24/06/2011 Newsnight

Tonight, inside the almost impenetrable world of the hackers

who claim to have taken down the CIA, Sony and a string of other

high-profile targets. We engage the self-styled pirate hacker group

LulzSec in an exclusive online conversation. Is the idea mayhem or

moral purpose? We discuss with the man who was America's top security

chief, and a person who calls himself a hacker with ethics.

Also, George and Michael go mad in Brussels.

Also tonight, we reveal details of the threats made to Syrian

activists here in Britain. And is it all over for Habitat, the

brand that spread its magic in the Swinging Sixties?

Tom Dixon, who was at the helm for ten years, and the editor of Elle

Decoration are here, sitting Good evening. It's been a long time,

if ever, since a group of hackers has got up the noses of so many

people in authority. The CIA, the US Senate, Sony, the Serious

Organised Crime Agency, and just today the Arizona police joined the

list. All have enjoyed the unwelcome attentions of LulzSec, a

hackers' collective who have been breaking into computer systems

around the world just for the "lulz", internet slang for laughs.

Across the online world, they are asking, who are they? And what do

they really want? Susan Watts has managed to track them down online

Until now, everything about the LulzSec hackers has seemed to be

about taking the mickey, from their pirate ship the into their slogan.

Laughing at your security since 2011. But recently, their targets

have become more high profile, claiming the US Senate, Sony online

accounts and an American TV station among their victims. Anonymous has

joined corrective forces with LulzSec in our newest operation.

first, they said all this was just for laughs, the "lulz" in LulzSec.

But now they seem to have joined forces with other online groups,

notably Anonymous, the group that launched revenge attacks in support

of Wikileaks. There is a definite movement of people working together

for a common cause. We have yet to see a published manifesto to the

best of my knowledge, but it seems that their mission is to fight

against what they perceive to be injustice, censorship and

unnecessary restrictions on freedom, and using any tools at their

disposal to do that. A LulzSec are remarkably open. They taunt their

victims on their Twitter feed, but who are they? Whirlpool, their

spokesman, describes himself as captain of the boat. We were not

able to talk in person, but set up a Q&A in cyberspace in a private

online chat room. It is almost impossible to be certain who we

were speaking to, but we did verify that he had access to the LulzSec

Twitter feed. First, we asked about Operation anti-sex, the movement to

LulzSec has aligned themselves with. But with the FBI and CIA amongst

their targets, is the outcome for LulzSec inevitable? If you were a

law enforcement agency, it is inevitable that the law when

Feldman agency will fight back through due process. Arrests will

follow. Everyone knows that the police will look after their own.

So there is no surprise that law- enforcement will keep up a gear the

moment that law enforcement agencies are under attack,

irrespective of the quality of information in those websites for

the harm that might be suffered. LulzSec's targets are wide-ranging,

Today the group released confidential documents from the

Arizona police department. It is causing chaos, and it is meeting

their agenda. When they are releasing the kind of information

they have, they are putting individuals' safety and privacy at

risk. So having released user names and passwords, they have moved on

now to releasing things like names, addresses and family details of

serving police officers. And people involved in undercover operations.

That could endanger someone's life. It does not seem to be for laughs

any more. The in the hacking world, white hats are out to expose

security weaknesses and get them fixed. Black hats are more

malicious and out to make money. Where does Whirlpool C LulzSec

In our online chat, Whirlpool told us the group trades in online

currency and claims that LulzSec has received over $80,000 worth of

donations. With 270,000-odd followers on Twitter, someone is

interested in what they are doing. We have had personal data loss

events in government. We have had Wikileaks. We have even had the

phone hacking scandal. This tells us that we have serious issues in

this country about security and confidentiality of information in

computer communication systems. If we do not see LulzSec in the proper

context, we will not develop the right kind of policy framework and

legal framework to derive the correct behaviours that society

needs. If he is right and LulzSec seeks to be more than just funny,

who has to change what as everyone comes to terms with the broader

challenges of cybersecurity? With us now from Washington is

Michael Chertoff, the US Homeland Security Secretary and George Bush.

And in the studio, James Lyne, an ethical hacker and Director of

Technology Strategy at the computer security firm Sophos. Michael, you

are involved in cybersecurity. James, you could be called a white

hat in computer terminology. Michael Chertoff, you heard the

words spoken online from Whirlpool. "we want to bring in the higher ups

down, the police, bank and governments." how dangerous is

LulzSec? First of all, their stated rationale is nonsense, because if

you are invading databases and publishing private data and

invading people's privacy, putting out their addresses, in some cases

taking personal identifiable information and putting innocent

people's financial reputations at risk, that is not doing a white hat

or ethical hacking. That is destructive and thuggish hacking

and can also be a mask for criminal activity. So we have to take this

seriously. As we heard from the lawyer in the report, is it

something that agencies like the FBI will try and track these people

down and they will be subject to criminal prosecution? We have seen

cases recently where there have been charges brought against people

around the world. I expect to see more of those. Ironically, the

people who are pursuing this wave of hacker attacks are likely to

spur greater cause for control over the internet and security. So they

may well wind up triggering an increase in security, which is the

opposite of what they profess to be looking for. But on the other hand,

they are probably so skilled or they will increase their skills to

get around that anyway. You might put a block up, but they will get

around it some way? It is a dynamic process. As one group attacks using

a particular set of tools, there is a response. When it becomes

effective, that prompts a different attack. So it is an on going back

and forth. But I think this will have the consequence of spurring

more investment into the security dimension. James, is it about

throwing money at it? I do not think it is all throwing money at

it. Businesses have spent a lot of money on security. It is about

building awareness and ownership of the internet. You started when you

were 13, increasing your computer skills. You know how to hack. You

are a white hat, so you are encouraging people to be aware of

hacking. But you will never get one passed them. This will always be a

battle. There is always a way around a system. I would encourage

people to get onto the white hats. This is the most critical resource

we will have in our lives. But how attractive is it to young teenagers,

men in their early twenties sitting in rooms, getting up their skills

and making them do something that makes them seem like rebels? This

is the core of the issue. I was a teenager playing with technology,

and I was lucky. I ended up being encouraged in a positive direction

in cybersecurity and had a positive sentiment about wanted to help the

world be secure. But imagine if someone had come along, a Russian

criminal gang, and recruited me at that age when I was naive and tried

to get me to do something bad for money. How many people are there

being tempted down that path? tell me. I think many. We have seen

95,000 pieces of malicious code every day. Michael Chertoff, can

you see a way in which hacking is for the ethical good? If you are

talking about corporations which are perhaps acting unethically in

terms of the age of their employees and so forth, it hackers are the

ones that can get to the heart of the story rather than others,

shouldn't that be applauded? problem is that everybody is the

judge of their own cause. What one person may consider unethical,

another may not. We are getting personal information about people -

home addresses, financial information. You are trying to

damage them in their personal and financial lives. You cannot pass

that off as simply making a political point or transparency.

That becomes the online equivalent of attacking somebody physically

and marking them. We have to not glamorise this idea of hacking for

political ideological motivation as something good. LulzSec said they

were just doing it for fun in the beginning. And now they have

adopted a more purpose, as they call it. That is about power, isn't

it? They feel they are gaining power and can exert it. I cannot

claim to understand their motivations, because it is so far

from a world of values. There is never an excuse to put people at

risk and to compromise websites. We should all be tried to make the

internet more secure. So I cannot claim to understand their values.

But it is certainly drawn attention to the issue. We are seeing more

cases now of these high-profile hackers who are drawing attention

to this. They say there is more coming out on Monday. It is a daily

occurrence at the moment. It is, and part of the plan here is to

keep the story going by adding new dimensions. But this will

underscore the need to be aware of security. I hope it does not chase

people of the internet and undermine the trust that many rely

upon when they go on their computers.

In a moment, is Habitat on its last chair legs? We will move over to

our lounge to talk to its former design director and the editor of

Elle Decoration. David Cameron has been asserting

himself at the EU summit in Brussels today, emphasising that

the UK will not pay the bill for a second EU bail-out for Greece.

European Union leaders have agreed in principle to the bail-out

package if Greece imposes the necessary austerity measures. With

Europe at a turning point, is it time for Britain itself to redefine

its relationship with the EU? Our political editor has spent the day

in Brussels. The European Council meeting here

in Brussels broke up today, with Downing Street claiming victories

for Britain in two areas, firstly over not having to contribute to

the Greek bail-out. The second was over asylum rules. But the quick

crisis has dominated this meeting, a crisis which has ramifications

both political and economic. Indeed, a crisis that could mean that the

For David Cameron, keeping Britain out of the Greek bear out was

something to crow about this morning. I sought assurances that

Britain would not be pulled into a eurozone package for Greece and I

have received those assurances. many say the Prime Minister should

exploit this crisis to be bolder. Aren't you missing a huge

opportunity here as many in your party are saying, to reshape

Britain's relationship with Europe and reshape the European Union?

What about all the Euro-sceptic things he said in opposition?

said in opposition that we would stay out of the euro, we have. I

said as soon as I became Prime Minister I would examine the

situation we had. We had to get out of the European financial stability

mechanism for the future. We have achieved that. I think I can point

to a good list of achievements in Europe. Or so I can point to the

Budget or think we can make progress in terms of cutting back

what the Commission and Parliament have been suggesting. Reporters

heard the Greek Prime Minister saying this crisis is a chance to

build a new Europe. But what of a new Greece?

Wins it be better for Greece and the European Union if you were to

leave the euro or be expelled from the year in an orderly fashion?

Isn't it true that your economy was never strong enough to be a member

of the euro in the first place? This has been a long-standing

debate and their arguments pro and con but if you put down the

arguments, there are many more negative than positive. I

understand, for example, we do not have the tool of devaluation. That

is something other countries do have when they are not in the

common currency. There are so many negative affects also to leaving

the euro which would create huge problems. For example, this would

mean an immediate default. Are you confident of winning the vote next

week? I answered that. Do you think what happened here would help you

win the vote next week? He told me he had had a vote of

confidence here from EU leaders. While the banker England Governor

in London was saying this morning that the eurozone's debt crisis

poses the biggest threat to Britain's financial stability, back

here in Brussels, the UKIP leader was proclaiming the death of the

Europe -- the euro. The euro will not survive in its current

Configuration. It may become in a few years' time the greater

Deutschmark zone. There is no prospect that Greece will stay part

of this eurozone. The fault is inevitable. How big a crisis is

this? We invited two leading Brussels watchers to a local Greek

taverna. I have to say objectively, this is one occasion when you might

say what the Euro-sceptics have been saying all along is true.

Economically, one size fits all does not seem to match Europe. I

think Euro-sceptics will make hay, even if the Greeks do not fall out

of the euro. There will be a perception of a changing mood in

Europe and the fact that these people do not necessarily know what

they are talking about. They are as baffled as we are. This is the

point when people say maybe they are not right when they say more

and more integration, onwards and onwards. A but they are tied in

together and they have discovered if one of them meltdown, they all

meltdown. That is certainly the fear. The danger is, as they are

compelled to integrate economically, they will disintegrate politically.

You have southern Europe and Spain in Greece. You have the indignant

in the north who do not want to pay more. Politically, it is getting

harder and harder. And that is what makes this so

distinctive, compared with previous European crisis. Economic problems

and political problems feeding off each other.

Activists in Syria set least 15 people were killed when security

forces opened fire on demonstrators after Friday prayers. This week,

Newsnight has reported a undercover from Syria and also on the

allegations of threats being made on opposition supporters here in

the UK. Tim Whewell has an update on that tonight. We have heard

attempts to intimidate them. What we have now has further evidence

that behind those intimidation is. There is one official, Mohammed Al-

Samouri. We have heard he is the main representative of Syrian

intelligence and he has tried to blackmail or threaten people into

giving up their support for the opposition and working instead

informally for the regime. One activist here, Mahmoud Hamad said

he was called in by Mr Al-Samouri when he went to renew his passport

at the embassy earlier this year. He was blackmailed on the basis,

supposedly, that he had been working with the police here as an

expert witness in counter-terrorism cases. I got a phone call asking me

to go to the Office of Mr Mohamed Al-Samouri. Knowing what my work

was, for the police and the defence on terrorism cases, I was under the

impression that Mohammed Al-Samouri was trying to blackmail me. He

asked me to write a letter and e- mail it to him saying I was

prepared to collaborate with the Syrian intelligence. I think he

meant to become an informer on my fellow Syrian residents here in the

UK. What is the reaction from the embassy? We have tried repeatedly

to talk to Mr Al-Samouri or the ambassador. They have never been

available. The embassy denies all allegations and says they all force.

They say all diplomats here work in accordance with diplomatic rules.

So far, they have not been any formal complaints to the police

here about possible intimidation. Nevertheless, what I understand

tonight is the Foreign Office is investigating anyway and it may

well speak to the embassy about this issue in due course. Thank you.

If Mary Quant and Ossie Clark were the epitome of fashion in the

Swinging 60s, Terence Conran's Habitat transformed the interiors

of thousands of bedsits and flats during those heady days. Paper

lanterns, chicken bricks, cork place mats, brightly coloured rugs

and Robin Day furniture were the height of cool. But four decades

later, the shop that spawned thousands of imitators has almost

been engulfed by them. Habitat has been in serious financial trouble

fall while and it has been bought. All but three of the country's jobs

are set to close with the loss of 700 jobs. Bleak picture is rosier

in other European countries. Is it the death of an brand? We look at

I am joined now by the designer, Tom Dixon, who was creative

director of Habitat for many years and by the editor in chief of Elle

Decoration, Michelle Ogundehin. First of all, your first memories

of Habitat? When I went for my first interview! I did not have any

connection with it before. Were you aware that it was ground-breaking?

No and I lived down the road from it in the late 60s. I did not know

a great deal about it a tall but when I got there, I researched it

and found the extraordinary history which you have just seen. Did you

find things in the archives which you could pull out and revisit,

even in 1998? The problem was, when it started in the 60s, there were

so many things that people needed and had never seen before. By the

time I arrived, they had seen it all before. It is getting harder to

find original things which people do not have already. What are your

earliest memories? One of my earliest memories is the store was

fun. It was an experimental activity to go shopping there. It

is something that Sir Terence was keen on. You were buying into the

idea of sexy modern living, it was not just about furniture. A lot of

that is around us now From Robin -- Robin Day chairs to velvet chairs.

My favourite piece was a sofa divined by Robin Day which Habitat

bought into production -- designed by Robin Day. They took a piece of

classic design and offered it at an affordable price. This is your

favourite piece you brought in with you? It is a quintessential Habitat

piece because it is utterly functional. It is a teapot. It

works well but it is given a twist by being coloured gold. It makes

something every day a bit more luxuries. When you came in and you

had a chance, even then you were brought into up the ante, what was

the premise that you're going to produce stuff which was different

that you could not get in any other store? Not really. I'm not sure why

I was Broughton. It was not clear even at that time. I think Habitat

wanted to improve its design credentials. I think it struggled a

lot to really invest in design in the way that it needed all the way

that it did write in the beginning. Terence Conran was a designer.

the time Tom Dixon came in, the point was there were a lot of

imitators already. Do you think Habitat got left behind or swamped?

I think they forgot that creating a good design is more than just the

product. Tom brought in a freshness and new vitality but other things

got left behind. I would say the quality of service and the

knowledge and experience of the staff. It was not driven purely by

a passion for great design any more. And arguably, the prices became a

little volatile. And were they not producing things which people

wanted all things which people could get elsewhere more cheaply?

would say they lost their unique standpoint. Other places of the

things which seemed similar enough at different prices. There was also

the launch of Ikea. At the time, the modern furniture industry was

on its knees in gratitude but that was never meant to last. By the

late 80s when Ikea came along, there is a more homogenised idea of

what is fashionable and what you should be buying? No, there were

excellent prices for much better design. I think the middle market

became harder and harder to really occupy. Habitat never really

decided whether it was going to go up and be innovative in design or

go down in price. Without knowing that, it was always going to fail.

What did you think it should be? think it should be real design at

affordable prices. Is it that the problem that particularly in this

time, when people have to think three or four times before they buy,

they either want something incredibly cheap or totally

fabulous? I think the consumer is much smarter today. They want cheap

but they know that will not last. They might buy an heirloom peas.

The middle market have got crushed. Now, if you can buy everything

online, why would you going to a shop? Ironically what --, what is

surviving is the Habitat website. I would like to suggest your pieces

are expensive. What is affordable now and who is able to create

fabulous design at cheap prices in this country? Very few people in

this country because there are not so many manufacturers here. The

shame is that Habitat had a fabulous distribution network and

what they produced were things like that. Pass the pineapple. This must

have been -- this must have been bought in Shepherd's Bush today by

the BBC but I think this is a perfect example of where Habitat

should not have gone. Because you could get this in any stock as you

could get this in a 99 p store down the Uxbridge Road. I think it is

possible to do good design at affordable prices. Particularly in

a world where there is a global market. You have a folding chair in

the Argos catalogue which is less than �15 and a chair that does not

look so different in Habitat costs �90, that is the problem, isn't it?

No one will make the decision on anything other than price, will

they? I think on the consumer level there has been a misunderstanding

about what designers. Quite often, good design, you cannot see it

because it is the way it works. Maybe they look similar but I

guarantee the �90.10 will work better but arguably, the question

is, can you make a good looking workable chair for �50. Will we be

a poorer place for not having a Habitat on the high street? I think

it is a sad loss of a British icon. There are three stores left, how do

you think they can get up off their knees again? Personally, I do not

think they can. The new owners have not bought a brand, they have

bought a logo. Without going back to the original concept that Sir

Terence had, I cannot see a future for it. You will not go and have

another go at rescuing them? not sure they will have me! Thank

you. Just one more thing from Newsnight

tonight. Peter Falk, best known for playing the detective Columbo, has

died aged 83. He is known for his raincoat and that catchphrase.