Tag Archive for: overhaul

Britain Plans to Overhaul 32-Year-Old Law


Geo Focus: The United Kingdom
,
Geo-Specific
,
Legislation & Litigation

Expanded Police Powers Mooted; Cybersecurity Pros Seek White Hat Hacker Safeguards

Computer Crime: Britain Plans to Overhaul 32-Year-Old Law
Headquarters of Britain’s Home Office in London (Image: Steve Cadman, via Flickr/CC)

The British government is proposing to give itself more law enforcement powers against hackers in a public consultation critics say is marred by a lack of concrete proposals to shield security researchers acting in good faith.

The conservative government of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unveiled this month proposed updates to the U.K.’s principal anti-hacking law, the Computer Misuse Act of 1990. It proposes giving law enforcement the ability to seize IP addresses tied to cybercrime, to compel data preservation, and to further criminalize the possession of stolen data. Home Office officials have promised an updated law will include protection for white hat hackers but have yet to issue any concrete proposals for doing so.

See Also: Live Webinar | Navigating the Difficulties of Patching OT

The 1990 law criminalizes unauthorized access to computer systems and data, as well as damaging or destroying either, and is intended to protect the security and integrity of systems and information.

There’s widespread agreement that the 32-year-old is overdue for an update. “There have been several amendments to the act, most recently in 2015, to ensure that U.K. legislation met the requirements of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime – Budapest Convention – and other relevant EU directives,” according to Britain’s Society for…

Source…

Australia flags privacy overhaul after huge cyber attack on Optus


Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese speaks at the Sydney Energy Forum in Sydney, Australia July 12, 2022. Brook Mitchell/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

SYDNEY, Sept 26 (Reuters) – Australia plans to toughen privacy rules to force companies to notify banks faster when they experience cyber attacks, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Monday, after hackers targeted the country’s second-largest telecoms firm.

Optus, owned by Singapore Telecoms Ltd (STEL.SI), said last week that home addresses, drivers’ licences and passport numbers of up to 10 million customers, or about 40% of the population, were compromised in one of Australia’s biggest data breaches.

The attacker’s IP address, or unique identifier of a computer, appeared to move between countries in Europe, the company said, but declined to detail how security was breached. Australian media reported an unidentified party had demanded $1 million in cryptocurrency for the data in an online forum but Optus has not commented on its authenticity.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Albanese called the incident “a huge wake-up call” for the corporate sector, saying there were some state actors and criminal groups who wanted to access people’s data.

“We want to make sure … that we change some of the privacy provisions there so that if people are caught up like this, the banks can be let know, so that they can protect their customers as well,” he told radio station 4BC.

Cybersecurity Minister Clare O’Neil said Optus was responsible for the breach and noted such lapses in other jurisdictions would be met with fines in the hundreds of millions of dollars, an apparent reference to European laws that penalise companies 4% of global revenue for privacy breaches.

“One significant question is whether the cyber security requirements that we place on large telecommunications providers in this country are fit for purpose,” O’Neil told parliament.

Optus said it would offer the most affected customers free credit monitoring and identity protection with credit agency Equifax Inc (EFX.N) for a year. It did not say how many customers the offer applied to.

The telco…

Source…

New Bill Calls For An End To PACER Fees, Complete Overhaul Of The Outdated System

The perennial make-PACER-free legislation has arrived. If you’re not familiar with PACER, count yourself among the lucky ones. PACER performs an essential task: it provides electronic access to federal court dockets and documents. That’s all it does and it barely does it.

PACER charges taxpayers (who’ve already paid taxes to fund the federal court system) $ 0.10/page for EVERYTHING. Dockets? $ 0.10/page. (And that “page” is very loosely defined.) Every document is $ 0.10/page, as though the court system was running a copier and chewing up expensive toner. So is every search result page, even those that fail to find any responsive results. The user interface would barely have been considered “friendly” 30 years ago, never mind in the year of our lord two thousand twenty. Paying $ 0.10/page for everything while attempting to navigate an counterintuitive interface draped over something that looks like it’s being hosted by Angelfire is no one’s idea of a nostalgic good time.

Legislation attempting to make PACER access free was initiated in 2018. And again in 2019. We’re still paying for access, thanks to the inability of legislators to get these passed. Maybe this is the year it happens, what with a bunch of courtroom precedent being built up suggesting some illegal use of PACER fees by the US Courts system. We’ll see. Here’s what’s on tap for this year’s legislative session:

Representatives Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) and Doug Collins (R-Ga.) are hoping to drastically change all of the above with their bipartisan reform effort, the Open Courts Act (OCA).

The bill would make online access to federal court records free to the public. It also contains language that would effectively improve upon PACER’s current and wildly out-of-date search functionality, increase third-party accessibility to the entire system, and upgrade and maintain the database using modern data standards.

This is a good bill. It aims for something more than just free access. (To be honest, that would at least offset the frustration of subjecting yourself to PACER’s hideous charms in an attempt to talk it out of some filings.) Free access is a necessity. At this point, the presumed openness of the court still hides behind a paywall, separating citizens from courtroom documents under the naive theory that it’s impossible to give something away if it costs money to produce. (And that assumption ignores the tax dollars already earmarked for running the court system.)

This bill would also drag the PACER system (presumably kicking and screaming) into the future… or at least a much more recent past. The 1995-esque front end would be updated, along with all the other stuff that doesn’t work well… which is pretty much everything.

It would be a bit more future-proofed. The bill [PDF] demands transparent coding that will incorporate “non-proprietary, full text searchable, platform-independent” elements. This means documents will finally be searchable by the text they contain, rather than limited to locating documents by finding the right docket and going from there. And this will hopefully fix another problem with PACER: search issues baked into the system by jurisdiction divisions. Each federal court has its own login page and, while it’s possible to search all jurisdictions, it’s far more likely you’ll be dimed to death by useless searches before you find what you need.

But who’s going to pay for this, I hear the US Courts system asking? Well, like any other FTP service, it will be mostly supported by whales.

On its own terms, the OCA would take two to three years to modernize the overall CM/ECF so that all court documents are searchable, readily accessible and machine-readable regardless of an end user’s browser setup. During this period, so-called institutional “power users” would still be subject to PACER fees–if they charge over $ 25,000 annually.

But not forever.

After that, fees would vanish entirely.

Will this be the bill that sticks? Maybe. Courts are finding the PACER system questionable — not just the barrier it places between the public and court documents, but the uses of the fees as well, very little of which has actually been spent on improving PACER itself. If there’s something almost everyone agrees with, it’s that PACER sucks. Being asked to pay for the dubious privilege of using a barely working system is the insult piled on top of the $ 0.10/page injury.

Techdirt.

Analysis | The Cybersecurity 202: Internet ecosystem needs a complete overhaul to be cybersecure, House panel warns – The Washington Post

Analysis | The Cybersecurity 202: Internet ecosystem needs a complete overhaul to be cybersecure, House panel warns  The Washington Post

Hello, Cybersecurity 202 readers. My name is Joe Marks and I’ll be anchoring this newsletter going forward. I’ll be your guide through data breaches, bug bounty …

“internet security news” – read more