Bill Gates on Cybercrime

Or, if being a little cynical, because if he admits that it is an issue, then he opens himself to a lot of questions regarding his (ex) company's ability to produce a piece of software that doesn't _assist_ cyber criminals.

But that's just cynicism ! 😉

I saw it too and read his generic response (he was questioned on cyber-terrorism not cyber crime) as showing that he doesn't really know much about recent events around Stuxnet and the protection of SCADA systems and so on. Nothing wrong with that mind, his focus being now on humanitarian aid and not tech.

Ah well, we all know that cyber-terrorism is just a budget grabber headline for Tuesday's cost cutting don't we 😉

I suspect Bill Gates knows more than he is being given credit. Prior to his appearance on Breakfast, the BBC1 had concluded (somehow) from a survey that had been conducted that 9 million people didn't know how to use a computer or use the Internet. Couple that with Bill Gates involvement with Microsoft and being on the BBC that morning, it wasn't difficult to work out he would be inline for a question when the same broadcasters also headlined, prior to Bill Gates being interviewed, about the new cyber threats that were annouced.

If cybercrime/cyber-terrorism were so imminent and such a "high" probability then the Government can shut down the Internet. Western Governments know of the issues, they can close the loopholes of the ISPs distribution network. The threat to economic well-being is far greater and the Government wouldn't just leave the nation to cope. I suspect this is where Bill Gates is coming from when he drew the analogy about electricity and naturally protecting your electricity source and when he mentioned about needing experts, not armies.

I suspect that you'll find that critical systems in this country _aren't_ connected to the internet, I'd suggest that the following may be a good place to start reading as to why this isn't a _real_ problem

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Secure_Intranet

Bearing in mind that this is for _low level_ protective marking, I leave it to the readers imagination what exists for _high level_ protective marking !

But heck, it keeps me in a job at any rate 😉

If we talk about infrastructure and governement comms etc then I suspect you maybe right, but then that would be a pointless exercise asking Bill Gates about it. More to the point, why would the new National Security Council (NSC) tell Joe Public about threats to infrastructure or governments comms etc. Not meaning to be offensive but there is b****r all any of us can do about that. The publicity has been aimed at ordinary Joe Public being warned of cybercrime (cyber-terrorism) and the inference is the threat is by way of the Internet. Given the Internet plays host to e.g. e-commerce, economic well-being is important (perhaps, maybe).

There seems to have been a general mixing of the terms cyber-warfare, cyber-terrorism & cyber-crime the news, as is oft the way with things they don't/can't/won't understand, interchanges them without consideration.

cyber-crime is no better or worse than it has ever been, phishing, cracking etc. are much the same as allways - there are highs and lows, but nothing particularly extreme. Of course these figures are allways exagerated by the number of crimes that are committed that have a computer used in their research/planning/excecution - but this isn't cyber-crime anymore than stealing a knife is "knife crime".

cyber-terrorism, to take the traditional use of the word "terrorism" ( or arguably "freedom fighting" depending on where you are standing ) is the "guerrilla warfare" of the computer world - denial of service, defacements etc. For example the "Anonymous" attacks on the Copyright crowd. Where this "terrorism" impacts on the general public is few and far between - a denial of service against a particularly greedy bank might impact on a few, but in real terms, this doesn't, and is unlikely to, create problems on the scale or magnitude of a traditional terrorist attack. And again, this has been going on, much of a muchness for sometime - highs and lows - usually associated with world events - but predominantly from individuals or insignificant groups.

cyber-warfare is a bit different, and, really hasn't been seen except in Georgia - and even then, although that was suspected to be from Russia, that was never really proved - it could as well have been from a reasonable size hacker group just stretching in a country where there was little chance of prosecution or repercussion. I guess what Greg is suggesting above is probably the worst case scenario where the internet is compromised in some way that means that businesses can't communicate funds transfers - e.g. PoS - in reality though, as "the internet" is built on a wide variety of technologies ( from many and varied manufacturers ) and is designed to be resilient in the case of nuclear war ( or not … http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpanet#The_ARPANET_under_nuclear_attack ) the chances of "taking out the internet" for a given country are fairly limited in a cyber-warfare scenario. Infact you'd stand a better chance of taking out the internet in the UK with some more traditional arson against certain backbone sites …

It is this, final, threat that is both having it's bandwaggon jumped on and is being blown out of proportion. Like most things - it's exciting, so it gets a lot of press - you are more likely to be burgled, have your car stolen, be involved in a hit & run or have your pocket picked than you are to be a victim of cyber-crime. Even Identity Theft ( which is portrayed as cyber-crime) is considerably easier to achieve through a dust-bin sift than a computer. Cyber-terrorism ? I'd be delighted to sell "cyber-terrorism" insurance to anyone who wants it !

Yup, those definition boundaries have been clouded and those definitions were not given out in the public broadcast. I do see where you are coming from Azrael, I do understand those terms, but appreciate you recorded them anyway. )

But on the BBC broadcast, maybe Joe Public might be unlikely to fully comprehend the subtle differences and probably cannot imagine too much beyond will it damage my computer if I look on the Internet?

Either the issue is a threat that Joe Public needs to be concerned with because the matter falls within the purview of Joe Public to do something about it or it doesn't matter at all because Joe Public cannot do anything about it. It is not as if the public can see a suspicious bag or someone loitering with intent etc that they can report. Perhaps Bill Gates saw it that way too by using the terminology experts not armies? I can't imagine him going on to the BBC without his Publicist/PR knowing in advance the questions that were going to or might be put to him.

http//www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11562969
The report highlights cyber crime, alongside terrorism and a flu pandemic, among the key dangers to UK security.

Cyber What?
http//trewmte.blogspot.com/2010/10/cyber-what.html

In the last few days I've spoken to a number of people _in Govt. employ_ and they aren't exactly clear on the "cyber" definition either 😉