Home Tags Theresa May

Tag: Theresa May

Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron have said they are determined to ensure the internet cannot be used as a safe space for terrorists and criminals.
Our new technology and gadget podcast, co-hosted by Ars UK and Wired.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google react to UK prime minister's call to limit encryption.
The countdown to the United Kingdom’s separation from the European Union began in late March when U.K. prime minister Theresa May officially triggered the “Brexit.” With just less than two years until the U.K. is officially out of the EU, the date of departure is one of the few certainties regarding the situation. “No country has ever travelled this path, and there is no turning back,” says Craig Wright, managing director for business transformation and outsourcing advisory firm Pace Harmon.But global CIOs cannot afford to simply wait and see what the post-Brexit world holds.

They must begin preparing now for the impact of potential legal and regulatory changes on their IT services strategies.To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here
'Messy divorce' would help no one UK Prime Minister Theresa May is warning that failure to negotiate an agreement on Britain's exit from the European Union could damage security cooperation.

The tough line - contained in Wednesday's historic letter triggering Article 50 - has re-focused minds on the possible security implications of Brexit.…
Theresa May appoints former International Criminal Court judge The Prime Minister has today appointed Lord Justice Fulford as the first Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who will be the chief overseer of the UK's new surveillance laws.…

Bringing the Latest and Greatest on Technology Industry Issues from Artificial Intelligence to Cyber Security to the North West, for a Third Successful Year

London, 25 January 2017 – IP EXPO Manchester, part of Europe's number one enterprise IT event series, today launches its 2017 showcase, which promises to be the most insightful and topical yet.

IP EXPO Manchester Be Inspired

2017 is a year of opportunity for Manchester, with Prime Minister Theresa May allocating £130.1 million in investment for the Greater Manchester region. Manchester City Council will also invest an additional £4 million in two new tech hubs to support the Northern cities booming technology, science and digital industries.

With additional focus on development in AI, AR, VR and automation technologies, Manchester is well placed to continue to grow its international technology reputation and be at the forefront of overcoming industry issues and challenges.

Be it Brexit, changes in European legislation such as General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), or the advancement of artificial intelligence, there is a vast landscape of new issues for IT professionals to navigate.

For its 2017 event, IP EXPO Manchester will address all these changes in the region by providing local organisations with access to an unprecedented group of influential speakers and brands across central themes of Cloud, Cyber Security, Networks and Infrastructure, DevOps, Open Source and a brand new topic combining AI, Analytics and IoT. Now in its third successful year, the two-day event will take place on 26-27 April 2017 at the Manchester Central, Manchester.

“2017 is shaping up to be one of the most transformative years ever with so many disruptive and exciting new technologies now mature and available.

Add to this the growing need for businesses to digitally transform to stay competitive and the continued growth of the cyber threat landscape there is a crucial need for information, expertise and advice. Our mission is to provide our attendees with rare access to the industry leaders and the world class experts that are creating and shaping these technologies.” comments Bradley Maule-ffinch, EMEA Portfolio Director for the IP EXPO Event Series.

He continues, “IP EXPO Manchester is our fastest growing event and easily the largest enterprise IT event in the North.

Artificial Intelligence, going serverless, DevOps and Cloud technologies are just some of the areas we’ll be covering as well as our cyber security content around GDPR, ransomware, social engineering, and threat protection.
IP EXPO Manchester aims to bring together the right people and brands under one roof to help IT professionals discuss, debate and discover more about the challenges and opportunities these issues bring to the region and beyond.”

2017 Programme highlights include:

  • Panel debate on the ‘Future of Artificial Intelligence’ featuring Amy Nicholson, Tech Evangelist Microsoft UK
  • Live hack demonstration from Ken Munro, Founder of Pen Test Partners
  • Industry leading speakers such as:
    • David Lewis – Global Security Advocate at Akamai Technologies
    • James Akrigg – Head of Technology for Partners at Microsoft
    • Paul J Taylor – Detective Constable for Cyber Crime at Greater Manchester Police
    • Jenny Radcliffe – ‘The People Hacker’

For further information and to register free for IP EXPO Manchester 2017, please visit: www.ipexpomanchester.com.

Get involved on Twitter using #IPEXPOManchester

About IP EXPO Manchester
IP EXPO Manchester is part of Europe’s number one enterprise IT event series, IP EXPO.

The event series also includes IP EXPO Europe in London and IP EXPO Nordic in Sweden. Launched by organisers Imago Techmedia in 2015, the event now encompasses six events under one roof including Cloud, Cyber Security, Networks and Infrastructure, DevOps, Open Source and a brand new topic combining AI, Analytics and IoT.

Designed for those looking to find out how the latest IT innovations can drive and support their business and transition to a digital future

The event showcases brand new exclusive content and senior level insights from across the industry, as well as unveiling the latest developments in IT.
It covers everything you need to run a successful enterprise or organisation.

Media contacts:
Gemma Smith / Vicky Muxlow
020 3176 4700

Speaker or exhibitor enquiries:
Sophie Barry / Keiran Prior
0203 841 8500

Gov Secure Internet to be revamped, world still on brink of digital destruction, etc etc The UK government’s first annual report on the implementation of the 2015 National Security Strategy has reaffirmed that cyber-security remains a key priority. The 39 page report (pdf) lists cyber-security alongside Russia’s actions in Syria and Ukraine and terrorism as among the greatest threats Britain faces. The range of cyber threats and cyber actors threatening the UK has grown significantly – both from state and non-state actors.

The UK increasingly relies on networked technology in all areas of society, business and government.

This means that we could be vulnerable to attacks on parts of networks that are essential for the day-to-day running of the country and the economy. The government goes on to say that it is “working with industry, especially communications service providers, to make it significantly harder to attack UK internet services and users, and to greatly reduce the prospects of successful attacks having a sustained impact on the UK”. The National Cyber Security Centre, which opened for business in October, will have a key role in co-ordinating response and developing best practice. May Day PM Theresa May's administration updated the National Cyber Security Strategy in November 2016.

The updated strategy - which did not contain any new spending pledges - is expected to include an increase in focus on investment in automated defences to combat malware and spam emails as well as a greater emphasis on building skills and research.

The revamped programme also places a greater emphasis on active cyber defence, a broad term that in practice means anything from running honeypot networks to hacking back against adversaries. We continue to invest in cyber detection and response, as attacks against the UK continue to rise. Over the last year, we have developed new technical capabilities to improve our ability to detect and analyse sophisticated cyber threats. Law enforcement continues to work with industry partners to increase specialist capability and expertise, as well as providing additional training in digital forensics. We are also continuing to progress our Active Cyber Defence measures against high-level threats, by strengthening UK networks against high volume/ low sophistication malware. The report unveiled plans, still only at the proof of concept stage, to develop a new secure cross-government network to “enable more efficient handling of national security matters”. No timetable was given for what might be described as the Government Secure Intranet (GSI) 2.0. Skills are always a key problem in the cyber security arena.

The UK government wants to promote cyber security education, starting with teenagers in schools and going all the way up to university programmes. A new Cyber Security Skills Strategy is now under development, which will set out how we will work with industry and academic providers to secure a pipeline of competent cyber security professionals. GCHQ’s CyberFirst scheme was established to identify, support and nurture the young cyber talent the UK will need in the digital age.
In 2016, we announced a major expansion to the scheme, including a programme in secondary schools, with the aim of having up to a thousand students involved by 2020.

The first cohort of 14-17 year olds will begin training under this programme in 2017. We are working with industry to establish specific cyber apprenticeships for three critical national infrastructure sectors: energy, finance and transport.

Acknowledging the key role universities play in skills development, we are also working to identify and support quality cyber graduate and postgraduate education, building on the certification programme for cyber security Masters courses, established by GCHQ. We are working to establish an active body to provide visible leadership and direction to the cyber security profession, and to advise, shape and inform national policy. Moving towards tackling cyber crime, the National Crime Agency (NCA) and the police have increased their numbers of ‘cyber specials’ working alongside law enforcement officers on cyber crime, and are “making good progress towards a target of 80 cyber specials in post by the end of March 2018”.

To tackle criminal use of the 'dark web', a new Dark Web Intelligence Unit has been established within the NCA, the report states. “The upgrade of its capability will continue throughout the 2016-17 financial year and beyond leading to significantly greater technical capability.

This will enable the use of multiple data sources, offer new and different types of analysis, and coordinate with multiple agencies to deal with issues at scale.” Back to more mundane matters, the UK government is also investing in regional cyber crime prevention coordinators, who “engage with SMEs and the public to provide bespoke cyber security advice”. On a related theme, UK.gov promised to promote its Cyber Essentials scheme to help businesses protect against common cyber threats. Although GCHQ and policing agencies are most vested in developing cyber security policies, the cyber arena also enters into the work of other government departments.

For example, the FCO’s £3.5m Cyber Security Capacity Building Programme is delivering a portfolio of 35 projects benefiting 70 countries to support the “openness and security of networks that extend beyond our own borders”. To help promote commercial endeavours in security the government is introducing two new cyber innovation centres based in Cheltenham and London; academic start-ups; a £10m Innovation Fund; a proving ground; and an SME boot camp. “GCHQ has reached out to industry and encouraged firms to invest in cyber security research through the CyberInvest programme which now has 25 industry members committed to investing millions of pounds in cyber security research at UK universities over the next five years,” the government report added. ® Sponsored: Want to know more about PAM? Visit The Register's hub
Enshrining parallel construction in English law Analysis The freshly passed Investigatory Powers Act, better known as the Snoopers' Charter, is a dog's dinner of a law. It gives virtually unrestricted powers not only to State spy organisations but also to the police and a host of other government agencies. The operation of the oversight and accountability mechanisms in the IPA are all kept firmly out of sight – and, so its authors hope, out of mind – of the public. It is up to the State to volunteer the truth to its victims if the State thinks it has abused its secret powers. "Marking your own homework" is a phrase which does not fully capture this. However, despite the establishment of a parallel system of secret justice, the IPA's tentacles also enshrine parallel construction into law. That is, the practice where prosecutors lie about the origins of evidence to judges and juries – thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial because he cannot review or question the truth of the evidence against him. Parallel construction Parallel construction is a murky doctrine with not very much about it in the public domain because State agents go to great lengths to ensure that it is not brought to public attention. A 2013 story from Reuters describes how the US National Security Agency, which is constitutionally forbidden from spying on American citizens on American turf (but do so anyway, because they can) effectively launder their illegally collected communications evidence so the Drug Enforcement Administration can use it to catch domestic drug dealers. Describing how this works in practice, the story said: "A former federal agent in the northeastern United States who received such tips from SOD [Special Operations Division, a unit of the DEA] described the process. 'You'd be told only, "Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle." And so we'd alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it,' the agent said." The problem here is not that drug dealers are being caught, but that they are being caught in a way that subverts the legal system and unfairly skews what is supposed to be a level and honest playing field in court. Section 56 of the act as passed sets out a number of matters that are now prohibited from being brought up in court. The exact wording of section 56(1) is as follows: Exclusion of matters from legal proceedings etc. (1) No evidence may be adduced, question asked, assertion or disclosure made or other thing done in, for the purposes of or in connection with any legal proceedings or Inquiries Act proceedings which (in any manner)— (a) discloses, in circumstances from which its origin in interception-related conduct may be inferred— (i) any content of an intercepted communication, or (ii) any secondary data obtained from a communication, or (b) tends to suggest that any interception-related conduct has or may have occurred or may be going to occur. This is subject to Schedule 3 (exceptions). Schedule 3's list of exemptions is broadly confined to national security court hearings, tribunals and other judicial occasions when the great unwashed, usually including the defendant and his legal representatives, are excluded from part or all of the hearing. Out of sight, out of mind. Section 56(1)(b) creates a legally guaranteed ability – nay, duty – to lie about even the potential for State hacking to take place, and to tell juries a wholly fictitious story about the true origins of hacked material used against defendants in order to secure criminal convictions. This is incredibly dangerous. Even if you know that the story being told in court is false, you and your legal representatives are now banned from being able to question those falsehoods and cast doubt upon the prosecution story. Potentially, you could be legally bound to go along with lies told in court about your communications – lies told by people whose sole task is to weave a story that will get you sent to prison or fined thousands of pounds. Moreover, as section 56(4) makes clear, this applies retrospectively, ensuring that it is very difficult for criminal offences committed by GCHQ employees and contractors over the years, using powers that were only made legal a fortnight ago, to be brought to light in a meaningful way. It might even be against the law for a solicitor or barrister to mention in court this Reg story by veteran investigative journalist Duncan Campbell about GCHQ's snooping station in Oman (covered by the section 56(1)(b) wording "interception-related conduct has occurred") – or large volumes of material published on Wikileaks. The existence of section 56(4) makes a mockery of the "general privacy protections" in Part 1 of the IPA, which includes various criminal offences. Part 1 was introduced as a sop to privacy advocates horrified at the full extent of the act's legalisation of intrusive, disruptive and dangerous hacking powers for the State, including powers to force the co-operation of telcos and similar organisations. There is no point in having punishments for lawbreakers if it is illegal to talk about their law-breaking behaviour. Like the rest of the Snoopers' Charter, section 56 has become law. Apart from Reg readers and a handful of Twitter slacktivists, nobody cares. The general public neither knows nor cares what abuses and perversions of the law take place in its name. Theresa May and the British government have utterly defeated advocates of privacy and security, completely ignoring those who correctly identify the zero-sum game between freedom and security in favour of those who feel the need to destroy liberty in order to "save" it. The UK is now a measurably less free country in terms of technological security, permitted speech and ability to resist abuses of power and position by agents of the State, be those shadowy spys, police inspectors and above (ie, shift leaders in your local cop shop) and even food hygiene inspectors – no, really. Sleep safely tonight, citizen. Trust us. ® Sponsored: Customer Identity and Access Management
Your homes may be your castles, but your browsing histories belong to UK.gov IPBill Queen Elizabeth II today signs off on Parliament's Investigatory Powers Act, officially making it law. QEII not only had the last word on the new legislation — aka the Snoopers' Charter — she had the first. She publicly announced what the law would be called during the official opening of Parliament after last year's general election. A first draft of the Investigatory Powers Bill was published six months later, alongside a confession that successive British governments had been issuing secret directives to telcos to intercept their users' communications. Many were pleased such secret surveillance was now being more explicitly codified. Theresa May — then Home Secretary — claimed that it only introduced the one new power: "requiring communications service providers to retain internet connection records when given a notice by the Secretary of State". But this was disputed by civil liberties campaigners. Legal challenges against the bill are already under way, with members of the Don't Spy on Us coalition continuing their involvement in legal action against the proposed mass surveillance powers. The organisation notes: The UK’s legal regime for bulk surveillance is being challenged in two separate cases at the ECHR, while the data retention regime is being questioned in the UK and EU courts in the Watson (previously Watson-Davis) challenge. We expect both courts to place further demands for safeguards and restraints on the highly permissive UK surveillance regime. There has never existed a single law regarding data retention powers in the UK which has not, in some form or another, been amended due to a legal challenge. Popular opposition to the law has already provoked over 133,000 citizens to sign a petition calling for its repeal, and although that is unlikely to happen, the petition's motion must now be considered by Parliament. Those who campaigned against the legislation are disappointed. Bella Sankey, the Policy Director for Liberty, described today as "a sad day for our democracy." She added: "The Home Secretary is right that the Government has a duty to protect us, but these measures won't do the job. Instead they open every detail of every citizen's online life up to state eyes, drowning the authorities in data and putting innocent people's personal information at massive risk." Sankey added: "This new law is world-leading – but only as a beacon for despots everywhere. The campaign for a surveillance law fit for the digital age continues, and must now move to the courts." Jim Killock, exec director at digital rights campaigner the Open Rights Group, agreed: "Amber Rudd says the Investigatory Powers Act is world-leading legislation. She is right; it is one of the most extreme surveillance laws ever passed in a democracy. Its impact will be felt beyond the UK as other countries, including authoritarian regimes with poor human rights records, will use this law to justify their own intrusive surveillance regimes." He continued: "Although there are some improvements to oversight, the Bill will mean the police and intelligence agencies have unprecedented powers to surveil our private communications and Internet activity, whether or not we are suspected of a crime. Theresa May has finally got her snoopers' charter and democracy in the UK is the worse for it." ® Sponsored: Customer Identity and Access Management
Surveillance bill goes through British Parliament and awaits only the Royal assent to become law before the year ends. 'Snoopers’ Charter,' officially knows as The Investigatory Powers Bill, is all set to become law before the year ends after it was passed by the British Parliament and awaits the Queen’s stamp of approval, The Register reports. The bill, which is widely regarded as being the most stringent of its kind, had its first draft published in November 2015 and was passed by both Houses of Parliament with the Labour Party abstaining. Under the new legislation, Internet service providers will have to store a back-up of the browsing activities of their users for 12 months and make it available to authorities whenever needed. It will also legalize offensive hacking and bulk collection of personal data by the authorities, despite concerns that this could lead to flaws being exploited to reveal more data than required. This law will legalize what the British government had secretly been doing all along, Prime Minister Theresa May conceded when publishing the first draft. Read full story here. Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio More Insights
EnlargeJustin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images reader comments 14 Share this story The UK's home secretary, Amber Rudd, has signed an extradition order agreeing that hacking suspect Lauri Love should face trial in the US. Love's family plan to appeal against the decision.

The 31-year-old—who has Asperger's syndrome—faces up to 99 years in prison and fears for his own life, his lawyers have said. A home office spokesperson told Ars: "On Monday 14 November, the secretary of state, having carefully considered all relevant matters, signed an order for Lauri Love’s extradition to the United States. Mr Love has been charged with various computer hacking offences which included targeting US military and federal government agencies." Rudd considered four so-called legal tests of the Extradition Act 2003: whether Love is at risk of the death penalty; whether specialty arrangements are in place; whether Love has previously been extradited from another country to the UK, thereby requiring consent from that country; and whether Love was previously transferred to the UK by the International Criminal Court. However, the home secretary concluded that none of these issues applied to Love. The extradition comes after more than 100 MPs recently penned a letter to President Barack Obama, urging him to prevent Love's extradition to the US on the grounds that the hacking suspect's case is similar to that of British citizen Gary McKinnon, whose extradition to the US was blocked in 2012 by then Home Secretary Theresa May. At the time, May introduced a forum bar to stop extradition in cases where the defendants' human rights were said to be at risk.

But the prime minister recently noted that the legal position for the forum bar had been changed, adding that it was "now a matter for the courts." In September, District Judge Nina Tempia ruled that Love should be extradited to the US to face trial over the alleged hacking of the US missile defence agency, the FBI, and America's central bank.

At the time, Tempia said that she was satisfied that the decision was "compatible" with Love's Convention rights. On Tuesday, the home office said in its "Lauri Love Fact Sheet": The legislation does not permit the home secretary to consider human rights or health issues in extradition cases, nor would it be appropriate for the home secretary to do so. It is for a judge to decide whether or not extradition breaches an individual's human rights, or whether their health makes it unjust or oppressive to extradite them. Love's lawyers now have 14 days to mount an appeal against his extradition to the US. "We will be appealing," Love's father, Alexander Love told the BBC. "We are talking to our lawyers.
It was going to happen—it was inevitable—but it's still painful. "I cannot begin to express how much sorrow it causes me.

All we are asking for is British justice for a British citizen." This post originated on Ars Technica UK