Logethica

Level 12
Surveillance & Big-Data Vs Security & Privacy:

Writing of cyber attacks,
Phillip Bobbitt author of "The Shield of Achilles" & "The Garments of Court and Palace", notes that by “virtually abolishing civil privacy or by increasing surveillance and intelligence gathering,” countries can defend themselves but with “profound constitutional consequences.”..
SOURCE: newsok.com (ARTICLE DATE: 28th Aug 2016)

Online privacy and freedom worth fighting for:
SOURCE: mississauga.com (ARTICLE DATE: 16th Aug 2016)

Earlier this week Canada’s police chiefs passed a resolution calling for laws that force people to provide their computer passwords with a judge’s consent.

A license to access the web? No more anonymity online for whistleblowers, people looking up medical information, anyone speaking out against their government? If it sounds a bit Orwellian, that’s because it most assuredly carries not-so-subtle undertones of Big Brother monitoring our every move.

A free and self-governing society is part of the foundation of a healthy democracy. These are cherished values that must be carefully preserved from the invasion of government authority, which includes law enforcement. Such freedoms should be limited only in rare occasions and with great reluctance.

A requirement to hand over passwords, particularly when a judge’s consent is required, seems in keeping with existing laws around search and seizure warrants. But that is only one of many requests law enforcement agencies have (or likely will) make. The conversation about police access is far more complex than simply having a court order someone to provide a digital key to a specific device. And the impact on our long established and valued rights could be far reaching...
[To read the full article please visit mississauga.com]

Security through surveillance? & The privacy-security paradox:
SOURCE: lifehacker.com.au (ARTICLE DATE: 29th Jul 2016)

Australian laws allow the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) to infiltrate computer networks. Other new laws require internet service providers (ISPs) to retain metadata for two years.
A range of government agencies enjoy access without warrant, including many unrelated to criminal justice or national security.

..questions remain about the success of blanket surveillance programs. There is currently no evidence to indicate this actually increases security.

We know surveillance can be effective under narrow conditions, but only for specific crimes. Collecting too much information can also be a barrier to effective intelligence systems.

Recent terrorist attacks in Paris reveal how data retention programs that attempt to identify every possible threat are not failsafe. Security agencies become overwhelmed with data. Collecting as much information as possible about as many people as possible may be positively harmful.

Significant resources are being spent on strategies with questionable efficacy. These strategies impact privacy, provoke opposition and create new challenges to overcome.

Leading academics argue security interests will always outweigh individual rights. But encroaching on the privacy of all internet users just antagonises hacktivists and inspires further development and use of tools to enhance privacy.

The security versus privacy trade-off becomes a self-defeating paradox...
[To read the full article please visit lifehacker.com.au]

Big-Data vs. Privacy- the big balancing act:
SOURCE: information-age.com

Many organisations have started to really capitalise on their investments in analytics, data collection and storage.
In 2016, it’s a market worth around $40 billion, and projected to reach $66.8 billion by 2021...

Major breaches have never been more frequent or their impact greater. The hauls of data thieves now commonly reach in the millions, such as in the case of the LinkedIn data breach, which affected 117 million, or the attack on US retailer Target in 2013 that saw the data of 110 million customers exposed.

The volumes involved in big data analysis mean that accessing an organisation’s big data repository can provide bigger returns for cyber criminals in one fell swoop, and the implications for the business from a regulatory and trust point of view
can be severe.

Many consumers are wising up to the potential security threats that are out there, with many expressing fears about what is happening to their personal data. The issue for businesses is that this has not had an impact on their action.

‘BehavioSec’s report on digital behaviour discovered that 21% have shared their phone password and 10% even admit to sharing online banking details with people they know,’ says Neil Costigan, CEO of biometric security firm BehavioSec. ‘Consequently, it isn’t that the security mechanism is broken – it is only as secure as consumers’ willingness to protect it.’..
[To read the full article please visit information-age.com]


[IMAGE: wikimedia.org (reuse permitted)]


[IMAGE: wikimedia.org (reuse permitted)]
 

DJ Panda

Level 29
Verified
Personally I have nothing to hide. There is nothing out of the ordinary to collect. I do steam and a lot of browsing on the internet nothing else. I don't mind data collection of any sort because if there is some criminal on the loose the data that is gathered would most likely prove I'm innocent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElectricSheep

Logethica

Level 12
Respectfully,I do not think that having "nothing to hide" should be a primary factor when evaluating issues of privacy.
Psychologically many people would not care about the rights issues that surround surveillance and privacy until they felt personally violated by the ramifications of them,by which time it would be too late to protest against the implementation of such measures.
Would a person with "nothing to hide" get undressed in front of a window without first closing the blinds?
Would a person that felt that extra-surveillance equated to extra-security be in favour of a military checkpoint at the end of every street where ones Identification & papers were checked?

I feel that to evaluate the Introduction of any surveillance/ data collection legislation one must contextualise such measures with regards to the "big picture" and to also be aware of any precedent created,and how this may open the floodgates to additional policies that may prove to be even more intrusive.
I would hate for my grandchildren to grow up in a world where their every action was monitored by their "democratic" government as well as those that seek power or profit from invading the privacy of others..
and if they should ask me "How did it come to this?"...I would have to reply "My Generation allowed it to happen"!
 

DardiM

Level 26
Verified
Trusted
Malware Hunter
Important thought :
How your personal data on computer will be used ?
How the website you browse will allows to categorize you ?
How this data, if intercepted / retrieve by hackers can cause you damages ?
How countries use the data ?
How your data will be used by the actual political government and how when it changes ?
Are we all suspects by default ?
Are you ok to let some cameras on your house, because you have "nothing to hide" ?
What about a camera transplant on your eyes at birth to let some company / government to spy and used this info ? (google glasses ?)
 

Logethica

Level 12
Important thought :
How your personal data on computer will be used ?
How the website you browse will allows to categories you ?
How this data, if intercepted / retrieve by hackes can cause you damages ?
How countries use the data ?
How your data will be used by the actual political government and how when it changes ?
Are you ok to let some cameras on your house, because you have "nothing to hide" ?
(What about a camera transplant on our eyes at birth to let some company / government to spy and used this info ? (google glasses ?))
Great points @DardiM :)
I think that there are too many people that will not consider the issues that you have highlighted... until it is too late.:(
An apathetic population is fuel for the immoral and power-hungry.
 

DardiM

Level 26
Verified
Trusted
Malware Hunter
Great points @DardiM :)
I think that there are too many people that will not consider the issues that you have highlighted... until it is too late.:(
An apathetic population is fuel for the immoral and power-hungry.
Some parts can appear exaggerated, but I 'm not far away from certain ideas some government/company would like to apply :confused:
(I hope they aren't reading my posts, don't want to be the cause of ideas...;))
 
Last edited:
L

LabZero

Privacy = "right to be alone"..the online society provides for the absence of privacy, so the ability to scan email, photos, blogs, texts, everything useful to create profiles of users and information.
The goal of a network is to move information, and when the information is the identity of the users who make up the network, the idea of staying alone is clearly inconsistent. The only way is to disconnect from the network.

From my point of view, privacy exists only when we realize that it has been violated. In addition, the problem highlighted by the pervasive surveillance is, above all, the continuous profiling and monitoring over a long period of time.
Be part of a network means unknowingly or not, be related to it and leave indelible traces of us.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: ElectricSheep