Five Eyes alliance’s top cop says techies are the future of law enforcement Australian Federal Police (AFP) commissioner Reece Kershaw has accused un-named nations of helping organized criminals to use technology to commit and launder the proceeds of crime, and called for international collaboration to developer technologies that counter the threats that behaviour creates. Kershaw’s remarks were made …
> Criminals have weaponized technology ...
> our innovators and our tech pioneers – are among the future of law enforcement.
So which side will win? I reckon it will be whoever offers the best incentives. Although those incentives could include not going to jail. Something that might be more or less appealing depending on which country a person is in (or could be extradited from) and whether that country takes a cut of the profits.
I can tell who loses: we, the common people.
The ammounts of attacks that are going on would amaze people not in the know. It did keep me fed while working for a network security company.. but it is just sad.
Essentially we allow in the internet organized groups tk say "nice shop/whatever you have here", no consequence. And 5 eyes and others allow this because they like the noise so they can do their business. Appalling, and they are all criminals to me.
Sadly, the only practical solution is deep packet inspection,proper ipv6 and provenance analysis plus heavy penalties
Quote (Reece Kershaw): "....those with extremists’ views are using the pandemic to ... spread their misinformation...."
Yup....he should know......all of his "five eyes" posture counts as misinformation.....
Quote (Reece Kershaw): "...innovation needed to identify and disrupt offenders...."
Yup....he's right about that......notably the technologists in Fort Meade, Cheltenham and elsewhere...see Edward Snowden for details!
Despite the continual posturing....THERE ARE NO "GOOD GUYS".....
....a reminder to Reece Kershaw from a hundred years ago in "The Devil's Dictionary"........
peace, noun: A period of cheating between two periods of fighting
Oh.....and there's William Burroughs with his two cents............."The paranoid is a person who knows a little of what is going on".
Who'd have thunk it?.....useful wisdom in 2022 from Ambrose Bierce and William Burroughs......
"Some nations also allow the manufacture of chemicals used to create drugs."
Personally I'm quite glad that drugs can be manufactured, antibiotics potentially saved my life in the past...
Seriously, I get really irritated when people say drugs when they mean "drugs we have outlawed" (additionally drug rules vary across countries, and in some cases across states, and additionally many countries sign up to various global anti drug agreements but in reality often turn a blind eye, e.g. opium production & export (used to make heroin) in Afghanistan - the Taliban periodically make a big thing of outlawing it, but when their cash gets low happily turn a blind eye to opium (& cannabis) exports as a nice source of income)
.. as for illegal drug precursors, banning them is pointless, yes there are some compounds that have few other obvious uses other than making some illegal drugs, but most chemicals have many uses, and banning compounds that are only really used to make illegal drugs just adds a few more steps / complexity / expense to the process*
*Never made any illegal drugs, but did work in a lab when doing a biochemistry PhD (if we needed controlled substances for our work we applied for a licence), a long time ago before switch to IT. Obviously in lab work, most of the stuff you need you just buy from chemical suppliers (only made your own if something obscure that was not readily available or costs were too exorbitant) - but people wit chemical training (or prepared to read up enough) could make a range of "illegal drugs" relatively easily (in many cases the most hassle would be some of the equipment you would like to use but would be a fool to - sensible illicit drug manufacture "klaxons" operated by govt agencies should also be equipment based, not just precursor based as lots of kit that would make the production process easier / safer / faster / more reliable / better quality would raise the question of what on earth does AN Other want with that.
“Criminals have [...] become ruthlessly efficient ..."
They probably haven't. They're probably just *more* efficient - and quicker moving - than your every-day, average law-enforcement organisation. A snail appears to be a mobility expert to a rock.
A/C
> "un-named nations know that their lack of financial regulations enable organized crime to launder money."
Why "un-named"? Would it be because that list includes- or should include- at least one "Five Eyes" member?
Namely the United Kingdom, where (e.g.) the London property market has been pumped full of money from Russian oligarchs and other dubious sources, where the City of London is well-known for being happy to not look to closely at where its money is coming from, where (Westminster-controlled) Scottish Limited Partnerships embarrass those of us here by association with their obvious misuse in corruption and laundering.
Where the UK government- or rather, the Tory party that runs it- has been happy to do the easy work of "cracking down" on Russia in a superficial way and sending arms to Ukraine (the latter of which I have no problem with in itself, quite the opposite) but still oddly slow in moving to shut these loopholes that would affect the Russian investments and money they themselves have ultimately benefitted from?
Yeah, doesn't count if it's one of your own "Eyes", does it?
“And let’s not discount the psychological effect we have on organized crime when they know the Five Eyes is watching.”
And what, apart from them not knowing what to do for the best because of the lack of necessary knowledge to address the intelligence deficit they suffer, does the Five Eyes watching without engagement tell techies being watched who know they are being watched whilst doing what they do?
One doesn't have to be an Einstein or a Sherlock to know when something one might be doing is bound to attract attention from phishers hoping to steal away one's secrets and earn a feather in their crooked cap which can also feather their nests ..... and how much it really be worth whenever warranting such attention.
Whenever not illegal or criminal activity, is such surveillance easily perverted and converted and subverted to server undue personal reward via the technical/virtual/industrial espionage/proprietary intellectual property theft route.
The FELEG is not paying attention, or demanding attention to, a very big policy concern.
Intelligence gathering is not often done with a view to prosecution, in fact the standards of "truth" are often quite different. This is called the "intelligence to evidence" problem. It is quite well known in certain circles in Canada where for example a Russian spy couldn't be arrested or prosecuted because the intelligence people wouldn't allow disclosure in open court of their means and methods.
In the end the FBI was tapped to disclose the existence of the spy for criminal prosecution by RCMP.
In western societies with open court systems (excluding USA of course, hello FISA) there are often constitutional barriers to constructing a justice system that can prosecute spies and use the evidence against them without disclosing the means used to discover them.
He can complain all he wants about bad actors but unless he and his FELEG counterparts have the tools to prosecute then he is whistling in the wind.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
