UK plans to ban public sector bodies from paying ransom to cyber criminals
The country has been the victim of many high-profile ransomware attacks in recent years, from the 'WannaCry' cyber-attack that crippled Britain's National Health Service in 2017 to the British Library suffering disruption when it refused to pay a ransom in 2023.
'We're determined to smash the cyber-criminal business model and protect the services we all rely on,' security minister Dan Jarvis said in a statement. 'We are sending a clear signal that the UK is united in the fight against ransomware.'
Ransomware, which is malicious software used by criminals to access victims' computer systems, encrypt data, or steal information and hold it hostage until a ransom is paid, is estimated to cost the economy millions of pounds each year, the statement said.
The recent attacks highlight 'the severe operational, financial, and even life-threatening risks,' it said. The package of measures includes a ransomware payment prevention regime for victims of ransomware attacks and a ransomware incident reporting regime.
A more recent attack on the NHS was cited as one of the factors that contributed to a patient's death, according to the statement. A slew of attacks on British retailers from Marks & Spencer to Co-op Group have also shaken public confidence this year.
Under the proposals, businesses not covered by the planned ban would be required to notify the government of any intent to pay a ransom, so they can be provided with advice and support, while mandatory reporting is also being developed to equip law enforcement with essential intelligence to deal with perpetrators and disrupt their activities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
16 minutes ago
- Arab News
State Department approves $322 million in proposed weapons sales to Ukraine
The State Department said Wednesday that it has approved $322 million in proposed weapons sales to Ukraine to enhance its air defense capabilities and provide armored combat vehicles, coming as the country works to fend off escalating Russian attacks. The potential sales, which the department said were notified to Congress, include $150 million for the supply, maintenance, repair and overhaul of US armored vehicles, and $172 million for surface-to-air missile systems. The approvals come weeks after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed a pause on other weapons shipments to Ukraine to allow the Pentagon to assess its weapons stockpiles, in a move that caught the White House by surprise. President Donald Trump then made an abrupt change in posture, pledging publicly earlier this month to continue to send weapons to Ukraine. 'We have to,' Trump said. 'They have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard now. We're going to send some more weapons — defensive weapons primarily.' Trump recently endorsed a plan to have European allies buy US military equipment that can then be transferred to Ukraine. It was not immediately clear how the latest proposed sales related to that arrangement. Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the US has provided more than $67 billion in weapons and security assistance to Kyiv. Since Trump came back into office, his administration has gone back and forth about providing more military aid to Ukraine, with political pressure to stop US funding of foreign wars coming from the isolationists inside the Trump administration and on Capitol Hill. Over the course of the war, the US has routinely pressed for allies to provide air defense systems to Ukraine. But many are reluctant to give up the high-tech systems, particularly countries in Eastern Europe that also feel threatened by Russia.
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
World's top court paves way for climate reparations
THE HAGUE: The world's highest court Wednesday declared that states are obliged under international law to tackle climate change and warned that failing to do so could open the door to reparations. In a historic statement, the International Court of Justice said climate change was an 'urgent and existential threat' and countries had a legal duty to prevent harm from their planet-warming pollution. Countries breaching their climate obligations were committing a 'wrongful act,' the court said in its advisory opinion, which is not legally binding but carries political and legal weight. 'The legal consequences resulting from the commission of an internationally wrongful act may include... full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction,' said ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa on behalf of the 15-judge panel. This would be on a case-by-case basis where a 'sufficient direct and certain causal nexus' had been shown 'between the wrongful act and the injury,' the court added. Campaigners and countries on the climate frontlines hailed a milestone moment in the fight for accountability from big polluters most responsible for global warming. 'This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice and for the power of young people to make a difference,' said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Ralph Regenvanu, the climate change minister for Vanuatu, the Pacific island nation that spearheaded the case at The Hague, was jubilant. Speaking to AFP outside the court, Regenvanu said it was 'a very strong opinion at the end' and better than hoped. 'We can use these arguments when we talk with our partners, some of the high-emitting states. We can say you have a legal obligation to help us,' he said. 'This helps us in our arguments. It's going to give us a lot more leverage... in all negotiations.' This was the biggest case in ICJ history, and seen as the most consequential in a recent string of landmark climate moves. The United Nations had tasked the 15 judges at the ICJ, a UN court in The Hague that adjudicates disputes between nations, to answer two fundamental questions. First: what must states do under international law to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions for the future? Second: what are the consequences for states whose emissions have caused environmental harm, especially to vulnerable low-lying island states? In a detailed summary of the opinion, Iwasawa said the climate 'must be protected for present and future generations.' The adverse effect of a warming planet 'may significantly impair the enjoyment of certain human rights, including the right to life,' he added. Legal and climate experts said the opinion, while not legally binding, could have far-reaching consequences for national courts, legislation and public debate. 'The court's clear and detailed articulation of state obligations will be a catalyst for accelerated climate action and unprecedented accountability,' David Boyd, a former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, told AFP. Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said the ruling bound all nations by international law to prevent harm from emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases. The court was 'pointing the direction for the entire world and making clear that every nation is legally obliged to solve the climate crisis,' he told AFP. 'Perfect ending' Courts have become a key battleground for climate action as frustration has grown over sluggish progress toward curbing planet-warming pollution from fossil fuels. The Paris Agreement, struck through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has rallied a global response to the crisis, but not at the speed necessary to protect the world from dangerous overheating. The journey to The Hague began six years ago with students from the climate-imperilled Pacific region fed up with the lack of accountability for the damage afflicting their homelands. 'Young Pacific Islanders initiated this call for humanity to the world. And the world must respond,' said UN chief Guterres, praising Vanuatu's leadership. The fight pitted major wealthy economies against the smaller, less developed states which are most at the mercy of a warming planet. More than 100 nations and groups made submissions, many from the Pacific who gave impassioned appeals in colorful traditional dress. 'It's such a perfect ending to a campaign that started in a classroom,' said Vishal Prasad, director of the student-led campaign that kicked off the case. 'We have now a very, very strong tool to hold power accountable, and we must do that now. The ICJ has given everything possible,' he told AFP. The United States, which has embraced a fossil fuel agenda under President Donald Trump, had a muted response to the ruling. A US State Department spokesperson said it 'will be reviewing the Court's advisory opinion in the coming days and weeks.' French Ecological Transition Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher hailed the advisory opinion as a 'victory for the most vulnerable states, a victory for France and a victory for the climate.' John Kerry, the former US special envoy for climate change, said 'it should not take the stamp of international law to motivate countries to do what is already profoundly in their economic interests.' 'We shouldn't need another reason to act and accelerate action,' he told AFP.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
‘A free Ukraine': Kyiv protests law threatening anti-corruption bodies
KYIV, Ukraine: At a rare protest in central Kyiv demonstrators rallied Wednesday against a law that curbs the power of anti-corruption agencies, warning the fight for Ukraine's democracy was taking place both on the battlefield and at home. The legislation, removing the independence of two key anti-corruption bodies, sparked the first major protests in Ukraine since it began fighting off the Russian invasion over three years ago. 'Our struggle takes place on two fronts. Our main enemy is external, but we have an internal battle too,' said protester Viacheslav Bykov. 'We don't want Ukraine to be part of Russia, we don't want a corrupt or authoritarian Ukraine. We want a free Ukraine,' he added. Several thousand demonstrators — mostly young — gathered outside a theater in Kyiv, calling for a veto to the law passed by Ukraine's parliament on Tuesday. The law places the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) under the direct authority of the prosecutor general, who is appointed by the president. Critics say the legislation would facilitate presidential interference in corruption probes and threatens the independence of key institutions in Ukraine. European Commission weighs in Zelensky responded to the backlash on Wednesday evening, saying he would submit a new bill ensuring 'all norms for the independence of anti-corruption institutions will be in place.' Kyiv's partners had reacted with alarm, including European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen, who the EU said demanded explanations from Zelensky over the change. Civil society groups warn the bill is part of a broader pattern of pressure on anti-corruption activists and bodies. Some European allies worry the moves will undermine anti-corruption reforms key to Ukraine's bid to join the European Union — a fear shared by many protesting on Wednesday. 'We've worked for years to move closer to Europe... only to be thrown back 10 years in a single day,' said protester Anya Kutsevol. Ukraine's two anti-corruption bodies, NABU and SAPO, were born a decade ago in the wake of the 2014 Maidan revolution. Those pro-European protests, centered on Kyiv's main square, also called Maidan, ousted a Kremlin-backed leader who scrapped a key partnership agreement with the EU. The Kremlin, which refused to accept Ukraine's democratic turn toward Europe, then launched a first assault over Ukraine that led Moscow-backed separatists to occupy Crimea and parts of the eastern Donbas region. 'Ukraine is Europe,' Kutsevol said, 'we won't be returned to Russia. We'll keep fighting for Europe.' 'Undermining unity' Some fear that a political crisis over the legislation could work in Russia's favor by undermining unity within the country, which is struggling to hold the front. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov seized on the opportunity to say there was 'a lot of corruption' in Ukraine. 'If I were Russia, I would do the same,' said another protester, Yevgen Popovychenko, convinced Moscow would try to exploit the protests. He was holding a banner that read: 'Don't take me back' to the years of Maidan, where he took to the streets as a 21-year-old. As he stood in the crowd, he said he was having flashbacks from Maidan, a feeling shared by his friends. But many other protesters were only children during the famed 2014 demonstrations — including 25-year-old Kutsevol. 'When tires were still burning, I was 14. What good was I?' she said. Wednesday's was her first political protest, and she teared up looking at people gathered around her for the second day in a row, despite martial law banning large gatherings. She vowed to keep defending Ukraine's democracy. 'We're adults now. Now it's our turn.'
