back to article Snowden is a hero to the security biz – but not for the reason you'd expect

This year's RSA conference was the busiest on record, with over 40,000 people cramming the halls (and later, bars) of San Francisco, and more than a few of them were raising glasses to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. "The Snowden effect has had an undeniable effect on the business," Pravin Kothari, CEO of cloud encryption …

  1. scrubber

    Wtf?

    Yeah, but weren't GCHQ spying on Americans as a US proxy?

    Wasn't that the point of the Five Eyes, "I'll bypass your laws for you if you bypass my laws for me".

    1. redpawn

      Re: Wtf?

      The point of Five Eyes is to give the USA complete access to all data world wide for US intelligence agencies. Any bits for the lesser eyes are a gift or a trick.

  2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Joke

    Snowden is a hero to the security biz.....

    ...because he had a pole-dancer girlfriend! (To other basement-dwelling geeks he was a hero just for having a girlfriend.)

    1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: Snowden is a hero to the security biz.....

      Basement?

      "It's a command center!"

  3. Ole Juul

    Not for the reason you'd expect

    Well actually, the "security biz", being a business, is primarily interested in increasing their business. Article OK otherwise.

  4. elDog

    Wouldn't Silent Circle naturally up-play this story?

    Just like all the Norton-esque anti-viral vendors that want to portray the threat at the highest level?

    Of course, now we are mainly concerned about "state" actors versus the "others".

  5. goldcd

    "Not for the reason you'd expect"

    I disagree - it's entirely expected.

    Can't think of anybody who'd like the idea of providing the "output of their keyboard" to anybody they didn't intend to.

    Even amongst those that like the idea of 'surveillance' (to catch those pesky paedophile-terrorists) - I've never noticed anybody campaigning to get their own data captured.

    Snowden basically confirmed fears.

    Greatest beneficiary of Theresa May's current quest will be the security services getting a massive bump in their income (I'm sure in no way influencing their backing of her..) and the proliferation of consumer-friendly VPN services to overcome the snooping.

    Whole world seems to have lost their rational mind over this.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Not for the reason you'd expect"

      "Greatest beneficiary of Theresa May's current quest..."

      I think she's just a sock puppet, like Jacqui Smith. One was a left sock and one a right, but you'd have to look real close to spot any difference between the two.

      Another planted bad-actor mouthing words, to be ejected from government rather than a person of substantial thinking.

      As to whether she'll get Snoopers Charter, and legalize warrant-less mass surveillance of British people? That depends on how many bad-actors have infiltrated the political system.

      GCHQ have been doing this since Jacqui Smiths 'mastering the internet', sharing the data with the NSA, and hiding the details from UK Parliament. So USA has had considerable influence and leverage over British politics for about 6 years. That's one election cycle at least.

      I don't think they have control yet. Look at Snoopers Charter, its got two parts, 1) the "re-affirm" part that tries to make the GCHQ domestic surveillance legal while pretending its already legal. And 2) the "anyone in uniform can get any data without any judicial process on anyone for any reason" part.

      The second part is so extreme, so loosely worded, that its likely cover for the first part. Next to part 2), part 1) seem like the least insane part.

      You don't provide that kind of political game if you already have tight control over Parliament.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Not for the reason you'd expect"

        "You don't provide that kind of political game if you already have tight control over Parliament."

        Parliament David Davis and some other awkward squad Conservative MPs who actually have a clue.

  6. ZZLEE

    WIN 10

    watch your traffic spike after installation. Who needs enemies.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: WIN 10

      Someone says this everytime a new version of Windows comes out, never ends up being an issue.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Most IT security is ridic

    As Snowden demonstrated, one disgruntled employee who should have data access rights renders the vast majority of IT security moot. Your real risk is from the inside and it is virtually impossible to protect yourself from people who need the info for their job.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    add people should ask, is there anything of value to a third party we are protecting? Most of the time, unless you are a bank or a retailer, the answer is no. People spend tremendous amounts to protect an empty safe.

    1. MotionCompensation

      From what I read about businesses paying to get their encrypted data back, you should think about what your data is worth to you, because that's exactly what it's worth to the malware guys.

      You might also want to think about what it's worth not to have that data posted on pastebin or something similar. Data leaks are like farts: once the data is out there, there is no way to get it back.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        People should ask that question. Even in the extremely unlikely event that data from this service is made public, what are the consequences? In some cases, very bad things. In many cases, not much at all. Most of your data is completely uninteresting to the world even if you handed it to them. Right now people protect every IT asset as though it has the launch codes.

        Also, as Snowden demonstrated, use all the IT security you like, you are still only as secure as your least happy employee with data access rights. It is amazing that peoples' conclusion from Snowden is that more IT traditional security spending is required... as opposed to 'hmm, most of our security investments are not really protecting us.' Not unexpected though. People would rather throw money at a problem than admit they are not in control.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020