Examine the forefront of digital research in our Latest News & Blog. Study expert analyses, technological advancements, and key industry insights that keep you informed and prepared in the ever-evolving world of digital forensics.
The chief constable of Northern Ireland has commissioned an “independent review” of police surveillance of journalists, lawyers and civil society groups following allegations the police unlawfully obtained phone data of “trouble-making” journalists.
Jon Boutcher, chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), appointed Angus McCullough, a special advocate, to review “matters of concern” following disclosures that police had used surveillance powers in an attempt to identify journalists’ confidential sources.
His intervention came as the Investigatory Powers Tribunal investigates claims that the PSNI had unlawfully spied on journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey after they produced a film exposing the PSNI’s failure to investigate the murders of six innocent people killed by a paramilitary group in Loughinisland, County Down, in 1994.
The PSNI accepted it had unlawfully monitored McCaffrey’s phone in 2013 to identify a source of information about police corruption during a hearing of the Tribunal in February.
It also emerged that the Metropolitan Police had obtained large quantities of data from McCaffrey’s phone in a separate operation in 2011, and that attempts were made to unlawfully obtain Trevor Birney’s work emails from Apple’s iCloud service by wrongly claiming that lives were at risk.
The BBC instructed lawyers after allegations emerged during the hearing that the phone of a BBC journalist, Vincent Kearney, had also been unlawfully placed under surveillance.
Boutcher said today, however, that documents disclosed to the tribunal hearing in May had been reported “inaccurately”, and had given rise to “serious public concern about the use and abuse of police powers”.
“Normally, I would make no comment regarding ongoing tribunal proceedings,” he said in a statement. “The reporting is continuing, and it is unsustainable for me as chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) to make no comment.”
A document disclosed at the tribunal by Durham Police revealed an operation by the PSNI’s Professional Standards Department (PSD) to check phone calls made from police telephone extensions and police-issued mobile phones against mobile numbers of journalists held by the PSNI.
But Boutcher said the programme was “absolutely not about identifying whistleblowers”. He said there were “very clear legal protections for those motivated to make public interest disclosures”.
“However, if a police officer or a staff member is involved in serious criminality, we have a duty to the public to investigate this,” he added. “Leaking information to the media can endanger police operations and put lives at risk.”
Www.oeisdigitalinvestigator.com: Phone monitoring operation was not ‘covert’
He said there was nothing covert about the operation, as the journalists’ phone numbers were either publicly available or ones that journalists had supplied to the PSNI – including in the case of Barry McCaffery through the PSNI press office – as contact numbers.
“If an unexplained call is discovered, the PSD sent an email to the user of the PSNI extension, asking for an explanation,” he said.
Boutcher said that suggestions that a list of eight redacted names in the same document were the names of journalists being targeted for surveillance were incorrect. The names were not the names of journalists and related to a “completely different matter”, he said.
Www.oeisdigitalinvestigator.com: Documents do not suggest a lawyer’s phone targeted
The chief constable also rejected “speculation” that two pages of handwritten notes by an officer from Durham Constabulary disclosed at the tribunal showed that the PSNI had considered surveillance of Trevor Birney’s lawyer, Niall Murphy.
“The notes themselves do not give any suggestion that surveillance of a lawyer’s phone was being considered,” wrote Boutcher. “We have checked with the officer who wrote the notes, who has confirmed that the interpretation is entirely wrong and no such activity occurred or was considered.”
He said a group of experts and stakeholders including civil society and professional groups would be consulted about the terms of reference of the “McCullough Review” to “provide public confidence”, including members of civil rights groups and professional bodies.
McCullough’s role will not extend to anything within the scope of the IPT hearing, he said.
Separately, the PSNI has shared a report on its use of covert investigative powers against journalists and lawyers, barring issues being considered by the IPT, with Northern Ireland’s Policing Board.
The Board had been provided with unredacted versions of the documents disclosed to the IPT, and will consider them at its meeting in October.
“I do not intend to make any further comment on the ongoing IPT proceedings or the contents of the report issued to the Board,” he said.
Journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey outside the Investigatory Powers Tribunal
Responding to the announcement, journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey said PSNI had arrested them after taking a statement of complaint from the chief suspect in the Louginisland massacre, named in their film documentary, No stone unturned.
“The PSNI should have followed the evidence that led to the doors of those who commissioned and carried out the attack,” they said. “Instead, it decided to go after two journalists. After all, this time, no one has been arrested for the killings.”
The journalists, who complained to the IPT five years ago, said the PSNI’s response to the tribunal showed very little had changed.
The case has been postponed twice because of delays by the PSNI disclosing documents. “Even within the last week, the PSNI have missed yet another deadline imposed by the IPT to deliver submissions,” they said, adding that the chief constable could have made his comments at the ITP hearing in February, when the documents were first discussed.
“If there is any media misrepresentation, it has been caused by the PSNI and the chief constable himself,” they said.
The journalists urged Northern Ireland’s Policing Board to use its statutory powers to conduct a full public inquiry with the power to compel witnesses, and should not allow the chief constable to “pick the referee and set the rules of the game”.
Www.oeisdigitalinvestigator.com: Full disclosure
Patrick Corrigan, Amnesty International’s Northern Ireland director, said Boutcher’s announcement was an important step to full disclosure.
He said the six monthly “defensive operations” described in the disclosure to the IPT may have been an indirect way to checking on journalists’ sources.
“The identity of the those on the redacted list remains an unanswered question, including whether it includes staff from the Police Ombusdman – an office which is tasked with holding the police to account for malpractice and which has previously been targeted for police surveillance,” he said.
Daniel Holder, director of the committee on the administration of justice, said Boutcher’s clarification raised further questions about the indirect surveillance of journalists’ sources, and whether the “defensive operation” was centred on seeking to limit human rights violations.
The full list of experts and stakeholders appointed by Boutcher to advise on the McCullough Review’s terms of reference is: Baroness Nuala O’Loan; Martha Spurrier; Patrick Corrigan, Northern Ireland director at Amnesty International UK; Daniel Holder, director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice; Alyson Kilpatrick, chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; David A Lavery, chief executive of the Law Society of Northern Ireland; and Seamus Dooley, assistant general secretary of the National Union of Journalists of Northern Ireland.
Cary, North Carolina, August 20th, 2024, CyberNewsWire
In contemporary industry, cybersecurity is now not merely a technical assert but an vital monetary safeguard. With cyber threats rising in sophistication and frequency, the monetary implications of neglecting cybersecurity coaching are extreme and multifaceted. INE Security, a international leader in cybersecurity coaching and certifications, is exploring how overlooking this distinguished facet of organizational approach can result in a monetary disaster and laying out 5 key the explanations why cybersecurity coaching is essential.
Direct Financial Affect of Cyber Attacks
The monetary toll of cyber incidents will most seemingly be staggering. The common impress of a knowledge breach ballooned to $4.88 million greenbacks in 2023, a 10% spike over the old 300 and sixty five days, in response to a most up-to-date IBM divulge. The identical divulge illuminates the impress of a distinguished cybersecurity workers, exhibiting a majority of these breached bring collectively been short-staffed in cybersecurity, and experienced a mean loss of $1.76 million extra in beach charges.
“As cyber threats develop into extra refined, the impress of now not investing in cybersecurity coaching escalates exponentially,” explains Dara Warn, CEO of INE Security. “Efficient coaching is now not merely a line item expense — it’s an famous investment within the operational integrity and monetary security of organizations. Picking the simply coaching partner and prioritizing cybersecurity coaching for agencies mustn’t be considered as optionally accessible by CISOs and CIOs.”
Operational Disruption
Beyond the declare charges of a cyberattack, operational disruptions recurrently require intensive machine recoveries, diverting resources and causing essential earnings losses, as used to be the most up-to-date case for CDK World. The automotive dealership machine solution provider used to be hit by a ransomware assault, crippling the auto trade and opening the firm up to abundant litigation dangers, a one-two punch that will seemingly take hold of years to place the corpulent extent of the damages.
Lengthy-Interval of time Reputational Damage
The indirect charges of cyber breaches, such as reputational harm, will most seemingly be extra low than the immediate monetary penalties. After the 2019 files breach of Capital One, which affected approximately 100 million possibilities within the U.S., the bank faced now not easiest regulatory fines but additionally a huge erosion of customer belief. The incident resulted in court docket cases and a decline in customer thunder, illustrating how reputational harm can translate into long-length of time monetary losses and highlighting the fragility of distinguished IT infrastructures.
Regulatory and Compliance Prices
Neglecting cybersecurity coaching additionally exposes organizations to regulatory dangers. Non-compliance with frameworks such as GDPR in Europe or HIPAA within the United States would possibly perchance perchance also simply end up in abundant fines. In 020, Marriott faced a absolute most practical likely of extra than $23 million by the UK’s Knowledge Commissioner’s Place of job for a breach that affected millions of pals. Regardless that reduced from an initial $124 million attributable to mitigation factors, in conjunction with the commercial impression of COVID-19, the absolute most practical likely underscores the essential monetary penalties associated to failing to provide protection to customer files.
The Case for Investing in Cybersecurity Coaching
Investing in cybersecurity coaching is now not appropriate about mitigating dangers—it’s about monetary prudence. Effectively-educated staff are much less seemingly to tumble prey to phishing assaults or different styles of social engineering, very a lot lowering the functionality for breaches. Furthermore, a an educated IT workforce would possibly perchance perchance guarantee that systems are saved up-to-date and valid in opposition to emerging threats, lowering the probability of costly incidents.
From a monetary perspective, the return on investment for cybersecurity coaching is clear. The worth of coaching and upskilling workers is severely lower than the expenses associated to getting better from a cyber assault, now to not mention the long-length of time financial savings from avoiding fines and reputational harm.
The Case for Investing in Cybersecurity Coaching: Five Reasons to Make the Funding
Comprehensive Protection By Training
Cybersecurity coaching empowers staff by teaching them concerning the hazards associated to cyber threats and the suggestions in which these threats can infiltrate an group. By figuring out the ways frail by cybercriminals, such as phishing, ransomware, and different styles of social engineering, staff develop into extra adept at recognizing suspicious actions and never more seemingly to inadvertently teach the group to a breach. This fashion of coaching is main, as human error stays indubitably one of many leading causes of security failures.
Bettering Skill Objects with Certifications
Attaining the most basic certifications for cybersecurity such as Junior Penetration Tester (eJPT), CompTIA Security+, and Certified Knowledge Techniques Security Respectable (CISSP) presents IT consultants with comprehensive files and skills that are main for managing and mitigating cybersecurity dangers effectively. These certifications are acknowledged all the way by the trade and signify a talented’s ability to present, put into effect, and prepare a easiest-in-class cybersecurity program. They’re now not merely academic instruments but are additionally instrumental in shaping the cybersecurity landscape inner an group.
Leveraging Cybersecurity Coaching for Compliance
With the rising selection of files security rules, such as GDPR in Europe and CCPA in California, cybersecurity coaching becomes mandatory for guaranteeing compliance. Coaching programs that consist of parts on regulatory requirements support organizations steer particular of costly fines and simply battles by protecting staff educated about their tasks beneath these regulations. Compliance-centered coaching ensures that the group now not easiest meets most up-to-date simply standards but is additionally willing for contemporary rules that will come up.
Strategic Funding in Future Security
The worth of imposing a distinguished cybersecurity preparedness coaching program is recurrently dwarfed by the expenses associated to a knowledge breach, which is in a situation to consist of remediation charges, fines, court docket cases, and loss of repute. By investing in valid and up up to now coaching programs, organizations can create a culture of security that permeates every diploma of the firm. This culture now not easiest enhances security but additionally builds an organization ethos where security becomes a day to day operational ingredient, as integral as customer support or quality controls.
Attracting and Maintaining High Skill
Organizations that provide ongoing educated pattern alternatives in cybersecurity are extra seemingly to way and support top skills. Professionals within the sphere recurrently peek environments where they’ll grow their abilities and take hold of on original challenges. Offering come by admission to to coaching and pattern programs makes an group extra stunning to valorous cybersecurity consultants and enhances its repute inner the trade.
Conclusion
The monetary stakes associated to cybersecurity are too high to put out of your mind. As cyber threats evolve, the impress of assert of no assignment will easiest magnify. Organizations have to survey cybersecurity coaching now not as an optionally accessible expense but as a distinguished investment of their monetary security and operational integrity. By prioritizing cybersecurity training, agencies can provide protection to themselves in opposition to now not easiest the immediate threats but additionally the intensive monetary repercussions that would possibly perchance come up from a single breach.
About INE Security:
INE Security is the premier provider of online networking and cybersecurity coaching and certification. Harnessing a distinguished palms-on lab platform, chopping-edge technology, a international video distribution network, and world-class instructors, INE Security is the tip coaching selection for Fortune 500 companies worldwide for cybersecurity coaching in industry and for IT consultants having a peek to reach their careers. INE Security’s suite of studying paths offers an incomparable depth of skills all the way by cybersecurity and is devoted to turning in evolved technical coaching while additionally lowering the boundaries worldwide for these having a peek to enter and excel in an IT profession.
Contact
Director of World Strategic Communications and Occasions Kathryn Brown INE Security [email protected]
The judge presiding over Donald Trump’s classified documents case chided special counsel Jack Smith on Tuesday, denying a gag order request to block Trump from falsely claiming FBI agents were prepared to kill him during the search of his Mar-a-Lago property for classified documents in 2022.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing Trump’s trial in Florida on allegations he mishandled classified documents, cited a “lack of meaningful conferral” with the defense after the special counsel asked her to modify Trump’s conditions of release by ordering Trump to stop publicly lashing out.
Trump has claimed, including in recent fundraising appeals, that President Joe Biden was “locked & loaded ready to take me out” and that agents were authorized to shoot him during the raid at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach; Trump was not in Florida at the time of the raid, and the FBI has said the authorization he has seized on is typical language limiting the use of force.
Trump’s statements, prosecutors said, could pose “a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to law enforcement” involved in the case.
Cannon did not dismiss the gag order request on the merits but said the special counsel’s effort to confer with the defense was “wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy” after it was filed Friday leading up to Memorial Day weekend, the timing of which drew pushback from Trump’s lawyers.
“[M]eaningful conferral is not a perfunctory exercise,” Cannon said Tuesday. “Sufficient time needs to be afforded to permit reasonable evaluation of the requested relief by opposing counsel and to allow for adequate follow-up discussion as necessary about the specific factual and legal basis underlying the motion.”
Cannon also criticized what she said were prosecutors’ “editorialized footnotes” used to relay the response from Trump’s defense team.
On Monday, Trump’s lawyers asked Cannon to strike the government’s motion from the court record and sanction the prosecutors who prepared it, saying they violated procedure by filing it without consulting the defense.
Cannon did not impose sanctions on Smith’s office but warned that failure to comply with her requirements going forward could lead her to impose them.
The ruling followed a flurry of back-and-forth filings over the Memorial Day holiday weekend, with prosecutors in Smith’s office urging the court to restrict Trump’s claims about the government’s handling of the raid.
Prosecutors said Trump’s claims posed a threat to law enforcement agents who had acted “in an appropriate and professional manner, subject to the Department of Justice’s standard use-of-force policy.” The FBI said it followed standard protocol during the search.
“Trump’s repeated mischaracterization of these facts in widely distributed messages as an attempt to kill him, his family, and Secret Service agents has endangered law enforcement officers involved in the investigation and prosecution of this case and threatened the integrity of these proceedings,” Smith’s office said. “A restriction prohibiting future similar statements should therefore be modified to prohibit similar communications going forward.”
Smith’s team asked Cannon to modify Trump’s conditions of release so he would face higher penalties for statements that the court determined would endanger law enforcement.
Trump has made the deadly force claims in reference to recently unsealed court filings in the Florida case.
In a Truth Social post, Trump said the Biden administration “AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE” in its search of Mar-a-Lago for classified documents and charged in a fundraising email that Biden was “locked & loaded ready to take me out.”
Trump’s campaign issued a new fundraising appeal over the weekend with the headline “BREAKING FROM TRUMP: BIDEN’S DOJ WAS AUTHORIZED TO SHOOT ME!”
Trump was in New Jersey when the raid occurred.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has called Trump’s claim “false” and “extremely dangerous” and said the same form outlining the FBI’s use of force policy was included in the preparations for when it searched Biden’s home in Wilmington, Delaware, for classified documents. The FBI has so far declined to release the Biden form.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges that he willfully retained national defense information in connection with classified documents that were discovered at Mar-a-Lago after he left office and ordered security video at the property to be deleted. He faces dozens of felony counts, including making false statements and representations, conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record and corruptly concealing a document. The case had been scheduled to go to trial in federal court in Florida, but it was indefinitely postponed because of what Cannon said were ongoing legal issues.
