The source of cyber crime: our own complacency

We should all know better.

The figures are staggering: Almost 20 million items of personal data, such as bank details and passwords, were traded illegally over the internet in the first half of this year, according to the FT.

This number is expected to have risen four-fold since 2010, as the rising number of internet users has run parallel to a dramatic rise in the proficiency of cyber–criminals.

However, these trends belie the root cause of the problem: our own complacency. Too many of us categorically fail to understand the new threats that come with the information age. The blame lies squarely with us.

One all-too-common mistake was highlighted in a recent post on Buzzfeed. The article told the story of Twitter user Daniel Dennis Jones (@blanket at the time), a multimedia producer who lost his twitter account – along with its unique username – to hackers.

Buzzfeed blamed a Twitter security flaw, which allows an endless number of login attempts so long as they come from different IP addresses. The hacker had simply set up an automated program that repeatedly attempted to log in from various different IPs using common passwords.

However, this attack couldn't have happened without the weakness of Daniel’s password, since it appeared on the hacker’s “common passwords” list. Elementary.

This sort of naivety extends far beyond simple password settings; the smartphone is the newly evolving battleground for cyber-security.

More than half of all adults own one, with 120,000 of them stolen each year. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out, given the number of thefts, that more and more of us are increasingly at risk of falling victim to ID theft and cybercrime.

To make matters worse, a study by security awareness organisation Knowthenet showed that an estimated 38 per cent of us keep key personal data such as online banking details and various passwords on our smartphones, rendering us mere sitting ducks in the event that it goes missing.

The report also revealed that 19 per cent of smartphone owners routinely use unencrypted WiFi, which exposes the user to sniffing attacks, whereby hackers can steal your information without even touching your phone.

So the next time you become the prey of tech-savvy trolls or internet gangsters, don’t blame the system. Blame yourself – because it was probably your fault.

Photo: ALAMY

Alex Ward is a London-based freelance journalist who has previously worked for the Times & the Press Association. Twitter: @alexward3000

Getty
Show Hide image

Five things Hillary Clinton’s released emails reveal about UK politics

The latest batch of the presidential hopeful’s emails provide insight into the 2010 Labour leadership contest, and the dying days of the Labour government.

The US State Department has released thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails. This is part of an ongoing controversy regarding the presidential hopeful’s use of a private, non-governmental server and personal email account when conducting official business as Secretary of State.

More than a quarter of Clinton’s work emails have now been released, in monthly instalments under a Freedom of Information ruling, after she handed over 30,000 pages of documents last year. So what does this most recent batch – which consists of 4,368 emails (totalling 7,121 pages) – reveal?
 

David Miliband’s pain

There’s a lot of insight into the last Labour leadership election in Clinton’s correspondence. One email from September 2010 reveals David Miliband’s pain at being defeated by his brother. He writes: “Losing is tough. When you win the party members and MPs doubly so. (When it's your brother...).”


Reaction to Ed Miliband becoming Labour leader

Clinton’s reply to the above email isn’t available in the cache, but a message from an aide about Ed Miliband’s victory in the leadership election suggests they were taken aback – or at least intrigued – by the result. Forwarding the news of Ed’s win to Clinton, it simply reads: “Wow”.


Clinton’s take on it, written in an email to her long-time adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, is: “Clearly more about Tony that [sic] David or Ed”.

Blumenthal expresses regret about the “regression” Ed’s win suggests about the Labour party. He writes to Clinton: “David Miliband lost by less than 2 percent to his brother Ed. Ed is the new leader. David was marginally hurt by Tony's book but more by Mandelson's endorsement coupled with his harsh statements about the left. This is something of a regression.”


Peter Mandelson is “mad”

In fact, team Clinton is less than enthusiastic about the influence Mandelson has over British politics. One item in a long email from Blumenthal to Clinton, labelled “Mandelson Watch”, gives her the low-down on the former Business Secretary’s machinations, in scathing language. It refers to him as being “in a snit” for missing out on the EU Commissioner position, and claims those in Europe think of him as “mad”. In another email from Blumenthal – about Labour’s “halted” coup against Gordon Brown – he says of Mandelson: “No one trusts him, yet he's indispensable.”

That whole passage about the coup is worth reading – for the clear disappointment in David Miliband, and description of his brother as a “sterling fellow”:


Obsession with “Tudor” Labour plotting

Clinton appears to have been kept in the loop on every detail of Labour party infighting. While Mandelson is a constant source of suspicion among her aides, Clinton herself clearly has a lot of time for David Miliband, replying “very sorry to read this confirmation” to an email about his rumoured demotion.

A May 2009 email from Blumenthal to Clinton, which describes Labour politicians’ plots as “like the Tudors”, details Ed Balls’ role in continuing Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s “bitter rivalry”:


“Disingenuous” Tories “offending” Europe

The Tories don’t get off lightly either. There is intense suspicion of David Cameron’s activities in Europe, even before he is Prime Minister. Blumenthal – whose email about a prospective Cameron government being “aristocratic” and “narrowly Etonian” was released in a previous batch of Clinton’s correspondence – writes:

Without passing "Go," David Cameron has seriously damaged his relations. with the European leaders. Sending a letter to Czech leader Vaclay Klaus encouraging him not to sign the Lisbon Treaty, as though Cameron were already Prime Minister, he has offended Sarkozy., Merkel and Zapatero.

He also accuses him of a “tilt to the Tory right on Europe”.

In the same email, Blumenthal tells Clinton that William Hague (then shadow foreign secretary), “has arduously pressured for an anti-EU stance, despite his assurances to you that Tory policy toward Europe would be marked by continuity”.

In the aftermath of the 2010 UK election, Blumenthal is apprehensive about Hague’s future as Foreign Secretary, emailing Clinton: “I would doubt you’ll see David again as foreign secretary. Prepare for hauge [sic, William Hague], who is deeply anti-European and will be disingenuous with you.”

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.