Security execs must prep for post-Brexit cyber challenges – report Chief information security officers (CISOs) must prepare for the ending of intel and law enforcement agreements with the EU post-Brexit, a report from Forrester has warned. The key concern for CISOs is the future cooperation on cyber security, said the report. Current arrangements will continue until the end of the transition …
There is 'naf' all to stop these things from going ahead apart from someone deciding they don't want to. If there's no law saying that I don't have to say hello to my neighbour, it doesn't stop me from saying hello?
If we want to share information or use a framework that other countries have in place then do it. If we want to make changes to said framework then do it, that's the pleasure of being out of the control of the EU.
If we share information with EU countries, I'm sure they'll be (depending who you speak to..) grown up enough to speak to us, this is just political bull poo made up by a research company to justify their existence.
Not really. It requires a common framework and a common means of arbitration so that all EU countries know that they're sharing information with other trustworthy countries.
If the UK has opted out of that then there's nothing that stops it from CCing any other country or using the information in a way that harms the other countries.
So saying hello to a neighbour is not really the same thing.
That cc-ing other countries is very apt. There is currently an investigation taking place into abuse by British Authorities of data held in the Schengen Information System. There have been a number of incidents where the UK has unlawfully shared this data with the US and foreign private companies. ("UK unlawfully copying data from EU police system" - https://euobserver.com/justice/141919
Violations such as the above but also the €2billion fine for UK customs fraud ("UK faces €2bn fine over Chinese imports scam, say EU investigators" - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/uk-faces-2bn-fine-over-chinese-imports-scam-say-eu-anti-fraud-investigators) are not a great backdrop if you want to convince the other 27 countries that you can be trusted with data on their citizens or with collecting their VAT or duties.
I would expect the EU27 to err on the side of caution when it comes to trusting British authorities with sensitive or important information. If they couldn't trust the UK when it was still a member, I don't have high hopes for the amount of trust once the UK is demoted to third country status.
Really - enough doom & gloom! Lets move on please - change is inevitable in life.
Carping on & moaning about the ramifications of brexit wont help anyone - nor will the bitter remainers incessant blame campaign. Get a grip.
Life has a habit of being exactly what you make it. Yes CIOs and everyone else in industry have work to do, but change is exactly what keeps us in IT in jobs. And if youre worried about your job, sort your skill set out and move with the times, but for gods sake give it a rest because the result is what it is - thats democracy.
If you dont like it you get a chance every five years to vote someone else in - if enough people agree with you, great. If not, move on.
you'd be someone else who doesn't understand
I would appear to understand a lot better than the naive folks here who seem to think the EU is a nice friendly organization with only their best interests at heart. The EU exists to serve the EU.
The legal framework isn't there for that to happen.
Of course not. The difference is that the UK would like to negotiate a new mutually-beneficial, framework with EU members but the EU would prefer to pretend that the UK doesn't exist. "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" is the phrase that comes to mind.
Of course not. The difference is that the UK would like to negotiate a new mutually-beneficial, framework with EU members but the EU would prefer to pretend that the UK doesn't exist.
That framework already exists. It's called the ECJ. It's good enough for 27 other members. Forgive them if they're not chomping at the bit to renegotiate the same thing all over again because the UK is special.
That framework already exists. It's called the ECJ. It's good enough for 27 other members. Forgive them if they're not chomping at the bit to renegotiate the same thing all over again because the UK is special.
So some people say. A curious thing about security and intelligence data is that the UK is actually rather good at that, and I suspect in net terms the EU benefit significantly more from these exchanges than the UK does (which is not to say that the UK doesn't benefit).
It would seem impolite to point to the data that supports that assertion, but anybody able to read news and count will be able to reach the obvious conclusion.
The problem is that some data can only be shared when sufficient legal frameworks are in place. Don't expect data from an EU database containing data on EU citizens to be shared with a country that doesn't adhere to minimum data protection standards approved by the EU.
Fortunately the UK will keep GDPR so some of that should be covered. Access to SIS II (the Schengen Information System) is less certain as that requires very clear agreements before that data is shared. For instance, Denmark is an EU member state with a higher status than the UK will be post-Brexit and even they are not allowed real-time access (useful for controlling borders for instance*) because they have opted out of the justice cooperation package that would ensure this data is treated correctly.
* SIS II contains, among other things, details of people under requests for extradition; missing persons; requests by a judicial authority or suspects of crime and data on lost or stolen firearms, identity documents, motor vehicles and banknotes. Quite useful information if someone rocks up at your border travelling on a Swedish passport and claiming to be Per Johansson from Jönköping and here for a city-break.
The 'pillocks in charge of the EU' are doing what they are charged with doing, looking out for the interests of the EU26, *NOT* the UK. The UK is the one who wants to leave. The UK wants the cake and eat it despite being told that it cannot ("But I can. Sure I can. You must let me! But if you don't you're just being mean"). No, the 'pillocks in charge of the EU' are doing exactly what us Remainers (Remoaners in your eyes no doubt) said they would do if the UK chose to do this utterly moronic thing.
The 'pillocks in charge of the EU' are doing what they are charged with doing, looking out for the interests of the EU26, *NOT* the UK.
Well, to be more precise, they are looking out for the interests of the EU as an organization, not the 26 as members.
The EU portrays itself as the only future for Europe, so from its point of view it must make Brexit fail as badly as possible, even if that means hurting the interests of its members. Anything else might make other countries think about leaving.
The UK wants the cake and eat it
No, in this case it is just suggesting that it might contribute some ingredients in return for a slice. The EU would rather have badly-made cake than share any of it.
the 'pillocks in charge of the EU' are doing exactly what us Remainers said they would do if the UK
Oh, we all knew they would do it, leaver & remainer alike. Doesn't make them any less pillocks. If anything it shows why the EU is such a bad idea, it values its existence as an organization ahead of the interests of its members. That never ends well.
"If there's no law saying that I don't have to say hello to my neighbour, it doesn't stop me from saying hello?"
A better metaphor would be the new neighbour joining your local neighbourhood watch group, then saying it's a load of crap and leaving. The rest of the group might not feel inclined to share information with him after being given the finger....
"Current arrangements will continue until the end of the transition, and a new security treaty will need to be effective on January 1, 2021."
I hate to put even more pressure on but at this stage the transition phase from March 2019 to December 2020 is not certain yet. One of the requirements for a transition phase to be granted is approval on a solution for the Irish border and that is not exactly going swimmingly at the moment.
The hope is that the government wouldn't be that stupid to screw that up and so transition will happen. Unfortunately there are people in Westminster (even in cabinet!), who seem to favour no deal at all or tell us to expect a "meltdown" but that that will be fine. I would say that there is currently perhaps a 70% chance that there actually will be a transition phase.
@ John Smith 19
"By a margin of 13 to 12.
Which is normally within the statistical noise."
So after a couple of decades of the warm embrace of the wonderful unicorn and moonbeams EU they couldnt get a vote of support, not even within the range of statistical noise! Wow that is pitiful! Good job its a one off.
Except of course Greece voted a gov to reject the EU's demands. Italy voted an anti-euro party and an anti-EU party as their top scorers. According to its president France could vote out if given the choice, probably noticed as the NF came second.
You're misunderstanding was predictable.
That's what Leave voters thought holds the EU together.
But IRL it's held together by laws and treaties.
You're timeline is also mistaken. The UK entered the EEC in 1975, making anyone who lived through a the UK not being a member of a European Union in their late 40's at least.
You mention of a 20 year EU is (I presume) the Treaty of Masstrict, when 4 of 12 countries has a referendum (I count East and West Germany as one country). 3 of those were binding, only Italy's was advisory (like the UK Brexit was).
Neither Margaret Thatcher, nor here successor John Major deemed a referendum necessary and both had the absolute majority (unlike May) to do exactly what they wanted.
So you didn't get one because two of the UK's most Euro sceptic PM's didn't think you needed it.
This has never been about the UK population.It's always been about keeping the Conservative Party together and killing off UKIP. A fact you will begin to understand as the consequences for the UK economy become clear.
Unless of course you aren't a UK citizen, or have dual nationality. In which case you'll probably run to whatever bolt hole you've got prepared.
@ John Smith 19
"But IRL it's held together by laws and treaties."
Flexible ones at that. As long as its the critical countries for the EU's survival- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11207721/Why-do-France-and-Germany-keep-breaking-EU-rules.html
"The UK entered the EEC in 1975, making anyone who lived through a the UK not being a member of a European Union in their late 40's at least."
Is this an attempt to claim the EU existed before the EU existed?
"You mention of a 20 year EU is (I presume) the Treaty of Masstrict,"
And the founding of the EU.
"Neither Margaret Thatcher, nor here successor John Major deemed a referendum necessary and both had the absolute majority (unlike May) to do exactly what they wanted."
Well said. So this is the first vote on our membership of the EU after being in the EU for 20 years. 20 years to prove itself invaluable, and instead they couldnt even get a majority support from the UK.
"This has never been about the UK population.It's always been about keeping the Conservative Party together and killing off UKIP"
How can you view this as separate issues? The reason the tories feared UKIP is UKIP was actually popular and offering what people wanted. Their support had grown to such a volume that it cornered Cameron into sticking by his promise for a referendum. A promise voted for consistently from when labour were the lead party. And after both parties reneged on their promise UKIP grew to amazing levels of support. That was achieved by the population.
"A fact you will begin to understand as the consequences for the UK economy become clear."
So far so good. If your a believer in experts then the positive outlook is supported by Osborne and Carney (not how they spun it but factually positive) and Mervyn King. If you dislike experts then even the EU recognise we would gain competitive advantage over them if we leave and so want us to agree to abide by their rules.
"Unless of course you aren't a UK citizen, or have dual nationality. In which case you'll probably run to whatever bolt hole you've got prepared."
I am a UK citizen (I think we covered this before but maybe it was another remain doomsayer). No I dont have dual nationality. Why would I run? The aim was to free the UK from the EU, I intend on living in it. This is about the future of the country and doing what I feel is right for the people in the UK. I am sure you have the same feelings, and so we vote. And then we get a democratic result.
Logic says they aren't just going to stop sharing law enforcement information, it would be extremely dangerous and stupid for both sides. The people actually sharing this information are not going to turn round the day after and go sorry can't help you. At least that's how I see it, common sense should prevail. There is nothing to be gained by either side to stop sharing.
I don't think, when push comes to shove, security will be used as a bargaining chip.
That doesn't mean, however, that pan-European security cooperation can be solved by David Davis just having a couple of pints with some unfortunate representative of the EU27. Even if there was an limitless supply of goodwill between the two parties it would still require agreements on underlying legal frameworks, safeguard mechanisms, arbitration mechanisms that all need to be put down on paper, debated, approved and signed by various people before any sharing can take place. As I described above, I don't think there is that much trust among the EU27 at the moment that the UK can be relied upon to stick to agreements.
I have little doubt, whatever happens, that if DGSI picks up some noise about an imminent terror attack on British soil they will pick up the phone to MI5 to let them know. I do expect the UK Border Force to have a problem from April 2019 as I doubt all the necessary elements to receive security data from EU databases will be in place by then.
@ Anonymous Coward
"Isn't that, word for word, the British government stance?"
Not quite. It was brexit means brexit but are willing to negotiate for various mutual benefits. The EU just doesnt want (or isnt capable of) such negotiation. I expect eventually some sort of arrangement will be made when the EU's pride is no longer an issue or its the last minute and the EU hastily agrees something.
Yes, from Sir Julian King, EU Commissioner for Security - and a Brit - so he will be leaving his job very soon....I was at a dinner with him last month and this issue is still very real.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/30/brexit-uk-may-have-to-recognise-ecj-court-rulings-to-keep-security-cooperation
That's a good point but where are politics going to get involved? Are our politicians or the EU politicians going to tell law enforcement etc... to stop sharing information? What happens when it all goes to pot? Would you want to be the one that allowed something bad to happen which could have been prevented? It goes both ways so it could happen in either the EU or the UK and I'm pretty sure the press would make a huge song and dance of it.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
If this "common sense" of which you speak had prevailed the situation would not exist in the first place.
This is one of those "People are smart" arguments.
But as Tommy Lee Jones observed "A person is smart. People are dumb panicy animals"
I'd also add "gullible."
Quote: "Brexit could also disrupt the UK’s adoption of EU cyber and data privacy legislation"
*
This is sarcasm isn't it? GCHQ is already hoovering up all the emails, all the phone calls, all the browsing histories......that Cheltenham can lay their hand on.
*
GCHQ also pries into BELGIAN telecoms - see:
- https://theintercept.com/2014/12/13/belgacom-hack-gchq-inside-story/
*
"Data privacy".....please try harder.....there is no "data privacy" in the UK. Your taxpayer pound at work in Cheltenham!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
