Nations can no longer afford to go it alone on cyber-security

Cyber-crime knows know borders, so nor should our defences.

Senior representatives from more than 90 governments met in Seoul recently to discuss cyber-space, including cyber-security and cyber-crime. It was the third in a series of international conferences that has followed a push from the UK government to bring a more international perspective to discussions about how to keep cyber-space open while addressing threats.

Cyber-crime does not operate in a world confined by national borders so an international response is our only option. We need to cooperate to protect devices and information infrastructures from malicious entities seeking to steal secrets, deny access to critical services and exploit our identities to commit crimes.

Vulnerable businesses
There is much work to be done. Weaknesses in infrastructures, policy and operations leave us vulnerable and threats to businesses and individuals are frequent and damaging. For example, a sophisticated malicious software recently infected a PC at a small British bakery, then managed to bypass all of the business’s online banking security software and steal £20,000. There is no end to the news of malware, viruses and spam that affect online accounts and home computers.

Recent research indicates that four in five of the UK’s largest quoted companies are unprepared for cyber attacks. The widely reported threats to systems within finance and banking are an uneasy reminder of our vulnerability – and a key priority of the Bank of England and other financial regulators. Even those companies that you might expect to see outsmarting cyber-criminals are not immune. Just a few weeks ago software company Adobe admitted that its system had been hacked and that data from nearly 3 million customers had been stolen. Now there are reports of ransomware attacks across companies in East London’s hi-tech cluster of businesses.

Currently, too many decisions relating to cyber-security rely on inadequate evidence, inconsistent data, deficient reporting and varying rules across networks and systems. This inconsistency on data is apparent in UK government. Two years ago the UK Cabinet Office published a study by Detica, which estimated that cyber-crime costs the UK economy £27bn per year. It gave a breakdown by business sector and type of crime. This type of data is critical for governments, businesses and technology companies to plan appropriate security responses. However, a 2012 study undertaken by Professor Ross Anderson and colleagues for the Ministry of Defence calculated that a more realistic estimate would be closer to £12bn, distributed in significantly different ways to the Detica claims. This would suggest a different pattern of appropriate responses.

Defence beyond borders
A report to which I contributed, Now for the Long Term calls for the creation of an information exchange - CyberEx - to start tackling these issues. It could be funded by governments and businesses with an interest in collecting and analysing data on cyber-attacks to inform their own decisions about cyber-security. Each could share their own information and coordinate with others on responses to international threats. CyberEx could identify weaknesses in the global system, flag up suspicious Internet traffic and malicious software and help countries and businesses develop technical standards for their cyber-security efforts.

It could seek to minimise common vulnerabilities that enable the theft of sensitive information and the distribution of spam through systems, and work closely with international and domestic agencies to prevent common system attacks. The platform could also provide a useful mechanism for stakeholders to work together on responses to collective concerns, such as privacy protection. By providing an accessible, open platform for information exchange, CyberEx could help governments, businesses and individuals to better understand common threat patterns, identify preventative measures and minimise future attacks.

But you are only as strong as your weakest link, so CyberEx would also need to help developing countries improve their cyber infrastructure. For example, Professor Anderson’s MoD study concluded that significant numbers of “stranded traveller” scams and Advance Fee Frauds originate in West Africa, particularly Nigeria.

We are at the start of conversations with interested parties on the potential for CyberEx, so the details of how and where the exchange would be hosted are still to be worked out. The report’s recommendation is a starting point but it is an important one. It could move us closer to using an exchange platform to counter common but high-risk cyber threats. It is a conversation that must continue if we are to meet the challenges posed by increased societal dependence on information infrastructures.

Ian Brown receives funding from the UK Research Councils (currently EPSRC), the European Commission, and BT. He is on the advisory councils of the Open Rights Group, Privacy International and the Foundation for Information Policy Research.

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

We can't fight cyber-crime by ourselves. (Photo: Getty)
YouTube
Show Hide image

"It's just a prank, bro": inside YouTube’s most twisted genre

Despite endless headlines and media scrutiny, catchphrases such as "it was a social experiment" and "block the haters" have allowed YouTube's dangerous pranking culture to continue unregulated. 

A year and five months after the worst prank video ever was uploaded to the internet, its crown has been usurped. In November 2015, YouTuber Sam Pepper made headlines after he filmed a video entitled “KILLING BEST FRIEND PRANK”. In the video, Pepper kidnaps a man before forcing him to watch his friend be “murdered” by a masked figure. Rocking on the chair he has been tied to, the victim sobs and shouts: “We’re just kids”.

Last week, an actual child – aged nine – was victim to a similarly distressing “prank”. Michael and Heather Martin, of the YouTube channel DaddyOFive, poured disappearing ink on to their son Cody’s carpet before – in Heather’s words – “flipping out” on the child.

“What the fuck did you do,” yells Heather to summon Cody to his room. “I swear to God I didn’t do that,” screams and cries Cody as his parents verbally berate him. His face goes red; he falls to his knees.

You won’t find either of these videos on either of their creators’ channels today. After considerable backlash, Pepper deleted his video and DaddyOFive have now made all of their videos (bar one) private. The Martins have faced international scrutiny after being called out by prominent YouTuber Philip DeFranco, who collated a video of clips in which Cody is “pranked” by his family. In one, Cody appears to be pushed face-first into a bookcase by his father. In another, a visibly distressed Cody sobs while his father says: “It’s just a prank bro.”

These five words have been used to justify some of the most heinous pranks in YouTube history. Sam Pepper famously called a video in which he pinched the bottoms of unsuspecting women, a “social experiment”. Usually, though, creators’ excuses follow a pattern. “It was just a prank,” they say. Then, if the heat doesn't subside: “Actually, it was fake.”

Three months after his “KILLING BEST FRIEND” prank, Pepper claimed the video – and all of his other prank videos – were staged. In a video entitled “Family Destroyed Over False Aquisations [sic]” the Martins have now also claimed that their videos are scripted. “We act them out,” says Michael. It seems many on the internet remain sceptical. The Child Protection Services website for Maryland – where the Martins live – has crashed after Redditors encouraged one another to report the family. If the Martins’ videos are indeed staged, Cody is one of the shining child actors of our time.

Though the Martins might yet face severe consequences for their pranks, it wouldn’t be surprising if they didn’t.  The “Just a prank”/“No it’s fake” cycle means that despite multiple headline-grabbing backlashes, YouTube pranking culture continues to thrive. Boyfriends pretend to throw their girlfriend’s cats out windows; fathers pretend to mothers that their sons have died. YouTubers deliberately step on strangers' feet in order to provoke fights. Sometimes, yes, pranksters are arrested for faking robberies, but in the meantime their subscribers continue to grow in their millions.

At present, there is no regulatory body that examines YouTube. Pranksters who break the law are arrested, but children whose daily lives are filmed for the site are not protected by the same regulations that safeguard child actors from being overworked or exploited. Though the communications authority Ofcom has guidelines about wind-up calls and consent, it does not regulate YouTube. The BBC were famously fined £150,000 by the body after Russell Brand and Jonathon Ross prank called Andrew Sachs, yet internet pranks remain out of its jurisdiction.

Though YouTube removes videos that breach its “Community Guidelines”, it seems illogical that we trust the service to police itself. Since the invention of the radio, we have assumed that independent bodies are needed to scrutinise the media – so why you should the largest video-sharing platform on the planet be exempt? No one is truly looking out for either the pranking victims or the children of YouTube. God forbid, like Cody, if you are both.

It is also arguable that YouTube pranks need more regulation than those broadcast on TV. Britain’s favourite pranking shows revolve around humiliating comedians themselves – Trigger Happy TV, Balls of Steel, Jackass – or are very soft (think a man pretending to be both a mime and a policeman) in nature. When someone is outright humiliated on TV, it’s because they are seen to be “fair game”, such as in Comedy Central’s Fameless Prankers, where people desperate to be famous are forced into increasingly humiliating situations. On YouTube, there are no consent forms or waivers to ensure filming remains ethical, and YouTube pranksters often target more vulnerable people.

“There’s an element of power here with the parents and it seems this is very top-down,” says Jonathan Wynn, a sociology professor at the University of Massachusetts who has written on pranks in the past. Wynn explains that traditionally pranks mock status and hierarchy, such as when court jesters taunted kings. When pranks come from the top down, Wynn says they allow a group to bond emotionally – arguably something the Martins are attempting as a family. Nonetheless, Wynn notes this would work better if the children also pranked their parents equally. “In this case the status differential is quite high, when you have children and parents.”

Traditionally, the mainstream media has had little room for this type of content. In 2012, two radio DJs attempted to prank the Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton by calling the hospital she was staying at, but instead tricked two nurses. When one of these nurses, Jacintha Saldanha, died by suicide days later, the episode seemed the ultimate illustration of the recklessness of pranks that “punch down”.

Conversely, status differentials are a large part of YouTube prank culture. Rather than attacking people in power, YouTube pranks are often played by those in power (the YouTube famous) on those who have lower social status. Frequently, boyfriends prank girlfriends, for example, and since 2014, white pranksters have filmed “in the hood” pranks provoking young black men. In “The N Word Prank!!” famous internet prankster Roman Atwood goes around saying “What’s up my neighbour” to people of colour, knowing that it will be misheard as a racial slur. In the context of this pranking culture, a parent pranking a child to the point of tears seems almost inevitable.

Perhaps, then, it is easy to understand why Michael and Heather Martin “prank” their children – it is harder to understand why anyone is watching. The DaddyOFive channel has over 750,000 subscribers, with over 7,000 of these subscribing after Philip DeFranco’s video accused the family of “abusing” their children. In order to defend themselves, the Martins initially employed another YouTube rhetoric, on top of “just a prank bro”. In a since deleted video, they invited their fans to “block the haters”.

This phrase is ingrained in online culture, and has allowed internet celebrities to dismiss criticism for years. By painting anyone who is critical as “jealous” or a “hater”, YouTubers can ensure their fans ignore their words and therefore stay loyal. In a video response to Philip DeFranco, the Martins riffed off a popular meme and placed spoons over their eyes to symbolise this mentality, and now fans as young as 12 are copying this action to show their support. When I search the hashtag used by the family’s supporters to see if anyone might be willing to explain why they still love the channel, I am faced with the reality that most of DaddyOFive’s fans are children. Though YouTube’s minimum sign-up age is 13, there is nothing really stopping children from watching – and normalising – harmful content, particularly when it is disguised as a “prank”.

In this context, it doesn’t matter in the slightest whether a prank is faked. Sam Pepper might have asked his friend's permission before he fake-kidnapped him, and perhaps Michael Martin was only pretending when he pushed his son into a bookcase. Neither of these facts will prevent children – 19 percent of whom have a desire to be famous – from copying these actions in order to promote their own YouTube channels. Even if a YouTuber is punished for a dangerous pranking video, there are thousands of other pranksters ready and willing to take their place. 

It remains to be seen whether the Martins will continue with their YouTube channel. At the end of their now infamous invisible ink prank, Michael asks Cody to “do the outro” – the concluding section of a YouTube video. Wiping his nose and still red in the face, Cody rattles off his script at alarming speed.“Thank you guys for watching this video if you like this video and want to see more videos like this one leave a comment down the section below and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat… and don’t forget to… Like and Subscribe.” 

Since the backlash, Michael has added a new line into the “About” section of the DaddyOFive YouTube channel. After reiterating that the videos are fake, he writes: “no child was harmed in the making of our videos”. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496