NATO Allies have agreed to establish a new centre to enhance protection against increasingly sophisticated cyber threats, according to a press release.
The NATO Integrated Cyber Defence Centre (NICC) aims to enhance the defence of NATO and Allied networks while optimising the use of cyberspace as an operational domain.
“The Centre will inform NATO military commanders on possible threats and vulnerabilities in cyberspace, including privately-owned civilian critical infrastructures necessary to support military activities,” stated the press release.
The NICC will unite civilian and military personnel from across the NATO Enterprise, Allied countries, and industry experts. As highlighted in the press release, the Centre will leverage advanced technologies to increase situational awareness in cyberspace and enhance collective resilience and defence.
“In line with Allies’ shared values and international obligations, the Centre will promote a norms-based, predictable and secure approach to cyberspace,” the press release quoted officials.
The Centre will be located at NATO’s strategic military headquarters at SHAPE in Belgium. Details on the structure and functions of the Centre are expected to be developed in the coming months, according to the press release.
I do think there is one area that NATO and western nations are seeming to be lagging in, the flip side of the cyber coin which is information technology enabled political warfare. China and Russia are engaged in very significant level of social media lead warfare against the west…china has an estimated state employed 3 million political warfare operatives. Social cyber warfare and social media political warfare is a real thing that needs significant resourcing and thinking about.
How would one even start with that when regimes like Russia and I think China control access to the web and indeed their populace?
Profoundly difficult problem to solve as essentially they use our freedom of speech, mixed with modern media as a method of attack…and they are completely message agnostic..they don’t specifically care what the message or attack is as long as it sows a bit of dissent…( the evidence is our enemies post on both sides of a political argument to create a more toxic debate). basically the social media giants have to be taken in hand and support with mass tracking and removal of non individual troll accounts…individuals can hold whatever views…but the state sponsored mass attacks need tracking and shutting down…Simply put the level of political fracture in the west is an existential risk to our ability to defend ourselves.
And yet, there is outcry at the level of surveillance by GCHQ, who try to counter this when they access SM themselves.
Indeed, something will have to give really…what’s the greater risk..a bit of loss of privacy within a well protected democracy with checks and balances..or privacy protection that enables state and none state actor threats…personally if it protects our nation and democracy Im happy for government to have greater surveillance powers as long as they are within good checks and balances….
I’m of the same opinion. I wonder if Labour are. We’ll see.
Unfortunately neither Labour or the conservatives will ever do it to be honest…the libertarian right and left in both parties would have a fit and accuse them of either being controlling interventionist socialists if Labour did it or the authoritarian right if the conservatives did it.
The use of “77” during the pandemic was an example of why freedom of speech should never be infringed. Study pre war Germany.
Freedom of speech is for our citizens, not foreign actors. I’m talking about finding and removing foreign actors from the dialogue..that’s different..
Morning John.
Was there ever any real evidence for this beyond a media report?
Hi Daniele, yes a whistle blower who held a commission piped up a few years ago. Included fake social media profiles and such. A few usually reliable media outlets ran with it for awhile. Very similar to what the US Army did a few years ago using FB to “sway” opinion, that was a test that lasted a few months. I understand in wartime etc. And the need to counter hostile states, but I draw the line at state snooping using the armed forces on civilians.
Best wishes
Hi John.
Thanks, I’ll have a look at what’s out there.
My opinion, I’ve no issue whatsoever with state surveillance, it’s necessary, and to me a major part of “defence”
I’d probably agree with you re 77 and social media, but there are so many grey areas.
Military involvement as you know is normally limited to the usual requests in the MACA framework or in using SF to deal with terrorists if the police need help.
But there are some grey areas mate.
What of the use of military surveillance units on UK streets in support of the intelligence services countering terror subjects. Who are still civilians at that point, even if they’re up to no good.
It’s been done. Any issue with that? It’s often necessaey as the security service’s A4 is so short staffed due to the sheer number of people that need watching that extra help has been called for.
And did you know that military units are embedded with GCHQ? Who’s mission of course includes surveillance in civilian targets?
They probably just support the military input, which is considerable. But, it’s possible, of course those military personnel won’t always be looking just at military targets.
Where is the line?
Thanks for the frankness Daniele. I agree on many of your points. However the case of a certain Brazilian electrician highlights the need for careful “operational scrutiny” of SF use within the UK area. I would rather see specialist police units performing these roles as in Germany and elsewhere. More accountability. And overseen by a totally independent body. That is based on my past where too much confliction took place, and lead to serious shortcomings in operations. Where is the line? And yes, grey areas will always exist, opsec being paramount for obvious reasons, hence my reluctance on military personnel being put in those positions. Maybe I live in the past a bit, and my idealism is a bit old fashioned. A wider observation is our lack of Constitutional protection, we rely on outdated and archaic legislation. Guess the boundaries get too blurred for me, things are fine until someone pays with their life, then the agencies all seem to retreat from any responsibility. Hence it should be under one oversight. Just my two pennorth.
No worries mate, to be fair, that’s a fine comeback to my thoughts.
On the Jean Charles issue, I don’t lay any blame on the military involved, or the poor sods who shot him. Cressida Dick and the others higher up might have a case to answer though, and yes there were issues caused by having both police and military involved.
Big brother IS watching you, just Russia & the CCP being the main threat. The tools of IT & AI are perfect surveilance & repression tools for evil autocracies.
I’ve assumed that we don’t hear much because it’s all very secret. Hopefully measures to both defend against constant Russian/Chinese cyber warfare have been taking place significantly, just quietly. Though the MOD/HMG fetish for cuts beyond reason & gapping essential capabilities doesn’t fill me with total confidence.
I think it has been on NATO’s agenda a very long time.
It is.
I can tell you several of the units involved in this, they’re open source, but that is for defensive cyber. The offensive side is highly secret. Very little has been published about the NCF.
Google NATO Latvia… you might be surprised.
this war is already happening and it’s one that the west MUST WIN. the UK and our allies are under attack every day, we have to be better and stronger in cyber warfare. we must return those attacks with software abilities to return those attacks with interest.
We do, Andy. But that offensive side is classified, and under the domain of the National Cyber Force.
This place, like the NCSC at Nova in Victoria, is defensive.