Australia's National Security Strategy? Or Labor's election-year cyber gimmick?

Australia's National Security Strategy? Or Labor's election-year cyber gimmick?

Summary: The Australian Cyber Security Centre that was announced yesterday may be useful, but seems more like an election-year gimmick that will tempt governments to increase surveillance and control.

SHARE:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has just spent two days of news cycle on Australia's national security, and the message is clear--terrorism was last decade's bogeyman. The PM's speech even had a helpful title: "Australia's national security beyond the 9/11 decade." This decade's bogeyman is something called the "cyber threat," and it's everywhere.

But don't worry, the government is dealing with it.

Yesterday, the PM launched the National Security Strategy, covering everything from the rise of China to money laundering in 44 pages, plus notes and such. Most of it seems to be a restatement of previous policies, or obvious and non-controversial extensions.

The important new thing is that the government will create the Australian Cyber Security Centre: a "world-class facility," according to the PM, that will house the existing Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) Cyber Security Operations Centre, CERT Australia, ASIO's Cyber Espionage Branch, elements of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) High-Tech Crime Operations team, and analysts from the Australian Crime Commission.

This will create "an expanded and more agile response capability to deal with all cyber issues--be they related to government or industry, crime or security," apparently. In other words, they're putting the warrior-geeks from different agencies into the same building so that they'll play nice.

One might have thought that these guys could coordinate their cyber on the internet these days, and putting them all in the one building means the whole lot can be taken out with one cruise missile. But I suppose water cooler conversations can improve inter-agency communication.

The centre will be established by the end of 2013. Presumably, we'll see some money for it in the federal budget in May, and the builders will be supplied with No Doz.

Today, the PM visited DSD, trailed by a gaggle of journalists and TV cameras. Her speech said nothing new. It just repeated a few sound bites about cyber security being a thing now; reminded us that DSD exists and is wonderful, thank you, but it's secret; and included a lame joke about Nigerian princes.

So why did the PM make such a big deal out of telling us that there are bad things on the internet now--who knew?--and announcing a new centre that's little more that a change of address?

A cynic might note that 2013 is an election year and that the Labor Party's reputation on national security isn't that flash. By repeating the "cyber is dangerous!" message, and then announcing something that'll save us, Julia Gillard becomes Queen Boudica, saving us from the cyber-Romans--well, she is Welsh--with the men and women of DSD as a meat backdrop for the TV news.

Whatever the real reason, there's a potential problem with putting agencies with different missions in the one building: scope creep.

National security is about defending the nation against existential threats--wars, the espionage that enables wars, terrorism, and serious and organised crime. To defend against these threats, national security agencies and the military are given extraordinary powers, including covert surveillance, the ability to operate in secret, and sometimes, you know, killing people.

During the War on Terrorism--which soon became the War on Terror--all sorts of things eventually became a kind of terrorism, including eco-terrorism and even economic terrorism. Sorry, but the fear of losing money is not the same as the fear of having your intestines splattered 50 metres down the street when a car bomb explodes.

In this new War on Cyber, we've got similarly slippery language. Yesterday, we had "malicious cyber activity," "cyber incidents," and "potentially devastating cyber-attacks." None of these terms make it cyber-clear how cyber-bad a cyber-incident is before cyber-becomes a national security incident. Sorry, national cyber-security incident.

Now our security agencies would doubtless say that the limits to their powers are clear. But just three months ago in Senate committee discussions of the controversial proposals for data retention by internet service providers, a key definition was anything but clear.

But governments will always be tempted to extend the meaning of "cyber threat" to include threats of a less existential nature so that they can use the stronger powers--and with all the cyber-defenders in the one building, the temptation will surely be stronger.

"We must continue to work closely with industry and international partners to develop a set of global 'norms' for online behaviour," the PM said yesterday. Different online behaviour is now a threat to national security, apparently. And that's just day one.

Topics: Government AU, Security, Australia

About

Stilgherrian is a freelance journalist, commentator and podcaster interested in big-picture internet issues, especially security, cybercrime and hoovering up bulldust.

He studied computing science and linguistics before a wide-ranging media career and a stint at running an IT business. He can write iptables firewall rules, set a rabbit trap, clear a jam in an IBM model 026 card punch and mix a mean whiskey sour.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

12 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • The document is full of gibberish

    It says nothing, takes us nowhere . . . just like Labor since it was elected!
    Wakemewhentrollsgone
    • The document is full of gibberish

      Spot On!
      moggie00
  • Worst Government Ever!

    More spin from the WORST Prime Minister and Government in History it never ends the BS they ramble on about,they have slashed defense spending!trying to bring in draconian so called EQUAL opportunity laws???nothing more than a bunch of self serving power hungry individuals at a win at all cost government, a government that sacks a loyal serving FEMALE member for 15 yrs because she was not indigenous (isn't that illegal?) spin self serving nothing more nothing less
    moggie00
    • It might well be illegal

      " a government that sacks a loyal serving FEMALE member for 15 yrs because she was not indigenous (isn't that illegal?"

      There is some debate that suggests that it might be illegal under certain Acts. I'd like to see it tested.
      Wakemewhentrollsgone
  • All I wanna know is

    will the building get NBN, and which celeb is she going to appoint as the minister for cyborg I mean cyber terrorism. Oh yeah and who is going to supply al-Qaeda with enough laptops to stop them from blowing things up, cause that's so last decade.
    t205
    • In Left-wing thinking

      (and I use the term "thinking" rather loosely given that Left-wing thinking is an oxymoron), you do not stop wars by giving out laptops. You do so by holding hands and singing "Kum ba yah". :-)
      Wakemewhentrollsgone
      • But

        wouldn't that make the new facility redundant?

        Show my one terrorist that can sing and hack at the same time. Singing and blowing things up I can imagine, but that just takes us back to square one.
        t205
  • lol, very insightful

    but it is Labor's just to squander . . . just look at their history :-)
    Wakemewhentrollsgone
    • Wrong spot

      That was meant to be a response to t205
      Wakemewhentrollsgone
    • Sometimes

      Silly is all the government deserves.
      t205
  • ?? Podcast ??

    Stil, who's decision was it to kill off the podcast (what numbers ?)
    The spoken word can have so many inflections communicating humour, satire, ridicule etc and you my friend are one of the best at this. We loose this with just text on a page.
    I read your first article for The Full Tilt and found myself adding the Stilgherrian twist. Tedious.
    I spend most of my days sitting in front of 2 x 23 inch computer monitors - you can fit lots of written words in there.
    I read ZDNet every day but the podcasts were a weekly treat. A 30-50 minute podcast is also a perfect way to pass time on weekly interstate flights.
    You have interviewed many brilliant people over the years, how do you do this justice with text ?
    Do we get a vote on this ???

    Long time ZDNet reader - first time comment (done for a good reason)...
    Sparks@...
    • T'was a commercial editorial decision

      The decision was made by editor Chris Duckett, with my heavy-hearted support .

      Thank you for the compliments. I agree that a podcast is a different thing from a written article. Apart from all the things you mention, a 30-minute podcast contains about 4500 words. Somewhat more than a 600-word column!

      But budgets are finite, and far more people read written words than listened to the Patch Monday podcast. While the podcast had a dedicated and slowly-growing audience, it simply wasn't enough for ZDNet to justify the cost. And, I must admit, it wasn't that flash a money-earner for me — though that's my fault for expanding the production beyond the original brief.

      Sorry, you don't get a vote. ZDNet is a commercial operation.

      All that said, I had already planned to do more podcasts this year, and my planning for that starts in March.
      stilgherrian