UK intel committee on Russia: Social media firms should remove state disinformation. What was that, MI5? ████████?
- Reference: 1595344147
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/07/21/uk_intelligence_committee_russia_report/
- Source link:
The recommendations are part of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament [1]report published this morning into the potential Russian interference with UK democracy.
We are concerned that there is no clear coordination of the numerous organisations across the UK intelligence community working on [national cyber security], this is reinforced by an unnecessarily complicated wiring diagram of responsibilities amongst ministers...
The focus of political attention because of its relevance to the EU referendum and subject to delay at the hands of Prime Minister and his office, the report also details use of technology and social media for nefarious Russian activity.
"The government must now seek to establish a protocol with the social media companies to ensure that they take covert hostile state use of their platforms seriously, and have clear timescales within which they commit to removing such material," it said.
"Government should 'name and shame' those which fail to act. Such a protocol could, usefully, be expanded to encompass the other areas in which action is required from the social media companies, since this issue is not unique to Hostile State Activity. This matter is, in our view, urgent and we expect the Government to report on progress in this area as soon as possible."
Bot the Nine O'Clock News
The committee also addressed the use of social media bots and troll accounts to disseminate misinformation.
"Open source studies have pointed to the preponderance of pro-Brexit or anti-EU stories on RT and Sputnik, and the use of 'bots' and 'trolls', as evidence of Russian attempts to influence the process," the report said.
However, when the committee asked the intel agencies about its evidence of these activities, MI5 initially gave it a "six-line" response, namely (ahem), "stat[ing] that ███, before referring to academic studies." Clarifying.
"This was noteworthy in terms of the way it was couched," the report said. "The brevity was also, to us, again, indicative of the extreme caution amongst the intelligence and security agencies at the thought that they might have any role in relation to the UK's democratic processes, and particularly one as contentious as the EU referendum.
This report reveals that no one in government knew if Russia interfered in or sought influence that referendum, because they did not want to know
"This attitude is illogical; this is about the protection of the process and mechanism from hostile state interference, which should fall to our intelligence and security agencies."
So long and thanks for all the phish
In terms of other Russian activity in the UK, the report said: "GCHQ has also said that Russian [intelligence service] GRU6 actors have orchestrated phishing attempts against government departments – to take one example, there were attempts against [redacted], the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) during the early stages of the investigation into the Salisbury attacks."
The attacks on [2]Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, UK, by Russian agents using nerve gas resulted in the death of Dawn Sturgess, who came into contact with the poison.
The report also drew attention to Russian state hacking efforts, or "cyber pre-positioning activity", as it called it, on the UK's critical national infrastructure, according to evidence from the National Cyber Security Centre, but the details are redacted.
Russia is a highly capable cyber actor, employing organised crime groups to supplement its cyber skills. Russia carries out malicious cyber activity in order to assert itself aggressively – for example, attempting to interfere in other countries' elections. It has also undertaken cyber pre-positioning on other countries' critical national infrastructure.
An accompanying [3]press statement added: "Given the immediate threat this poses to our national security, we are concerned that there is no clear coordination of the numerous organisations across the UK intelligence community working on this issue, this is reinforced by an unnecessarily complicated wiring diagram of responsibilities amongst ministers."
The report emphasised that the UK has a problem with detailing who is responsible for national cybersecurity. For example, the Foreign Secretary has responsibility for the National Cyber Security Centre, which is responsible for incident response, while the Home Secretary leads on the response to major cyber incidents. To add to the confusion, the Defence Secretary has overall responsibility for cyber techniques as "warfighting tools" and for the National Offensive Cyber Programme, while the Secretary of State for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) leads on digital matters, with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster being responsible for the National Cyber Security Strategy and the National Cyber Security Programme.
"It makes for an unnecessarily complicated wiring diagram of responsibilities; this should be kept under review by the National Security Council (NSC)," the report said.
Timing
The report has become the centre of political debate in the UK after its release was delayed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson's office. First, it held up the confirmation of its context, part of the publication process, until after December 2019's general election and secondly it delayed the formation of the committee until seven months after the election, meaning the report could not be published. Both were record times for such undertaking, committee member Stewart Hosie told the press.
The report added that evidence from the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 and Russia's "hack and leak" operation against the Democratic National Committee in the US showed the potential for Russian interference in the democratic process of foreign powers, including the 2016 referendum on the UK's membership of the EU.
Departing MI5 chief: Break chat app crypto for us, kthxbai [4]READ MORE
"In speculation that this report was going to reveal either that Russia had interfered in or sought to influence the referendum, in the committee's view it's worse than that," committee member Kevan Jones said during a press briefing. "This report reveals that no one in government knew if Russia interfered in or sought to influence that referendum, because they did not want to know. UK government has actively avoided looking for evidence that Russia interfered."
The report called on the UK intelligence and security community to "produce an analogous assessment of potential Russian interference in the EU referendum and that an unclassified summary of it be published".
In [5]its response , the government said it had "seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU Referendum" and that "a retrospective assessment of the EU Referendum is not necessary". ®
Get our [6]Tech Resources
[1] https://docs.google.com/a/independent.gov.uk/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=aW5kZXBlbmRlbnQuZ292LnVrfGlzY3xneDo1Y2RhMGEyN2Y3NjM0OWFl
[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43643025
[3] https://docs.google.com/a/independent.gov.uk/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=aW5kZXBlbmRlbnQuZ292LnVrfGlzY3xneDoxMmRkZmU2MjQ4ZWEzNDI0
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2020/02/26/mi5_chief_itv_interview/
[5] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-intelligence-and-security-committee-russia-report
[6] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU Referendum
Of course there was no evidence. It has all been ██████ under ████████ and ██████. Therefore, it is impossible for ██████ to ████████████ and ██████.
You are right. Nothing to see here. Well, you could look at ██████ before you move along.
Re: seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU Referendum
They didn't look because then the result would have been called into question, and the little Englanders might have to declare it invalid and do it again.
Re: seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU Referendum
From the actual report:
"The Agencies have emphasised that they see their role in this as providing secret intelligence as context for other organisations, as part of a wider HMG response: they do not view themselves as holding primary responsibility for the active defence of the UK’s democratic processes from hostile foreign interference, and indeed during the course of our Inquiry appeared determined to distance themselves from any suggestion that they might have a prominent role in relation to the democratic process itself, noting the caution which had to be applied in relation to intrusive powers in the context of a democratic process. They informed us that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) holds primary responsibility for disinformation campaigns, and that the Electoral Commission has responsibility for the overall security of democratic processes."
So no.
The security services stood back because as far as they were concerned it was the Electoral Commission's job to do it (and to ask for help if and when they wanted it).
You remember the Electoral Commission? Who attempted to bring charges against various elements of the BREXIT campaign (and seem to have invariably lost when the case went to court and was tried to a proper legal of evidence), while ignoring well-founded accusations of wrong doing by the remain campaign?
The Electoral Commission that did their best to find evidence of criminal behaviour in the BREXIT campaign but just kept on, not finding anything significant. Because there was nothing to find.
Re: seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU Referendum
It's more that you have to tell people their opinions are not their own and they are puppets of some nasty foreign bogeyman. Such influences exists in all elections on all sides. How much influence is too much? It's a messy subject.
BTW there's an excellent series on the BBC at the moment about the Murdoch family. Just saying.
I see
the russian bot has already come through downvoting everyone who mentions the russian bot.
On Sunday Night
a radio program mentioned that a certain British 'illionaire was having his m'learned friends to examine if his name was mentioned/wrongly/rightly/aaronically
As the "Russia" document has apparently come out, and I haven't heard anyone mentioning him, then who knows how many other ppl/states got to tidy-it-up, as well?
meanwhile on that specific point "social media companies to remove covert hostile state material"
where & when can I start submitting the hard examples that I have of covert & hostile, state-material, that is endemic on Social Media?
There are rather a lot of countries at it , admittedly in an A-Z list, Russia does feature, but so does A & B & C...etc
it'll be nice to get back to that internet of the early 2000's
pre institute of statecraft, integrity initiative clusters, SC (Strategic Communications), "VE Disrupt/Undermine" UK MoD project (WTF?)
sorry, I haven't yet read the equivalent name of the Russki groups, I'm sure there are loads. I have friends who were born in Soviet Kazakh republic, and in the 1970's they'd sometimes get a knock on the door "Go away comrade" - they were ordered - "The KGB need to use your apartment for a secret discussion for the next few hours" rather than build a perspex safe-house, 'bug free' the spooks would simply choose a random apartment, and do their stuff.
What the..
"This report reveals that no one in government knew if Russia interfered in or sought to influence that referendum, because they did not want to know. UK government has actively avoided looking for evidence that Russia interfered."
...
'the government said it had "seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU Referendum" and that "a retrospective assessment of the EU Referendum is not necessary"'
UKGov being told by a comittee's report that it has been negligent on its duties to the UK's national security, responds by being negligent about national security, you literally could not make that up.
The lunatics have most definately taken over the asylum.
Re: What the..
"a retrospective assessment of the EU Referendum is not necessary" [under breath] "because it would call our entire political position into question."
Re: What the..
"There has been credible open source commentary suggesting that Russia undertook influence campaigns in relation to the Scottish independence referendum in 2014"
Looking forward to seeing the Scottish Parliament investigating that thoroughly.
Naming maybe, but …
You can name them all you like but past performance suggests the most egregious offenders(*) won't be the slightest bit shamed.
(*) We all know who they are.
If you acknowledge Russian operations supporting UK separatism - what's the consequence?
What can the government do? Go back to the people and declare THE major vote of the past years (which even turned out in your favor) to be invalid because the vote was influenced by Russia to an uncertain degree?
Even though part of the electorate is still convinced that the arguments pushed by Russian bots are "true" and some of your own politicians including the PM heavily bought into these arguments?
Sounds like a receipe for major disaster.
Europe ( includeing the UK) needs to find an defensive and an offensive way to deal with this foreign influence and minimize its impact - even though this influence plays into the cards of some politicians.
Otherwise Russia continues to play divide and conquer on a global scale unmitigated.
The best way I see for the UK would be to minimize damage by making Brexit as soft as necessary as to not weaken combined UK and EU's economical and military capabilities more than absolutely necessary.
Hard Brexit only will reward Russia for its efforts.
Re: If you acknowledge Russian operations supporting UK separatism - what's the consequence?
Turned out in our favour? Hardly...
The best defence against Russian aggression is a united Europe, and trying to split it apart is what Russia has been trying to do for years.
big fat nothing burger
The extent of Russian involvement in the EU referendum was.. 200 articles in Russian media that were anti-EU.
As opposed to EU meddling in the referendum, with multiple EU leaders speaking out in public and hundreds of pro-EU articles in each of dozens of EU media outlets.
As opposed to US meddling in the referendum, with the US President himself making baseless threats to the British people at the behest of the UK Government.
As opposed to UK meddling in the referendum, with the Government misusing £9m of public funds to promote their own position in the referendum.
As opposed to the fucking BBC, breaching their Charter by posting thousands of articles that were pro-EU.
No, this report has nothing meaningful to say about the EU referendum, except to hopefully shut up the clowns bleating on about Russian interference for the past four bloody years.
As for MI5, after reading the report this morning I wrote to them directly to thank them for not interfering with UK elections. Thank fuck they recognise the dangers of that.
Re: big fat nothing burger
It's neo-McCarthyism pure and simple.
If the "muh Russians!" crowd are to be believed, Putin was instrumental in getting Trump elected, preventing Scotland leaving the union (not sure why that's an advantage to Russia?) and steering the Leave side to victory in 2016. All extremely impressive from a country with a GDP smaller than that of Italy!
If the cap fits, wear it * Denial is simply counter-productive and always self-defeating
It also said that there was a "complicated wiring diagram of responsibilities amongst ministers" who might have to act in the event of a major state cyber attack.
Ok, I'll keep it short, but it just has to be said .........
WTF. What a palaver and guaranteed disaster just waiting to happen.
Has the Steaming Cummings and BoJo Stream Train run right out of Puff ? What a pathetic disappointment that has turned out to be. It doesn't say much for Eton College and Oxbridge, does it? And even less for UKGBNI Government Servants and Services.
Do you want to label that as fake news rather than realise it an all too apparent and rotten public view?
* ..... [1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/if%20the%20cap%20fits
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/if%20the%20cap%20fits
seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU Referendum
Well... it helps to try looking for evidence. If you don't look then of course you won't "see" any. But what the hell, it was only the key vote of a generation. Finding any suggestion of outside interference would have thrown the result into doubt, which of course the Tories didn't want to happen. Nothing to see here. Move along.