Culture comes first in cybersecurity. That puts cybersecurity on the front line in the culture wars It is a nation's first duty to protect its citizens from harm. A fine maxim, and one we can all agree on, even in these disagreeable times. Sadly, that's as far as it goes. What the harm is and how to protect against it is where light turns to heat. North Korea protects its citizens from harm by total control of what they can …
Sounds like an excellent title for a future Netflix serialisation of these interesting times.
Although watching it with the grandkids might be a bit more than a little uncomfortable: "Gramps, why did they let Robert Kennedy kill all those little children with measles?"
"MAGA-Igorithm" Igor as in "Yeth mathter?" The MAGA ones clearly have loose neck bolts and have lost a few screws.
Or a typo for Ignorithm viz a calculus of (wilful) ignorance?
"Gramps, why did they let Robert Kennedy kill all those little children with measles?"
Robert Kennedy is a believer in eugenics. If the kids aren't strong enough to survive a bout of measles than that's just nature's way of improving the species would be his view. Unfortunately, in practice the selection filter is parents stupid enough to believe him. He also puts out that vitamin A is a good cure so now there are kids turning up for treatment with vitamin A poisoning from over-enthusiastic "treatment".
@Doctor Syntax
"Gramps, why did they let Robert Kennedy create covid that kill all those little children with measles people around the world?"
On the plus side Trump has signed an Executive Order banning gain of function research including US doing it in foreign labs.
"why did they let ... create covid that kill all those ...people around the world?"
Would you care to provide some evidence for the premise of your version that might be persuasive to the biologists who use this platform? In your own words, please, not a list of links to some conspiracy sites nor a load of LLM hallucinations.
@Doctor Syntax
"Would you care to provide some evidence for the premise of your version that might be persuasive to the biologists who use this platform?"
> That they have not found the cross over animal to certainly claim it was natural (previously required).
> Covid labs doing this exact work and using a furin cleavage site not being normal in the viruses close relatives AND the furin cleavage site being documented in a grant request to make covid like viruses.
> That they were making these kinds of viruses (this isnt disputed is it?).
> The covid bat virus came from nowhere near wuhan.
> Upon outbreak the Chinese blocked access to outsiders and locked up scientists who shared critical information with the world about the genetic make up of the covid virus.
So while the definitive and absolute proof of where it came from may never be found, the fact that the Chinese ensured it wouldnt be found by blocking access AND failing to find the point of cross over in the market severely harms any idea it was natural.
"In your own words, please, not a list of links to some conspiracy sites nor a load of LLM hallucinations."
When I post my own words idiots cry 'sources'. When I post links you say something stupid like that. And it takes a special kind of stupid to call it LLM hallucinations so congrats.
Oh Madam. Your failure rate is increasing.
This is sad. So sad.
No direct link has been found between any lab (including the Wuhan Institute of Virology) and SARS-CoV-2 as it first appeared in humans.
The DEFUSE proposal was not funded, and there’s no evidence that the specific proposed experiments were carried out.
A furin cleavage site can evolve naturally, and has been found in other virus families, though it is rare in close SARS-CoV-2 relatives.
Genomic analysis has not identified signatures of engineering (e.g., restriction sites, unnatural codon usage) that would clearly indicate lab manipulation.
Would you care to try again?
@ChodeMonkey
"No direct link has been found between any lab (including the Wuhan Institute of Virology) and SARS-CoV-2 as it first appeared in humans."
You may need to go back and read my comment-
> That they have not found the cross over animal to certainly claim it was natural (previously required). and
> So while the definitive and absolute proof of where it came from may never be found, the fact that the Chinese ensured it wouldnt be found by blocking access AND failing to find the point of cross over in the market severely harms any idea it was natural.
"The DEFUSE proposal was not funded"
How do you know? The grant proposal was rejected by the US (DARPA I think?) but at no point does that mean it wasnt funded any other way and it absolutely does not mean the research did not happen. USAID and NIH were funding them already.
"A furin cleavage site can evolve naturally, and has been found in other virus families, though it is rare in close SARS-CoV-2 relatives."
A fantastic reasoning as to why it is more likely the labs doing this kind of research and proposing to do these modifications themselves is more likely than nature.
"Genomic analysis has not identified signatures of engineering (e.g., restriction sites, unnatural codon usage) that would clearly indicate lab manipulation."
So no smoking gun to point to a lab and absolutely no smoking gun for the 'natural' theory. Except the wet market was extensively tested and no cross over found (previously needed to prove natural origin) and the Chinese actually blocked access to outsiders and actively prosecuted any scientists who dared to provide any information to the outside world.
"Would you care to try again?"
Would you?
Point of interest-
https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-ecohealth-alliance-should-be-criminally-investigated-formally-debarred/
Consider the comments about using a less secure biolab in the proposal!
****> So while the definitive and absolute proof of where it came from may never be found, the fact that the Chinese ensured it wouldnt be found by blocking access AND failing to find the point of cross over in the market severely harms any idea it was natural.
It also does not prove that it was an deliberately released engineered virus, which is what you claimed in your first nonsense post.
**** Point of interest-
https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing ....
Ah yes, the fox oversight committee watching over the hen house. The clowns in charge of that wouldn't know proof if it jumped up and bit them on the leg.
@cmdrklarg
"It also does not prove that it was an deliberately released engineered virus, which is what you claimed in your first nonsense post."
Of course, because if you read my post explaining my reasoning (I know it is unfashionable now - https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2025/05/06/opinion_column/#c_5068065) while the absolute definitive proof will probably never be found the reason was the absolute intentional blocking of outsiders (WHO) by the Chinese and through their extensive efforts to find the cross over animal NONE WAS FOUND.
The only thing to do is accept that the possibility of natural and possibility of lab release both exist, and so then it is a question of which is most likely. So how likely is it to be natural from absolutely nowhere near Wuhan, have characteristics used in the labs but not in its nearest related viruses and extensive testing of the 'origin' of the spread cant find where it crossed from bat to human?
Compared to labs that were conducting this research on covids specifically brought to Wuhan from such long distances away where similar symptoms had been observed prior the pandemic and the country shielded the labs from outside investigation AND prosecuted any scientists releasing information about the covid virus?
"Ah yes, the fox oversight committee watching over the hen house. The clowns in charge of that wouldn't know proof if it jumped up and bit them on the leg."
Knowing the Chinese blocked the worlds ability to investigate and find the definitive source of the virus, what should we believe? Should we pretend it doesnt matter or that we have no idea? Or pretend it is natural?
>” So how likely is it to be natural from absolutely nowhere near Wuhan”
Probably greater than 99%.
Remember, people were dying of an unknown infection in NHS hospitals before SARS-CoV-2 was identified, you can confirm this by speaking to anyone who was working in high dependency care units at the time.
once SARS-CoV-2 was identified and tests developed, at least in the UK, pathology researchers went back through their stocks of biopsy samples and discovered the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in samples dating back to the summer prior to the (published) events at Wuhan.
With the “Kent” and subsequent variants, we witnessed how readily it mutated, so it is possible that what was “released” wasn’t totally identical to the gene sequence China first published as CoVid-19. Which would make it even more unlikely a source can be established.
The early story of AIDS and HIV is similar in that we don’t really know where it came from (There are cases of HIV 20+years prior to the 1980s AIDS “epidemic”), and can only surmise that it spread due to changing population behaviours.
@Roland6
"Probably greater than 99%."
87% of statistics are pulled out of some ones arse. How do you dream up that fantasy? When I say the virus came from nowhere near Wuhan I mean over a thousand miles. We know labs were bringing in coronavirus from those distances.
"Remember, people were dying of an unknown infection in NHS hospitals before SARS-CoV-2 was identified, you can confirm this by speaking to anyone who was working in high dependency care units at the time."
Remember there were covid like symptoms reported in 3 lab researchers the November before the outbreak.
For all their efforts the Chinese couldnt find the cross over animal to prove natural origin, but blocked outside investigation and prosecuted scientists who released covid data to the world.
So, no evidence, just "coincidences" and "anomalies" [1]
Rather the same type of "evidence" and "logic" that the Orange Birther used to accuse Ted Cruz' father of killing JFK.
Oh, and you also show you didn't profit from any biology teaching.
[1] Natalie Wynn created a recent video on Conspiracy. Really good on this point. Nothing happens by chance, everything is intentional.
"That they have not found the cross over animal to certainly claim it was natural"
1. The cross-over animal would hardly be carrying a label to identify itself as such.
2. It was probably long dead before the outbreak in humans, especially if it ended up in a market.
3. Disregarding the above, the chances of happening on it are vanishingly small being the ratio between the number of animals examined by virologists to the number of animals alive at the time.
> 2. It was probably long dead before the outbreak in humans, especially if it ended up in a market.
Dead and eaten.
Interestingly, the Chinese authorities knew meat markets with their questionable hygiene and sources of stock, were disease hotspots and so located public health labs, like the one at Wuhan, near these markets. My understanding is that China has maintained these labs and the associated testing infrastructure, yet here in the UK we dismantled our labs and disease testing infrastructure shortly after the green light was given, so we no longer have the capability to identify a new public health risk before it became an actual event of some size and thus worthy of investigating…
@Doctor Syntax
"1. The cross-over animal would hardly be carrying a label to identify itself as such.
2. It was probably long dead before the outbreak in humans, especially if it ended up in a market.
3. Disregarding the above, the chances of happening on it are vanishingly small being the ratio between the number of animals examined by virologists to the number of animals alive at the time."
In 2003 scientists refused to say SARS began in a market until they found infected animals. It is almost as if it would be vastly important for the Chinese to let the WHO come and investigate too so they could find the source! But yet the Chinese refused. Instead the Chinese did a lot of testing at the market to find this proof of natural origin and couldnt find it. They did however prosecute scientists who released information on the virus and refused to cooperate with the WHO.
Now we are to accept a virus from nowhere near Wuhan made it to Wuhan and infected people, but it was natural? Instead of caused by the scientists collecting these viruses and bringing them to Wuhan labs for research?
I am amazed at how many people seem desperate to ignore the facts and just go along with the nonsense they have been told. This article quickly goes over some of the problems with the official 'story'-
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/has-the-lab-leak-theory-really-been-disproved/
"I am amazed at how many people seem desperate to ignore the facts "
What facts? You only have "questions ".
Questions you don't want to hear answered. Questions you could easily answer if you made even the slightest effort to get informed. But bringing up new "questions" is so much more rewarding.
We have a proverb over here: A single fool can ask more questions than a hundred wise men can answer.
Ted Cruz's dad was not involved in the murder of JFK. Irrespective of all the "questions" the Orange Birther could bring up about his behavior.
And a thousand "questions" about China cannot paper over the abismal pandemic health policy of the Orange Birther and his clown crew that killed a million Americans.
It is because of the responsibility for these hundreds of thousands of preventable deads of compatriots that some foreign scapegoat must be found to deflect all the blame to.
@AC
"Questions you don't want to hear answered. Questions you could easily answer if you made even the slightest effort to get informed. But bringing up new "questions" is so much more rewarding."
I am always entertained by these brilliant minds who have all the answers but cant provide any. Especially from a coward. Your first problem however is figuring out the difference between a fact and a question, because you dont even seem to know that.
The US Cloud Act already strips away any pretence of how much Brad respects EU and UK laws, even if he genuinely wants to.
The phrase "Microsoft Cloud for Sovereignty" is just gaslighting. It was always a poor excuse to attempt to retain EU customers and make some vague promises about GDPR compliance. Now there's a moronic orange dictator running the USA, these empty promises should be viewed as what they are. While the Cloud Act promises judicial review of access to data held by US companies abroad, the backdoor of National Security Letters utterly nullifies such safeguards.
For far too long, the EU and the UK have relied on the benevolence of the US administration to avoid investing in the technology needed to properly control their own data and computing infrastructure. This has to change now and it has to change very quickly.
Good point.
How long it would take sovereign states, or the European Collective to create alternatives to the major cloud providers, remains to be seen.
If the collective puts itself to work, it has shown its capability at being successful a number of times.
One can but hope, there is a change, one that benefits everyone who wants to use Cloud based thingys.
To what extent would we want alternatives to major cloud providers? As things stand there must be few clients who are not rounding errors in the bottom line of their US service providers.
As far as stuff like OneBox or whatever it's called is concerned, NextC|loud with the desktop client installed does the job fine, is based on open standards and provides for calendar sync and a number of collaboration tools. There are plenty of EU & UK suppliers who will run it for you if you don't want to run it in-house.
Likewise there are EU and UK suppliers who will host email.
For "major" read "many".
The bits needed to make up Microsoft <365 of the Google equivalent are there.but there is scope for some integration work, the sort of thing that the Microsoft ID handles. There's also scope for a ChromeOS equivalent which will integrate with the users' choice of service provider including an in-house server if preferred. It's those areas where I would see the efforts of a "Collective" being best applied.
Letìs remember it was exactly Microsoft wanting the CLOUD Act. It refuses to give to US prosecutors emails stored in Ireland without a US law covering its butts. It never asserted that emails in Irish jurisdictin were outside US one unless US used the standard procedure for international law enforcement cooperation to obtain them. It just asked a law to protect MS executives (especially those in the US) from being indicted.
So, why should Europeans trust Smith? It's clear Microsoft (and any other US entity) will happily give to Trump's dog(e)s any data they want, as soon as there's a law to give it some paint of "legality", and protect executives butts.
EU states should avoid to use US companies cloud systems and cloud software as much as the could. And think about any US software that can phone home - making it illegal.
"US companies can voluntarily abide by EU norms through contractual agreement, so the EU is happy – no, that's the wrong word"
It certainly is. Gullible? Credulous? Cowed. maybe? Schizophrenic is probably the best description. One part of the EU wants to protect users, the other doesn't want to rock the boat with US trade. Now the boat has been rocked perhaps it's time for the user protection to come to the fore. In post-Brexit Britain I'm not sure there's anyone in HMG who cares about user protection so it'll be readily ditched in order to kiss Trump's arse.
It's likely to be extinction burst behaviour, so hold the line. Keep calling it out.
As to Reform Ltd, Farage's company employees are going to find out what councils can and cannot actually do. A lot of voters are simply lashing out because their council is going bust.
It'll be interesting to see how many follow his lead and don't bother to turn up at all - or make it even worse.
This post has been deleted by its author
I've been saying this for a quarter of a century to organisations of all sizes from international corporate to mom & pop shop, and mostly they've listened politely and then ignored the advice. Where it grants any recognition to the problem at al, the entire security culture is obsessed by standards. But when we look at said standards we find, on the one hand purely technical approaches such as Cyber Essentials ("have some tech stuff in place") and on the other, process oriented approaches such as ISO 27001 and the NIST cybersecurity framework ("have some processes in place"). Yes, you need technologies and processes, but obviously you must be sure they actually work. Despite which there doesn't seem to be a single standard that defines outcomes and practically zero attention is addressed to culture or awareness beyond some perfunctory references to "training" of the front line (but typically not the executive).
The reality is that price of peace is eternal vigilance on the part of everyone at all levels of the organisation.
quote: the EU is built of companies that speak English as their internal lingua franca.
I think the Académie Française may disagree on that. Aside from the tax dodging emerald isle on the corner and the bit attached to it, which is both in and out of the EU at the same time, the use of English is regarded by the French as a not entirely necessary evil. The EU might have replaced English with French by now if everyone didn't dislike them quite so much.
The GDPR is the most pointless piece of showboating imaginable, intended primarily to bilk cash in fines from GAFA.
If the EU cared one whit about privacy, my e-mail address and phone number would not have to appear on the front of every package I get from there.
All we get as users is the endless need to click on an 'Allow' button, after working out which one it is, if it is in a foreign language, on every ****ing website we go to, just so we can be sure it works. Yeah, thanks for that. Means a lot. Tossers.
All countries have been intent on establishing digital borders as solid as their land borders for some years now, by an endless torrent of negative reporting on mainstream media (the sort of media that in the UK has not blamed anything at all on Brexit since it happened). Easily pulled strings in evidence there.
They will use 'protecting the kids' to impose state control and surveillance on the internet (passport and biometric ID to prove you are an adult on everything you do). And they will cheerfully block access to foreign websites and services using everything from prepayment of sales tax to blocks on payment services and search censorship. Our global internet is already degrading rapidly and has been for some years.
So although the orange gangster is going to do a lot of damage before someone bumps him off, junk food finishes him off, or the Republican party decides that they don't want to go down in history for entirely destroying the US, he is not alone. They are 'all in it together'. Other nations will just see their own government's take down attempts front and centre, with Trump's as the wallpaper in the background.
The future will be crap. because after several decades, politicians are taking charge again. And as they are the least competent people on the planet, they will have to start wars to cover up their inevitable, approaching failure.
So, climate change + war ahead, and much less internet/cash/tech/joy/happiness.
> If the EU cared one whit about privacy, my e-mail address and phone number would not have to appear on the front of every package I get from there.
Huh?
I've never had an email address or phone number appear on the front of a package from the EU (or anywhere else, for that matter).
Are you sure you are filling in the online form correctly?
As for pressing the "Allow" button - firstly, whining that you are looking at a website in the language you can't read is stoopid (think about it for a moment, and perhaps ask yourself if you know the meaning of the word "xenophobe"), but then claiming you *have* to hit "Accept" is blatant nonsense[1].
[1] go on, give us an example of a site that utterly fails when you try "Reject" - and not just in a way that is bloody obvious, like it doesn't remember you from one visit to the next 'cos that is what you told it not to. Well, ok, there will be a few badly-constructed sites that can't cope, but odds are those also fail in other places as well, being badly-constructed and all.
"All we get as users is the endless need to click on an 'Allow' button,"
Firefox has extensions that full automatically click "Reject" or "Allow" for you. Reject tends to be inconsequential and you can still read and see everything.
You just have to stop complaining and do something about your itch.
"Reject" is required to be inconsequential.
Any site that breaks if you reject is breaking the law. That is, as they say, the entire 'ing point.
I have seen a few sites that break the law - oddly, they all seem to have been the same parent company. I've reported them to the competent authority, and blocked them.
Eventually they will get fined, but it is likely they'll fail due to zero visitors first.
Quote: "...cybersecurity is a culture of teamwork, not a technology...."
While this might be true, I'm surprised that it is not supplemented by some sort of injunction to INDIVIDUALS to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their own security and privacy.
But no........the injunction to individuals is one or more of:
(1) Use Facebook
(2) Use WhatsApp
(3) Use Office365
(4) Use LinkeIn
(5) Use Signal or Telegram.....or.....
(6) Get in bed with Apple
(7) Use any "app" from Google...or Microsoft.....or anyone else pushing their "app"........
......Individuals who do this are SUBCONTRACTING their personal privacy and security to META or MICROSOFT or SIGNAL or APPLE or GOOGLE...................
Where is the warning to INDIVIDUALS that the universe actually includes the idea of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?
"It is a nation's first duty to protect its citizens from harm."
Which nation am I from?
I physically live in a town called Yeovil, which is situated within a county called Somerset. County is a modern term. Yeovil used to be situated within a political division called South Somerset District Council. Yeovil also has various other older situations and around 60 odd spellings going back 1800 odd years. It is still older than that too.
Now, Yeovil is obviously English so hence the nation is England. ... but England does not seem to be devolved ... Well we have a King of England (int al) and a treaty between Scotland and England from the C17. So Yeovil is British. Not so fast. There is that UK thing - Northern Ireland. OK so Yeovil is UKish?
Nope, Yeovil is within Wessex - my water bill says so. WTF? Wessex hasn't been a thing since King Alfred.
OK, I'm a Brit and English and from the UK. Hope that clears that up.
I'm a fifth generation German immigrant (paternal direct line) and a fifteenth generation Cornish bastard descendent (Padstow), via quite a route. I also have lots more antecedents. My family tree has roughly 160,000 entries and will continue to expand as we research.
So what exactly is a nation and what exactly is a citizen? OK, I am defined as a British Citizen from the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland, so that clears that up a bit.
sedregl» Which nation am I from?
The use of the word 'nation' in this article was sloppy, What was meant was the word 'state'.
I agree with your answer: you are a citizen of the United Kingdom and you are southern English. The word 'nationality' complicates matters here.
To further your question, I do not know what a country is. I know what a state is. It is a legal entity recognised by sovereign states as being a sovereign state.
Defining a nation is anyway not precise. Nations are reasonably homogenous, the people within said areas speak the same language, the population is sufficiently large to support itself and the people within even (in theory) practice the same religion. Are the Swiss one nation or four?
Are nations today even genetic today or would it be better to divide them along culture lines?
Are the supporters in the US of the two main political parties members of different nations?
As an example, I would regard Scotland, Wales or Catalonia as being countries. But they are not states. Would Northern Ireland qualify as a country? Probably not.
What about the Northern England? Or the Greater London Area? Or the catholic states in Germany? Or Provence in France?
These could all support themselves quite comfortably.
And then the EU complicates matter further. Ireland is a state and a nation but is her statehood diluted by voluntary membership of the EU, not to mention the global economic trade system.
"Wessex hasn't been a thing since King Alfred."
It was still a kingdom at the time of the accession of his grandson Athelstan. Here in Northumbria we had a bit of trouble with him. He was the first to claim himself as King of England although Northumbria was still disputed but the York Vikings in the mid C10th.
But, yes, "nation" was the wrong word. "Government" would have been more apt.
19th Century?
I suppose McKinley 1890 is a relatively early American tariff, but the UK repealed the Corn Laws in 1856 and Adam Smith discussed their evils (as well as the very limited and temporary place for reciprocal tariffs) in the 1770s. Meanwhile Ricardo was published his theory of Comparative Advantage in 1817
Tariffs are 17-18th Century thinking at best. But it seems like it takes about 100 years for people to forget and we go through another cycle. If we could accelerate this cycle and just skip straight to the neo-Keynesian era that'd be great.
scotus basically said that as president or as expresident trump could not be held accountable by any action taken in office. the idea that he could order the murder of a political opponent as president seems to have been upheld by scotus. there is nothing to stop him from doing what he wants and he's taking advantage of that. think the courts are starting to realize what they've done which might explain recent rulings that went against him. might be too little too late though. He recently claimed that he knows nothing about any requirement to uphold and defend the constitution despite taking an oath witnessed by the chief justice. where does that lead? he really needs to be impeached post haste.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
