Britain To Create 2,000-Strong Cyber Force, Boost Budget By £250M (sky.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Britain To Create 2,000-Strong Cyber Force, Boost Budget By £250M (sky.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday September 22, 2018 @11:34PM from the battle-of-the-bits dept.

Slashdot reader cold fjord writes: Britain's Ministry of Defence and GCHQ signals intelligence establishment have put forward a plan to increase staff devoted to offensive cyber operations up to 2,000, quadrupling it over current levels. Funding would also increase by at least £250m, according to one source. The initiative comes "amid a growing cyber threat from Russia and after the UK used cyber weapons for the first time to fight Islamic State." General Sir Richard Barrons commented, "By adopting offensive cyber techniques in the UK we are levelling the playing field and providing new means of both deterring and punishing states that wish to do us harm."

32 of 68 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The cybermen by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-22 23:43 · Score: 1

Someone call the doctor
1. Re:The cybermen by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · 2018-09-23 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yo, James, what's your new Cyber code number, 0x700?
"Cyber", the mark of incompetence... by gweihir · 2018-09-22 23:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

Nobody with an actual clue uses that word. They will probably only get wannabees that are eager to fulfill their authoritarian masters bidding though.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
1. Re:"Cyber", the mark of incompetence... by Archtech · 2018-09-23 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. From the Greek meaning a steersman, first widely used after Norbert Wiener wrote a book about cybernetics - the science of control mechanisms.
  Second big wave of popularity came when William Gibson - who by his own admission did not know what a modem was at the time - wrote his brilliant SF novel "Neuromancer" which featured "cyberspace" - a kind of imagined virtual reality many years ahead of today's state of the art. Gibson's cyberspace had virtually nothing to do with the Internet or the Web. One nice aspect of Gibson's cyberspace was that security software ("ice") could actually electrocute or otherwise harm users who tried to intrude where they were not allowed while "jacked in".
  As gweihir points out, we can be grateful that the use of "cyber-" anything in connection with the Internet or the Web is a reliable clue that the speaker (or writer) knows little about the subject.
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
2. Re:"Cyber", the mark of incompetence... by Archtech · 2018-09-23 00:37 · Score: 2
  
  Well, I work as a cyber assistant for a 3 letter agency so the term is well known.
  Thanks for confirming our suspicions.
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
3. Re:"Cyber", the mark of incompetence... by AHuxley · 2018-09-23 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  Re "actually have better standards"
  That went out in late 1970/80-1990's. Political correctness has replaced any consideration of using "security" to stop a new worker getting a job gov/mil wide.
  The US buddy system will have to be imported to keep new secrets.
  
  Once very smart new staff work out they wont be trusted and the person they work with cant be trusted the esprit de corps returns to the low pay and conditions of the 1950's to mid 1970's.
  The ability to do research is lost as all such attempts are reported internally. Keeping track of new staff becomes the mission. Back to the 1960's investigations with the decades of doubt over all past tasks.
  When a gov wants better standards they pay more, offer free further education, have some trust their workers and have the best working conditions.
  Once governments step in and make demands about the demographics of the new workers and who can be hired then once great security has to drop in importance.
  
  Once security services expand too quickly and have accept any new staff decades of security problems set in. The classic example was promotion of well placed spies within the UK security services in the 1930-1960's due to the need for skilled staff and the lack of security.
  
  Rapid "cyber" expansion with no need for deep security questions just opens part of the gov/mil up to any cult members, spies, people of faith, people with split loyalties. Background investigations cant block getting cyber work so a spy with a new gov/mil UK cyber job can spy until/if detected.
  In the past deep background investigations would have blocked untrusted people and kept standards.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
4. Re:"Cyber", the mark of incompetence... by marcjps · 2018-09-23 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Still, various institutions adopted the word cyber in reference to "digital wrongdoings". Oxford dictionary made a post about it.
5. Re:"Cyber", the mark of incompetence... by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2018-09-23 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  " They will probably only get wannabees"
  Oh another typo! Unless you meant a type of eusocial insect known to make honey?
  
  --
  Mostly random stuff.
6. Re:"Cyber", the mark of incompetence... by AmiMoJo · 2018-09-23 02:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  After the Snowden leaks anyone with any morals of conscience would have to ask themselves if they could work for GCHQ. This is an organization that wilfully, systematically broke the law for at least a decade and continues to do so. What little we know of their operation is unimpressive and suggests only moderate effectiveness, which the need for a further 2000 staff seems to confirm.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
7. Re:"Cyber", the mark of incompetence... by gweihir · 2018-09-23 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to have no purpose in life....
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
8. Re:"Cyber", the mark of incompetence... by gweihir · 2018-09-23 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  There are always enough useful idiots and enough people that do not have personal morals at all. These willingly do what they are told. They are the backbone of every good totalitarian state.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
9. Re:"Cyber", the mark of incompetence... by rtb61 · 2018-09-23 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  They will not even get that. That is not hacker force but a straight up forum propaganda force, multiple accounts spreading deep state propaganda, war is peace shit.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Stalking and Harassment of... by buravirgil · 2018-09-23 00:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

subjects and citizens, largely men victimizing and predating women, was not sufficient cause to employ a "force", but harm of the nationhood is. I have come to new levels of disdain for bureaucrats of "free market" nations (and many regular folks) who justify the ambitions of trans-national corporations (protected by limited liability) collating and correlating consumer profiles (aka You-Are-the-Product) but insist less developed economies allow such vital statistics be collected by western corporations.

But of course I support securing admin directories and increasing awareness of manipulation (such as phishing), but as another poster has dismissed the very term cyber as hopelessly dated and ignorant, I am alarmed by the complete lack of specificity by the given descriptions.

--
Would were! Should is! Could be! And live a hundred times three.
1. Re:Stalking and Harassment of... by AmiMoJo · 2018-09-23 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Most of these people will probably be working with other organisations to help them implement basic security or run some automated security scans against their networks. Many will also be on social media, something like the Russian Internet Research Agency.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
In simpler terms... by Archtech · 2018-09-23 00:27 · Score: 1, Interesting

"Britain is significantly increasing its ability to wage war in cyberspace..."
Translation: "to fuck up the Internet"
"... with the creation of a new offensive cyber force of up to 2,000 personnel..."
Who will apparently sit at computers and argue (futilely) with anyone they discover telling the truth on the Web. Or, if decision-makers in London are insane enough, try to damage Russian equipment and harm Russian people by screwing with their computer systems.
After all, what's to lose? It would take Russia all of half an hour and up to five per cent of its strategic warheads to render the entire UK permanently uninhabitable.
"... Sky News understands..."
Vanishingly unlikely

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
1. Re:In simpler terms... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 01:50 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  "Britain is significantly increasing its ability to wage war in cyberspace..."
  Translation: "to fuck up the Internet"
  The Conservative conference is about to start and the UK government is desperate for anything to distract them from the Brexit catastrophe. This is why a group of people who have regularly compared the EU to the Nazis are suddenly getting upset about a photo with no cherries. The real translation is "please don't notice the puppeteer .
2. Re:In simpler terms... by serviscope_minor · 2018-09-23 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  After all, what's to lose? It would take Russia all of half an hour and up to five per cent of its strategic warheads to render the entire UK permanently uninhabitable.
  You've just discovered MAD.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Mandatory xkcd by Archtech · 2018-09-23 00:28 · Score: 1

https://www.xkcd.com/386/

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Re:Oh the stupidity by Archtech · 2018-09-23 00:36 · Score: 1

Reluctantly, I am beginning to think that maybe "hacker" will come to mean "black hat" (as a secondary or maybe primary meaning), just through overwhelming usage. After all, most of us in the computer world grew up referring to "data" as a singular, even though we know it's originally a plural.

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
So how many jobs by bobstreo · 2018-09-23 00:38 · Score: 1

will be security? How many will be administrative support, oversight. or just plain bureaucratic overhead with cushy jobs appointed by their friends?
Russia? by Hognoxious · 2018-09-23 00:48 · Score: 1

Russia my my arse. This is to keep an eye on those Belgian bastards.
I know this for a fact because this gu*@€&^.]à,... . no carrier

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
1. Re:Russia? by rmdingler · 2018-09-23 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  In the spirit of
  "I'd rather have honest enemies than fake friends."
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
2. Re:Russia? by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · 2018-09-23 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  By what measure is the Putin regime "honest"?
3. Re:Russia? by serviscope_minor · 2018-09-23 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Russia my my arse. This is to keep an eye on those Belgian bastards.
  Yep. We do after all rely on Wallonia's vote to secure whatever half-cocked Brexit deal we manage to negotiate.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
4. Re:Russia? by serviscope_minor · 2018-09-23 04:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  . . . but then again . . . nobody in the UK besides Theresa May seems to like her Chequers Plan either . . . so maybe she wants to keep an eye on the UK bastards, as well . . . ?
  (what's the spaces between the dots?)
  That aside, yeah no one in the UK really likes it.
  For the vaguely sane, leaving the EU is clearly incredibly stupid and it's clear we're going to much worse under Chequers than we're doing now[*].
  For many Brexiters it's not acceptable because Brexit was supposed to make everything better and it won't. they're stil waiting for a magical solution which makes everything better not worse.
  And for the Jacob Reese-Moggs and Boris "250k is chickenfeed" Johnsons of this world, they simply don't care that a hard Brexit will utterly fuck everyone less rich than them. They see it as a route to power and they don't care how many people have to die for them to get it.
  Thing is though the reception in the UK is barely relevant. No one in the EU likes it either. The May government is very good when it comes to blustering about our "red lines", but they seem to have forgotten that the EU has some too.
  [*] There are some interesting things though, particularly the emphasis on goods rather than services. The UK is largely a financial service economy so that will effectively heavily boos the goods side relative to the services side. That could potentially help with the inequality problems because manufacturing of goods can end up employing a lot of people relative to financial services. However, in order for that work, the Tories would have to be a lot more pro British manufacturing than they've ever been in the past which is deeply unlikely. And the EU will have to agree which they won't.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
5. Re:Russia? by Hognoxious · 2018-09-23 09:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Did you see the recent episode of Question Time from Dewsbury? I grew up not far from there and frankly I'm thinking about developing a Scouse or maybe Brummie accent to avoid the stigma of being associated with such a bunch of thick ignorant cunts.
  But froth froth sovereignty! Froth froth get behind the leader!
  The fact that we haven't had that since the yanks told us we couldn't invade Suez seems to pass them by. As for getting behind the leader, that's what lemmings do.
  
  There are some interesting things though, particularly the emphasis on goods rather than services. The UK is largely a financial service economy so that will effectively heavily boos the goods side relative to the services side.
  I don't see that. It won't make, say, our carmakers any better than they already are, but we could still lose huge amounts of jobs and the related tax revenue from financial companies moving - which is already happening.
  Referring back to QT, there was a woman on the panel who was the first to say it publicly AFAIK - what the people voted for is irrelevant it if it can't actually be done.
  As to all those deals we'll be able to do, India (one of the most protectionist countries there is) told her to go pound sand last year and she's been reduced to trying to flog weapons to those lovely Turks and Saudis.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
6. Re:Russia? by serviscope_minor · 2018-09-23 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that we haven't had that since the yanks told us we couldn't invade Suez seems to pass them by.
  I always thought of it the other way around. We always had sovreignty because we cold choose to ignore any of the EU's laws. Of course we'd have to leave to do that but we always had the choice. for some reason people think "soverignty" means "do whatever with no consequences".
  As for getting behind the leader, that's what lemmings do.
  Quite so.
  I don't see that. It won't make, say, our carmakers any better than they already are, but we could still lose huge amounts of jobs and the related tax revenue from financial companies moving - which is already happening.
  Yes. It won't be good. Just under that unlikely scenario, manufacturing would probably rise with a bit less inequality as a result. That's the relative level of course: everyone would be dragged down a long way.
  Referring back to QT, there was a woman on the panel who was the first to say it publicly AFAIK - what the people voted for is irrelevant it if it can't actually be done
  Makes sense. And not only that is no one can even agree on what people voted for. What does leave even mean? Apart from "leave" of course...
  As to all those deals we'll be able to do, India (one of the most protectionist countries there is) told her to go pound sand last year and she's been reduced to trying to flog weapons to those lovely Turks and Saudis.
  Well there's always Australia. They're big and close, right?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Which good hacker is going to sign up for this? by Slayer · 2018-09-23 04:49 · Score: 2

We just lived through decades of criminalizing trivial transgressions (whenever "with a computer" would apply), of making even copyright circumvention (think: copying a DVD) a criminal act more punishable than assault. At the same time countless cases of extreme carelessness regarding security, many of them leading to massive private data dumps, were without any adverse consequences to the responsible decision makers.
There will be two kinds of people signing up for these newly created cyber corps: reckless people with a criminal past who could be blackmailed into service, and people who fancy the term "cyber corps", which makes them feel like space marines from SC2. Every decently skilled and responsible hacker in the western hemisphere wants nothing to do with this whole topic any more, and even less with the two groups of people I just described.
The days of 2600 are gone in the west, and they ain't coming back through cyber corps.
1. Re:Which good hacker is going to sign up for this? by Slayer · 2018-09-23 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  You can't learn hacking from a few theoretical courses, and anything practical is illegal by now - highly illegal. Even possession of hacking tools can get you in legal trouble.
  A bunch of incompetent, scared chickens wrote laws, which permanently put the western hemisphere into a massive strategic disadvantage. Enjoy the results! I wish the Brits best of luck finding 2000 skilled and motivated people for their silly cyber corps.
Welcome to Airstrip One... by Chas · 2018-09-23 12:56 · Score: 1

Complete and utter waste of taxpayer money.
Spend the same amount to increase their street level presence in bad neighborhoods and pull off the "DAS RAYCISS!" shackles?
MUCH better investment.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
1. Re:Welcome to Airstrip One... by Chas · 2018-09-24 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  So trust the government to somehow manage your network for you?
  Nah.
  Someone may be that stupid.
  But I can't imagine there's THAT many of them.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
GCHQ recruitment by Munich+Munchkin · 2018-09-24 01:34 · Score: 1

I think that their recruitment processes will be more than sufficient to weed out the wannabes. The issue really is if they become too good at what they're doing. The only difference between a Russian target for this work and a domestic target for this work is an accident of birth.