> All of the Active Cyber Defence services are really treating symptoms, rather than underlying causes. I’m really proud of what we’ve achieved in the ACD programme and we've used it to force some systemic changes. But even that programme is about mitigating harm caused by the problems we see, rather than fixing the problems. We really need to get to the root causes and solutions to some of those really thorny issues.
Yes, absolutely!
For example we build all kinds of crazy things into our CPUs but don't make them safe because this would break compatibility with software design form the 1960s. That's pure insanity given the gigantic costs caused by the to this day unsafe computer architectures. We're talking here about hundreds of billions of dollars, every year. Still nobody wants to change anything.
But than the text goes on:
> For example, one problem (in my opinion) is that it’s too easy to set up free hosting for your cybercrime site. There’s no friction and no risk to dissuade would-be-crims.
Pure nonsense and propaganda!
First of all, there is no "free hosting" for cybercrime. If it would be free the whole following argument about economical initiatives for the hosting providers falls apart.
Also it seems someone wants to change the fundamental nature of the internet: A key principle of the internet is that everybody with access can provide services. So even if hosting providers would be strongly regulated the cybercrime gangs can still host their shit themself. (And because of initiatives some "illegal" unregulated hosting providers would pop up quickly anyway, as it actually the case already).
Fighting the root cause would in this case mean to restructure the internet to a fully state controlled entity. What this guy (indirectly) proposes it pervert! But of course nicely in line with everything the British government stands for…
It has reasons why our governments across the globe pushing for "everything online", payed with "digital currency" (this includes "plastic" and online banking and such, in the future "digital Dollars / Euros / Pounds" etc), and in the last step digital IDs bound to the vital internet access. The result of this is full control—a new age of slavery. (But at least there wouldn't be much cybercrime than; isn't that great? /s)
A much more favorable solution would be safe free hard- and software, so cybercrime would be infeasible by pure technological means (of course nothing can protect people from their own stupidity, but that's a different story, and not unique to the cyberspace). Such a resolution to the root causes means of course less power to the central governments and all power to the people making and using digital things. But I understand that governments aren't in favor of this and dream instead of the full control approach.
The article contains actually much more of the typical intelligence propaganda (or "narrative" how they themself call this kind of propaganda), as others pointed out here already. I would not consider this text anyhow honest.