Government 'ignores' internet security issues

The Government has been criticised after it dismissed the vast majority of a Lords committee's report into Personal Internet Security.

Failure to recognise any of the report's points shows the Government is “burying its head in the sand”, according to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee.

Richard Clayton, a security researcher at Cambridge University, called it an act of “ignorance” and “stupidity”.

The report, published in August, called on the Government to take strong measures to protect against internet crime. It branded the web as a “playground for criminals” and made 23 recommendations it said would help instill public confidence in the internet.

Recommendations included creating a central unit responsible for dealing with e-crime and pushing for a data security breach law that would force companies to tell people if their data had been stolen.

The report also said consumers should report online fraud to police rather than banks - a rule only created in April this year.

However, in its response to the report, the Government rejected the proposals. It said the public had not lost confidence in the internet and that it was satisfied that data breaches were not on the rise. As a result, it said any data breach case should be looked at on a case-by-case basis by the Office of the Information Commissioner.

It also refused to consider reversing the change to fraud reporting made in April, saying that: "The changes... significantly reduce police bureaucracy in this area without any loss of effectiveness in dealing with frauds or any degradation of the service provided to victims."

Lord Erroll, a member of the committee, was disappointed by the reply. He said: "Throughout our inquiry we tried to think outside the box, to look ahead 10 years at what the internet might be like, taking into account the emerging risks and challenges today."

“That’s why our recommendations concentrated on incentives - we must ensure that everyone is motivated to improve security. Unfortunately, the Government dismissed every recommendation out of hand, and their approach seems to solely consist of putting their head in the sand."

Richard Clayton, who assisted the committee with the plans, called the Government response a "series of missed opportunities". In his blog he wrote: "The Government have settled for complacency, quibbling about the wording of the recommendations, and picking out a handful of the more minor recommendations to 'note' to 'consider' and to keep under review."