Home Office documents laying out what is probably late-2007 thinking on ID cards have been leaking to the press. Here (PDF) you will find a complete version of a document analyzing options, with extensive No2ID annotation. Interesting reading for those here, and not just because it’s worth understanding how the government is thinking about ID cards these days. The kind of thinking embodied in this document is, I think, a significant reason why citizens do not trust government.

wg

Don’t think anyone’s flagged the Demos pamphlet (PDF) released in November that lays out the need for a new way of thinking about issues of national security. Basically, Demos argues for increased integration within government and also an understanding that the nature of threats has changed since the Cold War. I found the link on Bruce Schneier’s blog; BS also notes that the UK government has decided to stop calling it a “War on Terror”.

Both these points seem important to me. At CFP2000, Neil Stephanson gave a keynote in which he talked about the importance of getting the threat model right. He was in fact talking about privacy - traditional notions of privacy have focused on the state as Big Brother while today’s threats are thousands of Little (or maybe medium-sized) Brothers (like phone companies, credit card companies, supermarkets - but the point is the same.

So I think it’s a good sign for IA that people are thinking seriously about the threat model and rhetoric in common use. Especially if they adapt correctly to changing conditions.

wg

…Or more specifically, to link to the Washington Post’s 3-page article about the U.S. Future Combat Systems.

This was covered in the London papers, but Popular Mechanics has better pictures and more links–I’m writing of course about Qinetic’s firefighting robots. “When you have money to burn, robots are the best kind of first responders: the disposable kind. Bomb-squad bots are already a common tool for local law enforcement agencies and the military, but remote-controlled firefighters are just now making it into the field. A team of robots built by London-based Qinetiq has recently started responding to a very specific threat: fires involving Acetylene gas.”

“The Roomba’s inventors over at iRobot have also explored this territory, claiming that its upcoming Warrior X700, which is due next year, could be used to fight fires.”

On the military side, “When robot-maker Foster-Miller strapped machine guns onto a trio of bomb-disposal bots and sent them to Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007, the company created the first armed robots to be deployed in a war zone. Still, no robot has ever actually fired a shot in combat. “Weaponized robots represent a new technology that is only in the developmental stages,” says Duane Gotvald, a deputy at the Pentagon’s Robotic Systems Joint Project Office.” Er, I have heard that shots have been fired in anger by robots… maybe not theirs…

From the information assurance point of view, the key quote is this: “One thing that won’t change is who decides to pull the trigger. MAARS doesn’t have a mind of its own: A soldier commands the bot through a video-and-map-enabled remote control.”

This generation of robots could be categorized as ‘longer nozzles’ for firefighting equipment or ‘longer barrels’ for the military. They should pose little or no IA issues. It’s when we start programming them that we need to concern ourselves with information security and assurance–but wouldn’t it be better if we were planning for that now?

The Economist’s Quarterly Technology Review is out today, and there are lots of Blindsidey nuggets to chew over.

They note progress being made in using virtual worlds for training and simulations, have a nice article on how DNA samples can be pickled (well use a briney process) for longer storage, and have two articles that I personally hope will be related in the near future: one about how corrective eye surgery is progressing and another about how head-mounted displays (HMDs) are creating a world of augmented reality.

Location-based services gets an article about Bluetooth enabling mobile dating, and another that makes me wonder if anybody is considering the information assurance issues about clustering volunteer computers to look for alien life and cures for cancer.

Surveillance in the stores gets an article–makes me hope this stays in the stores. But it won’t…

Larry Lessig of the EFF gets a nice write-up. Corrupt politicians (at least in the U.S.) should really start evaluating career alternatives.

But the piece I was waiting for, about Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) is a real dud–unless you want the history. The present is much more interesting. Maybe they just ran out of space.

Now I have to wait three more months…

It looks as if Galileo, the EU satellite project, will go forward. This means that there will be competition to the American GPS services, and an alternative to location and timing signals. It’s an expensive back-up, but it’s important to have a back-up.

MI5 has issued a warning to a host of companies and organisations that they are being hacked–quite possibly by the Chinese. As we reported this summer when it was Whitehall and the MoD getting hacked, it’s important to remember that the Red Army, blamed for so much of this, has a lot of private enterprise initiatives out there, and this may not be seeking military advantage (although they wouldn’t throw that away if it came to hand) but seeking straightforward competitive advantage over UK companies doing (or hoping to do) business in China.

Here’s how it’s painted on the CPNI website. “The UK is a high priority espionage target and a number of countries are actively seeking UK information and material to advance their own military, technological, political and economic interests.”

And look at it this way–UK information protection schemes obviously need the exercise. Better be tested and found wanting in a time of peace. In a weird way, maybe we should thank the Chinese for this–if we act on the lessons learned…

This is going to get interesting, and the Economist says that this topic will be covered in their upcoming technology quarterly (which is really one of the best things about the Economist). We’ve been following UAVs here since summertime, and I really think it is a) emerging as a technology that has information assurance implications for UK government and b) it’s really cool.

Ranging from powered model airplanes for children to the Predator, UAVs are currently lightly regulated and not at all policed, which should worry law enforcement as well as IA practitioners. With progress in miniaturization in full swing, an unmanned aerial vehicle can carry a camera (the UK is already using them to carry CCTV)… or something quite a bit deadlier. It is clear that legislation and regulation hasn’t caught up to the implications of this.

Meanwhile, at the Popular Mechanics website, there’s a story about the Houston Police Department’s trials of a UAV. The story walks through a lot of the issues revolving around this stuff.

Remember the main IA issue is going to be integrating information flows to, from and about potentially large numbers of these critters into information about more conventional air traffic. As I’ve mentioned before, between UAVs, ultralights and normal increases in air traffic (as point-to-point becomes more popular than hub and spoke and small jets become more ‘affordable’), those charged with keeping air traffic safe are going to have a lot on their hands.

Related stories (copied off the PM site–thanks!)

Civilian UAVs: No Pilot, No Problem

Britain’s Police Drone: Could It Stop Next Terror Plot?

Miami’s New Test Aircraft Gets Look from Army, Navy

Air Scouts: FA-18s Take On UAV Reconnaissance Duties in Iraq

Unmanned NASA Aircraft Enlisted in SoCal Firefight

Sunday Update: “Police and border control authorities are to use an unmanned aircraft to patrol the south coast to catch illegal immigrants trying to enter Britain by boat.” …”It is understood the police have expressed interest in using the £5m drone to monitor crowds during demonstrations and events such as football matches.”

“Andrew Mellors, head of civil autonomous systems at BAE, told the conference: “From 2012 fully autonomous unmanned air systems could be routinely used by border agencies, the police and government bodies.”

Key Section Here: “On-board sensors also give the drone the ability to deal with unexpected incidents, for example by automatically changing course to avoid coming close to other planes in the crowded airspace.

BAE Systems is in talks with the authorities to ensure that the drone does not interfere with civil or military flying. It said that the Herti, in addition to its sensors, had transponders to allow other aircraft and ground controllers to see it on their radar.”

If BAE has the brains God gave a gnat it will put the sensors and transponders in a black box, sell it to everyone who wants to use a UAV, and politely inform government that they have the power to mandate inclusion in all unmanned aircraft….

Here’s the story on the day after…

I have said this before on this blog. There are countries where a national identification card is completely non-controversial. There are possible benefits to society from a well run and properly managed system.

But in my heart of hearts I do not believe that this country’s government (and I do not distinguish between political party here) is capable of building and operating an ID management system at this point in time without disastrous consequences to information assurance.

From Popular Mechanics:

(Let’s count how many network connections we find in the police car of the future).

1. “The E7 would go from 0 to 60 mph in six seconds, with a top speed of 155 mph, and a slew of humble-sounding improvements, like seats that can accommodate radios and other bulky equipment. According to Li, the E7 would start in the “high-20’s,” climbing up to as much as $70,000 with options like license-plate-reading cameras and even WMD sensors.” (Is that two?)

2. “Researchers at the University of New Hampshire have developed a system that lets officers use voice commands to run a license plate, turn on the lights and siren, and even clock a speeding car.”

3. “If the (suspect) car suddenly takes off, the officer can say, “Pursuit,” activating the lights and siren, as well as his own vehicle’s GPS tracking system.”

4. “It gets even more futuristic: A handful of officers are testing Project54 with PDAs, checking a driver’s license on the handheld’s screen and running voice commands through the PDA’s mic. The system has also been installed on six motorcycles, using helmet mics, as well as handlebar-mounted, WiFi-enabled touchscreens, which can be detached and used up to 300 ft. from a bike-mounted Panasonic Toughbook. No specialized gear, no experimental hardware—just a smart application.”

Too futuristic for your tastes? Short-Term Impact: Project54 is currently installed on about 1000 vehicles, most of which are in New Hampshire. But Lenharth insists demand is increasing rapidly. “We aren’t selling anything,” he says. “This is basically an open-source system.” The Texas state police, for example, are looking into outfitting some 2000 vehicles with the voice-command technology. The Coast Guard is currently testing an installation on a boat, using a waterproof tablet, and a Project54-enabled ATV is being tested by the National Guard.

5. We call it ANPR, but in the states it’s ALPR: “The most common configuration is a three-camera system. All of the cameras have a fixed position and focal length, with two facing forward—one scanning the lane to the right of the car, the other scanning the lane to the left—and a side-mounted camera intended for parking lots. Each camera sends a constant stream of infrared and full-color images back to a processor in the trunk, which searches them against current warrant lists, Amber alerts and other records that are updated daily.” PIPS hasn’t provided exact numbers, but despite its relatively high price tag—a three-camera system costs around $25,000—ALPR systems are already in use across the United States, including agencies in California, Arizona, Texas and New Jersey.

6. StarChase GPS Launcher: This system is behind schedule—when we (Popular Mechanics, not Blindside) last covered it, the plan was for a deployment by the end of this year—but Virginia-based StarChase now claims that the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department is closing in on the final stage of its testing, which could put a deployed GPS launcher on the road early next year.
The purpose of StarChase is to stop high-speed pursuits, by letting officers launch a sticky GPS tracker onto a fleeing vehicle. Everything is riding on the LA test. If StarChase is considered effective in one of the most chase-heavy regions in the country, other agencies are likely to start their own field-tests.

How many network connections did you count?

Thirty or forty years ago in America, journalists, interested citizens and yes, criminals, all listened to the police radio broadcasts to find out what was going on. They would often beat the police to the scene of a crime or accident.

Via Kable we learn that “A pilot scheme will test whether mobile technology can make Nottinghamshire police more efficient. Nottinghamshire Police is to pilot mobile technology which aims to provide officers on the beat with up to date information and reduce the time spent on paper work. The solution has been developed by mobile data specialist Beat Systems and will provide officers with real time access to multiple operational systems. ”

“Police officers in Nottinghamshire can currently spend as much as half of their time at the station on paper work, but the new technology aims cut administration. The company said the solution fully integrates with national systems, such as the Police National Computer, as well as Nottinghamshire’s internal intelligence systems and email.”

Not a word about information security. Not a word about information assurance. Hope someone gives Beat Systems a call to check on this: http://www.beatsystems.com/. Telephone: 0141 946 5800 Email: info@beatsystems.com.

Their website says they are compliant with Home Office and CESG standards. They have the British Transport Police as a client already. Maybe there’s nothing to worry about. I hope so. Still…