“Fear of e-Crime is widespread but ill-defined. This fear is undermining the image of the UK (as well as the internet) as a good place for e-business and restraining growth in e-commerce. Ministers are being pushed into legislation to address perceived fears without providing the resources to enforce existing law or giving the private sector the frameworks it needs to protect itself.”
So opens the Briefing and Recommendations launched by EURIM (the all-party Parliament-Industry Group concerned with the Politics of the Information Society and ) on April 24th, 13.00 – 15.00 in the Piller Room, Olympia (during Infosec, the main European exhibition for the Information Security Industry).
Brian WhiteMP Chairman of EURIM introduced the meeting by saying, “This event marks the start of the process of recognising e-crime as a serious issue which both government and the private sector need to tackle in partnership.”
EURIM highlights the difference between image and reality: “While hacking, pornography and other internet crimes may make headlines, real damage is being done by electronically assisted conventional crime. Such e-crime is rarely reported in the popular press, but a recent US survey estimated the global cost of e-crime to be about £1Tn annually. Lloyds of London estimated the global cost of the recent “I Love You” virus to be £10Bn. The UK economy will bear a significant share of this increasing burden.”
And the difficulty victims face in securing action: “If a supermarket is burned down the police investigate and the Judge will be severe. If an e-business is similarly destroyed, the police rarely afford it the same attention and experience. If business collects the evidence the Crown Prosecution Service will show considerable caution in pursuing the case and if it does the Judge may well give only a trivial sentence because nothing tangible was actually stolen…
The solution is partnership: “The most effective approaches to fighting e-crime will emerge from cooperation between law enforcement, industry and users around the world and need to include new legislative approaches (sharing the experience and capability of all stakeholders) and methods of prevention, deterrence and (where these fail) detection and sanction.
But “Any rush to create new primary legislation is likely to be counter- productive. There are initiatives and pockets of activity that address some issues, but they lack focus. Greater cooperation is needed between all stakeholders to develop a common strategic approach to e-crime, to create a coherent legal environment and to make better use of scarce resources.
The specific recommendations include:
1. The Home Office to co-ordinate constructive dialogue between all stakeholders; including industry (as suppliers and users), consumer groups, civil liberties groups, law enforcement agencies, local government and central government departments – developing an agreed national strategy;
2. The Law Commission to review existing UK legislation to establish what changes are needed as a matter of priority to ensure that e-crimes can be prosecuted effectively;
3. EURIM to facilitate discussion between stakeholders on how best to educate those in the criminal justice system, in industry (including users and suppliers, both large and small) and the consumer community on the need to take e-crime seriously, building on current initiatives.
4. The National Hi-Tech Crime Unit to build on work with industry to agree how to co-operate to make best use of skills and resources to combat e-crime.
5. The Home Office to encourage direct industry involvement in the development of global initiatives to fight e-crime (including those in G8, OECD, Council of Europe and EU).
CREDITS:
http://www.csoonline.com