Stop the war between privacy and security – EU data watchdog Security and privacy are not mutually exclusive says Europe’s privacy watchdog – and people should stop saying they are. The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), Giovanni Buttarelli, told a Brussels conference he was concerned that “the objective of cyber-security may be misused to justify measures which weaken …
"Security and privacy are not mutually exclusive" - of course they aren't. But sadly privacy and the wacky and warped concept of 'security' which is spouted by our dodgy politicians and their evil minions in the 'security' services ARE completely opposed to each other. They claim (wrongly) that by granting them access to every detail of our lives then they can guarantee 'security' to their citizens, which is so patently bullshit I wonder why they keep on saying it. In case after case it's clear that they can't handle the data they have already, and that their many successes in stopping nutters before they do anything have all been down to either luck or good old-fashioned police work.
Keep private data secure and we have security.
"Yeah, when I was reading I thought I wasn't sure what's he talking about, but since I've believed that there's a continual proportion between privacy and security, I'm going to assume he's talking about The WAr on Terrorism or something."
I too was wondering what he was talking about because the basic statement is obvious. But I think you're right. He's not talking about security in the obvious meaning of the word, but rather using the political meaning of taking away people's freedoms and destroying the fabric of society. That kind of "security" is not compatible with privacy. In short, he's a lunatic.
The Register is in the UK... Possibly also in the US, or Austria (Hail Best Dad ever lol), I live in Germany. So who gets dibs on the trivial Diarrhea of the keyboard Droppings I leave behind? Germany (My Host Nation), the broader E.U. as a whole, or the N.S.o.A?!
That a crapton of politicians, bureaucrats and their sycophants have been spewing lately.
No security service, in modern times has excused its failure to prevent a (crime/terrorist event/kidnapping/rape/murder/robbery/hijacking/etc) with the statement "Well, we had these messages/communications/connections between this lot but we weren't able to read/interpret/understand them due to encryption". Until one does the bovine fertilizer shower has to stop.
I'll point out that in the cases in the past where this sort of situation occurred, those entities that *needed* to, put the collective nose to the grindstone, and did what was required to accomplish the job, and didn't rely on whining to the public about the issue.
It's blatantly obvious that there is a need for cooperative exchange of personal data by authorities in this day and age to prevent crime and track terrorists and other criminals. The challenge is to make sure the information is properly handled and only accessible to the proper authorities. More effort needs to be invested to insure the proper handling and exchange of personal data to protect privacy.
That being said, there are a minimal number of legitimate situations where encryption is justified. In those cases the people involved would have little reason to not allow authorities to examine the encrypted files. Crims however would not be likely to allow viewing of their data that can convict them. Since with now live in the digital age, laws should be enacted to punish those who refuse to allow authorities to examine their data files when there is reasonable grounds to do so. This would be an incentive to cooperate with authorities. Those who chose not to cooperate and are later convicted, should have an additional 5 years prison sentence added on.
That being said, there are a minimal number of legitimate situations where encryption is justified. In those cases the people involved would have little reason to not allow authorities to examine the encrypted files.
What the actual fuck? Given that it's an established fact that everybody is being MITM'd all the time (by national security agencies and probably your ISP at the very least) you encrypt whatever you do not wish to be world-readable. This includes, comms with banks; a VPN if you're on company biz and out in the field and (in my case particularly) client login data to maintain their various web empires. Those are just 3 cases off the top of my head. Let me also point out that if I don't take reasonable care and encrypt my client's data then I am legally liable if anything leaks through incompetence on my part.
The vast majority of encryption use is for valid and legal purposes.
I second that WTF... We need encryption to be more secure not less. Say I want to protect the valuables in my house. Physical crooks first need to get into my country and to my address, then break into the house and not set off the alarms, then find my valuables before the police arrive, and spend credit cards before they get cancelled.
Cyber criminals don't have to be in the same country, can look up where I bank and details about me, my business details, my family, my communications with anyone, and have access to millions of homes to do the same if we have no encryption. This kind of criminality is a thousand times more likely to happen than me getting blown up by a terrorist. How many people have had identity fraud or credit card fraud occur to them compared to terrorism?
I mean... DUH!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
