This article is more than 1 year old
UK.gov lambasted for ignoring peers' cybercrime report
Either stupid or ignorant, fumes security researcher
A leading security expert has criticised the UK government for ignoring recommendations on tackling cybercrime from peers.
The House of Lords' Science and Technology Committee produced a five point plan for tackling cybercrime and safeguarding e-commerce after extensive consultations with experts in industry and academia.
Proposals in the committee's Personal Internet Security report included establishing a centralised and automated system for the reporting of e-crime and enacting US-style data breach notification disclosure laws.
More controversially, the committee argued for moves towards making suppliers legally liable for damage resulting from security flaws.
Richard Clayton, a security researcher at Cambridge University and long-time contributor to UK security policy working groups, has expressed deep frustration at the government's lack of action. He accuses the government of complacency, or worse, in a strongly worded critique posted on the University of Cambridge security blog.
Among the peers' key recommendations - after hearing testimony from experts from Microsoft, Cisco, Verisign, and others - were measures designed to collate information on the extent of cybercrime. Policies introduced last April mean the public is advised to report incidents of credit card fraud to the banks instead of to the police.
The peers, and experts such as Clayton, disagree with this policy. But the government officials turned down calls for a rethink. "They don't think that having the banks collate crime reports gets all the incentives wrong; and they 'do not accept that the incidence of loss of personal data by companies is on an upward path'," Clayton writes.
He argues that the government is burying its head in the sand through a combination of either ignorance or stupidity. "If the government was up-to-speed on what researchers are documenting, they wouldn't be arguing that there is more crime solely because there are more users - and they could not possibly say that they 'refute the suggestion... that lawlessness is rife'," Clayton laments.
He expresses frustration at the government's lack of action. "That's more than a little surprising, because the report made a great deal of sense, and their lordships aren't fools," Clayton writes.
Clayton's frustration is understandable, but the government's lack of action on the recommendation of a parliamentary committee looking at internet security issues is far from unprecedented.
When the All Party Internet Group of MPs looked at the nuisance of junk mail it heard testimony that criminal sanctions were necessary and that legislation ought to deal with spam emails sent to businesses as well as private individuals. The recommendations were ignored, leaving huge loopholes that have rendered UK anti-spam laws toothless. ®