> thanks for all the bits<p>Am I missing something here? What's the headline supposed to mean? Is it a tongue-in-cheek gesture, since GCHQ routinely hoover up personal data and spy on both their citizenry and foreign countries?
This is kind of scary:<p>> one problem (in my opinion) is that it’s too easy to set up free hosting for your cybercrime site. There’s no friction and no risk to dissuade would-be-crims.<p>Sounds like an Inbound TCP License is next on the UK’s to-do list?
So maybe a B-17 pilot can explain: From the image, I can't see what the problem is. If you reach for the gear switch to put the gear <i>down</i>, but hit the flap switch instead and put the flaps <i>down</i>... shouldn't that be just fine? Wouldn't you want the flaps down during landing anyway? Shouldn't putting the gear down cause more drag than the flaps, so you're already prepared for any changes there too?
As a pilot, loved the B17 bit.<p>I am intrigued by the memory safety section. It’s a hot topic these days, right? So here’s an interesting thought experiment.<p>What if all these areas where we use memory-unsafe technologies were replaced by memory managed technologies like C#, Python, Go, etc. Sure, lots of things would run slower (raw TLS in Python, yay), BUT would there suddenly just be less exploits? Or is this area more of “Law of Conservation of Ugly”?
The comments about Heartbleed and OpenSSL suggest (to me) his behind the scenes thinking:<p>Airplanes don't fall out of the sky because transport safety boards do the analysis and the manufacturers follow their advice - the idea is only one planet crashes per type of mistake.<p>Well it's hard to get a group of open source developers to follow cleanroom techniques for free. I am guessing that the thinking is to fund the identified OSS groups.<p>Which is nice...
101010, just for a fun reference I found this interesting mostly unrelated aside to the op and the connection to the book/movie reference from Hitchhiker's Guide, as related to "deepmind" and 42<p>(0)<a href="https://oeis.org/A105281" rel="nofollow">https://oeis.org/A105281</a>
> All of the Active Cyber Defence services are really treating symptoms, rather than underlying causes. I’m really proud of what we’ve achieved in the ACD programme and we've used it to force some systemic changes. But even that programme is about mitigating harm caused by the problems we see, rather than fixing the problems. We really need to get to the root causes and solutions to some of those really thorny issues.<p>Yes, absolutely!<p>For example we build all kinds of crazy things into our CPUs but don't make them safe because this would break compatibility with software design form the 1960s. That's pure insanity given the gigantic costs caused by the to this day unsafe computer architectures. We're talking here about hundreds of billions of dollars, every year. Still nobody wants to change anything.<p>But than the text goes on:<p>> For example, one problem (in my opinion) is that it’s too easy to set up free hosting for your cybercrime site. There’s no friction and no risk to dissuade would-be-crims.<p>Pure nonsense and propaganda!<p>First of all, there is no "free hosting" for cybercrime. If it would be free the whole following argument about economical initiatives for the hosting providers falls apart.<p>Also it seems someone wants to change the fundamental nature of the internet: A key principle of the internet is that everybody with access can provide services. So even if hosting providers would be strongly regulated the cybercrime gangs can still host their shit themself. (And because of initiatives some "illegal" unregulated hosting providers would pop up quickly anyway, as it actually the case already).<p>Fighting the root cause would in this case mean to restructure the internet to a <i>fully</i> state controlled entity. What this guy (indirectly) proposes it pervert! But of course nicely in line with everything the British government stands for…<p>It has reasons why our governments across the globe pushing for "everything online", payed with "digital currency" (this includes "plastic" and online banking and such, in the future "digital Dollars / Euros / Pounds" etc), and in the last step digital IDs bound to the vital internet access. The result of this is <i>full control</i>—a new age of slavery. (But at least there wouldn't be much cybercrime than; isn't that great? /s)<p>A much more favorable solution would be safe free hard- and software, so cybercrime would be infeasible by pure technological means (of course nothing can protect people from their own stupidity, but that's a different story, and not unique to the cyberspace). Such a resolution to the root causes means of course less power to the central governments and all power to the people making and using digital things. But I understand that governments aren't in favor of this and dream instead of the full control approach.<p>The article contains actually much more of the typical intelligence propaganda (or "narrative" how they themself call this kind of propaganda), as others pointed out here already. I would not consider this text anyhow honest.
> They were intended to provide more privacy to users from all sorts of parties, but mainly government and big tech companies. The problem is that DOH makes enterprise cyber security very hard and also damages things like ISP parental controls, and some filtering for child sexual abuse images<p>Man getting paid to spy on people complains about not being able to spy on people and uses the tried and tested "think of the children!" angle. Classic.