government, save for all the others that have been tried.

      I'll go with democracy for the time being (Yahaha! Boooooo! Sad Remainderers! Looosers! Loooooosers! See note 1) but even so it lacks some modest element of retribution when the wrong things are done through incompetence of base expediency. Nothing too extreme, but if revocation of "commercial" honours is acceptable, what about the same for the civil servants and MPs? And what about fining them modest percentages of their gold plated pensions for fuck ups as well?

      Note 1: Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As Mirai and other recent events have illustrated, "Things" manufactured and controlled overseas will have the potential to dominate our cyberworld, disregarding government guidance or any of the burgeoning number of standards. Sheer numbers of "Things", mostly developed with minimal regard to whole-life security, will be an overwhelming majority of devices connected to the Internet.

    It's really unclear that anything in the strategy really addresses this emerging threat.

  10. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    No wonder businesses and governments are always fighting competition and opposition.

    Bull shit advice infests and invests in their systems

    cyberspace is invented, implemented and run by international businesses, not governments .....Andrew Rogoyski, an expert

    Oh no it and IT is not. And when businesses and government continue to believe that it be so and possible, are they always fated to be reacting and playing second fiddle to orchestrating leaders in the Greater IntelAIgents Gamesplay Field of Virtualised Dreams. They be no more or less than useful abusive puppets on a stage.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like