Euro security agency says MORE crypto needed in gov policy Governments need to build more privacy into legislation,technology vendors need to step up and compliance cops should crack down to push privacy-enhancing technologies out of the labs, says the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA). The agency has issued a report, Privacy and Data Protection by …
I'm concerned there might be some clever officialese word games going on here - at one end is the simplest privacy is where something is marked as 'private' and people have the manners not to look, and the other is 'secret' which is in theory properly encrypted to deliberately prevent anyone from looking.
Privacy legislation/regulations seem to live somewhere towards the 'basic privacy' end of the scale, i.e. not collecting information in the first place, and using basic masking or encryption for a 'conversation', and as with email, normally encrypted only during transmission (and even then only about 10% of it) and not whilst in the queue/mailbox. The 'manners' bit is the authorities not demanding access but then again this has an actual paper trail and someone to take the blame (in theory, probably tricky in practice).
The Secrecy end of the scale, the one the guvmint don't like, is where they get a court order and demand your encryption key and see everything you said anyway, even though they couldn't listen in at the time. That said, they actually have to justify it to someone outside their own circle.
Privacy for not collecting data in the first place, and session secrecy to stop people listening in, and something decently clear when someone official wants to ask if I bought anything other than an Automatic Video Recorder.
Even then, you're never sure it cannot be intercepted and decrypted by someone with the means to do it.
That used to be an issue only for big corp, those who had commercial "enemies" with pockets deep enough to support the costs of decryption of the day. These days, those with the means don't necessarily need to have the motive. When governments are listening to everybody by default, it's no longer a question of motive.
On top of that, PCs are more powerful than ever, meaning encryption needs longer keys to remain an efficient barrier.
This post has been deleted by its author
"It worries me that we need protecting from our own governments ..."
Why? Nothing has changed in hundreds of years, in that government is by the few, for the few. Laws are enacted to increase the power of the state to do the bidding of the state, and we now have some token pretence of choice every few years, between parties with the same policies, run by a like-minded parliamentary elite most of whom have never done a proper job for any length of time. The Labour front bench is studded with millionaires pretending to be men & women of the people, and is a mirror image of the Conservative front bench.
In centuries gone by the threat that government "protected" you from was famine, or Napoleon. Early last century it was Bolsheviks. Then it was the great depression. Then back to the red peril. Since then we've had various other things that government needs to act to protect us from, including terrorists and climate change. I wonder what government will be busy protecting me from in fifteen years time? Aliens or comets seem the most probable.
decades gone by
Hi, Ledswinger and El Reg stalwarts,
Just in case you missed it, here be a current enough account of fears and follies to be expounded and monetised ....
Mass Surveillance ….. What are the risks for the citizens and the opportunities for the European Information Society?…. What are the possible mitigation strategies? …..Part 1 - Risks and opportunities raised by the current generation of network services and applications …… http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/jan/ep-stoa-report-mass-surveillance-part-1.pdf
And methinks with particular and peculiarly targeted regard to....
I wonder what government will be busy protecting me from in fifteen years time? Aliens or comets seem the most probable..... it is much more the case of what they [governments/those individuals who phorm and class themselves as governments] will be busy protecting themselves from, as more increasingly sensitive and damaging information is freely shared over internetworking networks and advanced malleable media devices and secure failsafe intelligence systems.
It does appear to be that they think themselves about reproach and scrutiny and that always invites exactly what they would least expect and enjoy but most certainly would thoroughly deserve. The following was in today's session of Prime Minister's Questions .........
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con):The former Prime Minister Mr Blair had to be summoned to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee yesterday to reluctantly give evidence. We now understand that the director-general of the BBC, Lord Hall, is refusing to give evidence to another Select Committee on the grounds that he is a Member of Parliament. He is also a paid public servant. Is it not time that we reviewed the matter of parliamentary privilege in this place?
The Prime Minister:
I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend says. Obviously it is a matter for the Select Committee and the House, but the general rule should be that people involved in the senior management of the BBC who are summoned to appear in front of a Select Committee should come, because the BBC needs to be, and is, publicly accountable. I think Lord Hall does a very good job at the BBC, and I am sure he would give a good account of himself, but I will have a careful look at what my hon. Friend says.
If GCHQ and the Secret Intelligence and Security Services are not monitoring the every action and communication of Parliamentarians, are they unfit for future leading Great Game purpose, and one would be quite right to be expecting head office resignations on the matter.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
