net.wars

"We're advising people to opt out," said the GP, speaking of the Summary Care Records that are beginning to be uploaded to what is supposed to be eventually a nationwide database used by the NHS. Her reasoning goes this way. If you don't upload your data now you can always upload it later. If you do upload it now - or sit passively by while the National Health Service gets going on your particular area - and live to regret it you won't be able to get the data back out again.

You can find the form here, along with a veiled hint that you'll be missing out on something if you do opt out - like all those great offers of products and services companies always tell you you'll get if you sign up for their advertising, The Big Opt-Out Web site has other ideas.

The newish UK government's abrupt dismissal of the darling databases of last year has not dented the NHS's slightly confusing plans to put summary care records on a national system that will move control over patient data from your GP, who you probably trust to some degree, to...well, there's the big question.

In briefings for Parliamentarians conducted by the Open Rights Group in 2009, Emma Byrne, a researcher at University College, London who has studied various aspects of healthcare technology policy, commented that the SCR was not designed with any particular use case in mind. Basic questions that an ordinary person asks before every technology purchase - who needs it? for what? under what circumstances? to solve what problem? - do not have clear answers.

"Any clinician understands the benefits of being able to search a database rather than piles of paper records, but we have to do it in the right way," Fleur Fisher, the former head of ethics, science, and information for the British Medical Association said at those same briefings. Columbia University researcher Steve Bellovin, among others, has been trying to figure out what that right way might look like.

As comforting as it sounds to say that the emergency care team looking after you will be able to look up your SCR and find out that, for example, you are allergic to penicillin and peanuts, in practice that's not how stuff happens - and isn't even how stuff *should* happen. Emergency care staff look at the patient. If you're in a coma, you want the staff to run the complete set of tests, not look up in a database, see you're a diabetic and assume it's a blood sugar problem. In an emergency, you want people to do what the data tells them, not what the database tells them.

Databases have errors, we know this. (Just last week, a database helpfully moved the town I live in from Surrey to Middlesex, for reasons best known to itself. To fix it, I must write them a letter and provide documentation.) Typing and cross-matching blood drawn by you from the patient in front of you is much more likely to have you transfusing the right type of blood into the right patient.

But if the SCR isn't likely to be so much used by the emergency staff we're all told would? might? find it helpful, it still opens up much broader possibilities of abuse. It's this part of the system that the GP above was complaining about: you cannot tell who will have access or under what circumstances.

GPs do, in a sense, have a horse in this race, in that if patient data moves out of their control they have lost an important element of their function as gatekeepers. But given everything we know about how and why large government IT projects fail, surely the best approach is small, local projects that can be scaled up once they're shown to be functional and valuable. And GPs are the people at the front lines who will be the first to feel the effects of a loss of patient trust.

A similar concern has kept me from joining at study whose goals I support, intended to determine if there is a link between mobile phone use and brain cancer. The study is conducted by an ultra-respectable London university; they got my name and address from my mobile network operator. But their letter notes that participation means giving them unlimited access to my medical records for the next 25 years. I'm 56, about the age of the earliest databases, and I don't know who I'll be in 25 years. Technology is changing faster than I am. What does this decision mean?

There's no telling. Had they said I was giving them permission for five years and then would be asked to renew, I'd feel differently about it. Similarly, I'd be more likely to agree had they said that under certain conditions (being diagnosed with cancer, dying, developing brain disease) my GP would seek permission to release my records to them. But I don't like writing people blank checks, especially with so many unknowns over such a long period of time. The SCR is a blank check.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 8:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"It's the Clipper chip," said Ross Anderson, or more or less, "risen out of its grave trailing clanking chains and covered in slime." Anderson was talking about the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, a plan hatched in the US and announced by cybersecurity czar Howard Schmidt in June.

The Clipper chip was the net.war in progress when I went to my first Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference, the 1994 edition, held in Chicago. The idea behind Clipper was kind of cute: the government, in the form of the NSA, had devised a cryptographic chip that could be installed in any telecommunications device to encrypt and decrypt any communications it transmitted or received. The catch: the government would retain a master key to allow it to decrypt anything it wanted whenever it felt the need. Privacy advocates and civil libertarians and security experts joined to fight a battle royal against its adoption as a government standard. We'll never know how that would have come out because while passions were still rising a funny thing happened: cryptographer Matt Blaze discovered he could bypass the government's back door (PDF) and use the thing to send really encrypted communications. End of Clipper chip.

At least, as such.

The most important element of the Clipper chip, however - key escrow - stayed with us a while longer. It means what it sounds like: depositing a copy of your cryptographic key, which is supposed to be kept secret, with an authority. During the 1990s run of fights over key escrow (the US and UK governments wanted it; technical experts, civil libertarians, and privacy advocates all thought it was a terrible idea) such authorities were referred to as "trusted third parties" (TTPs). At one event Privacy International organised to discuss the subject, government representatives made it clear their idea of TTPs were banks. They seemed astonished to discover that in fact people don't trust their banks that much. By the time the UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was passed in 2000, key escrow had been eliminated.

But it is this very element - TTPs and key escrow - that is clanking along to drip slime on the NSTIC. The proposals are, of course, still quite vague, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation has pointed out. But the proposals do talk of "trusted digital identities" and "identity providers" who may be from the public or private sectors. They talk less, as the Center for Democracy and Technology has pointed out, about the kind of careful user-centric, role-specific, transactional authentication that experts like Jan Camenisch and Stefan Brands have long advocated. (Since I did that 2007 interview with him, Brands' company, Credentica, has been bought by Microsoft and transformed into its new authentication technology, U-Prove.) Have an identity ecosystem, by all means, but the key to winning public trust - the most essential element of any such system - will be ensuring that identity providers are not devised as Medium-sized Brothers-by-proxy.

Blaze said at the time that the Feds were pretty grown-up about the whole thing. Still, I suppose it was predictable that it would reappear. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks Jack Straw, then foreign minister, called those of us who opposed key escrow in the 1990s "very naïve". The rage over that kicked off the first net.wars column.

The fact remains that if you're a government and you want access to people's communications and those people encrypt those communications there are only two approaches available to you. One: ban the technology. Two: install systems that let you intercept and decode the communications at will. Both approaches are suddenly vigorously on display with respect to Blackberry devices, which offer the most secure mobile email communications we have (which is why businesses and governments love them so much for their own use).

India wants to take the second approach, but will settle for the first if Research in Motion doesn't install a server in India, where it can be "safely" monitored. The UAE, as everyone heard this week, wants to ban it starting on October 11. (I was on Newsnight Tuesday to talk about this with Kirsty Wark and Alan West.)

No one, not CDT, PI, or EFF, not even me, disputes that there are cases where intercepting and reading communications - wiretapping - is necessary in the interest of protecting innocent lives. But what key escrow and its latter variants enables, as Susan Landau, a security researcher and co-author of Privacy on the Line: The Politics of Wiretapping and Encryption, has noted, is covert wiretapping. Or, choose your own favorite adjective: covert, warrantless, secret, unauthorized, illegal... It would be wonderful to be able to think that all law enforcement heroes are noble, honorable, and incapable of abusing the power we give them. But history says otherwise: where there is no oversight, abuse follows. Judicial oversight of wiretapping requests is our bulwark against mass surveillance.

CDT, EFF, and others are collecting ideas for improving NSTIC, starting with extending the period for public comments, which was distressingly short (are we seeing a pattern develop here?). Go throw some words at the problem.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series.

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 2:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

- There is a bill in front of Congress to outlaw the sale of anonymous prepaid SIMs. The goal seems to be some kind of fraud and crime prevention. But, as Ed Hasbrouck points out, the principal people who are likely to be affected are foreign tourists and the Web sites who sell prepaid SIMS to them.

- Robots are getting near enough in researchers' minds for them to be spending significant amounts of time considering the legal and ethical consequences in real life - not in Asimov's fictional world where you could program in three safety llaws and your job was done. Ryan Calo points us at the work of Stanford student Victoria Groom on human-robot interaction. Her dissertation research not yet on the site, discovered that humans allocate responsibility for success and failure proportionately according to how anthropomorphic the robot is.

- More than 24 percent of tweets - and rising sharply - are sent by automated accounts, according to Miranda Mowbray at HP labs. Her survey found all sorts of strange bots: things that constantly update the time, send stock quotes, tell jokes, the tea bot that retweets every mention of tea...

- Google's Kent Walker, the 1997 CFP chair, believes that censorship is as big a threat to democracy as terrorism, and says that open architectures and free expression are good for democracy - and coincidentally also good for Google's business.

- Microsoft's chief privacy strategist, Peter Cullen, says companies must lead in privacy to lead in cloud computing. Not coincidentally, others are the conference note that US companies are losing business to Europeans in cloud computing because EU law prohibits the export of personal data to the US, where data protection is insufficient.

- It is in fact possible to provide wireless that works at a technical conference. And good food!

- The Facebook Effect is changing the attitude of other companies about user privacy. Lauren Gelman, who helps new companies with privacy issues, noted that because start-ups all see Facebook's success and want to be the next 400 million-user environment, there was a strong temptation to emulate Facebook's behavior. Now, with the angry cries mounting from consumers, she's having to spend less effort convincing them about the level of pushback companies will get from consumers if they change their policies and defy their expectations. Even so, it's important to ensure that start-ups include privacy in their budgets and not become an afterthought. In this respect, she makes me realize, privacy in 2010 is at the stage that usability was in the early 1990s.

- All new program launches come through the office of the director of Yahoo!'s business and human rights program, Ebele Okabi-Harris. "It's very easy for the press to focus on China and particular countries - for example, Australia last year, with national filtering," she said, "but for us as a company it's important to have a structure around this because it's not specific to any one region." It is, she added later, a "global problem".

- We should continue to be very worried about the database state because the ID cards repeal act continues the trend toward data sharing among government departments and agencies, according to Christina Zaba from No2ID.

- Information brokers and aggregators, operating behind the scenes, are amassing incredible amounts of details about Americans and it can require a great deal of work to remove one's information from these systems. The main customers of these systems are private investigators, debt collectors, media, law firms, and law enforcement. The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse sees many disturbing cases, as Beth Givens outlined, as does Pam Dixon's World Privacy forum.

- I always knew - or thought I knew - that the word "robot" was not coined by Asimov but by Karel Capek for his play R.U.R. (for "Rossum's Universal Robots", which coincidentally I also know that playing a robot in same was Michael Caine's first acting job). But Twitterers tell me that this isn't quite right. The word is derived from the Czech word "robota", "compulsory work for a feudal landlord". And that it was actually coined by Capek's older brother, Josef..

- There will be new privacy threats emerging from automated vehicles, other robots, and voicemail transcription services, sooner rather than later.

- Studying the inner workings of an organization like the International Civil Aviation Organization is truly difficult because the time scales - ten years to get from technical proposals to mandated standard, which is when the public becomes aware of - are a profound mismatch for the attention span of media and those who fund NGOs. Anyone who feels like funding an observer to represent civil society at ICAO should get in touch with Edward Hasbrouck.

- A lot of our cybersecurity problems could be solved by better technology.

- Lillie Coney has a great description of deceptive voting practices designed to disenfranchise the opposition: "It's game theory run amok!"

- We should not confuse insecure networks (as in vulnerable computers and flawed software) with unsecured networks (as in open wi-fi).

- Next year's conference chairs are EPIC's Lillie Coney and Jules Polonetsky. It will be in Washington, DC, probably the second or third week in June. Be there!

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series.

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 11:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the TV show The West Wing (Season 6, Episode 17, "A Good Day") young teens tackle the president: why shouldn't they have the right to vote? There's probably no chance, but they made their point: as a society we trust kids very little and often fail to take them or their interests seriously.

That's why it was so refreshing to read in 2008's < a href="http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/byronreview/actionplan/">Byron Review the recommendation that we should consult and listen to children in devising programs to ensure their safety online. Byron made several thoughtful, intelligent analogies: we supervise as kids learn to cross streets, we post warning signs at swimming pools but also teach them to swim.

She also, more controversially, recommended that all computers sold for home use in the UK should have Kitemarked parental control software "which takes parents through clear prompts and explanations to help set it up and that ISPs offer and advertise this prominently when users set up their connection."

The general market has not adopted this recommendation; but it has been implemented with respect to the free laptops issued to low-income families under Becta's £300 million Home Access Laptop scheme, announced last year as part of efforts to bridge the digital divide. The recipients - 70,000 to 80,000 so far - have a choice of supplier, of ISP, and of hardware make and model. However, the laptops must meet a set of functional technical specifications, one of which is compliance with PAS 74:2008, the British Internet safety standard. That means anti-virus, access control, and filtering software: NetIntelligence.

Naturally, there are complaints; these fall precisely in line with the general problems with filtering software, which have changed little since 1996, when the passage of the Communications Decency Act inspired 17-year-old Bennett Haselton to start Peacefire to educate kids about the inner working of blocking software - and how to bypass it. Briefly:

1. Kids are often better at figuring out ways around the filters than their parents are, giving parents a false sense of security.

2. Filtering software can't block everything parents expect it to, adding to that false sense of security.

3. Filtering software is typically overbroad, becoming a vehicle for censorship.

4. There is little or no accountability about what is blocked or the criteria for inclusion.

This case looks similar - at first. Various reports claim that as delivered NetIntelligence blocks social networking sites and even Google and Wikipedia, as well as Google's Chrome browser because the way Chrome installs allows the user to bypass the filters.

NetIntelligence says the Chrome issue is only temporary; the company expects a fix within three weeks. Marc Kelly, the company's channel manager, also notes that the laptops that were blocking sites like Google and Wikipedia were misconfigured by the supplier. "It was a manufacturer and delivery problem," he says; once the software has been reinstalled correctly, "The product does not block anything you do not want it to." Other technical support issues - trouble finding the password, for example - are arguably typical of new users struggling with unfamiliar software and inadequate technical support from their retailer.

Both Becta and NetIntelligence stress that parents can reconfigure or uninstall the software even if some are confused about how to do it. First, they must first activate the software by typing in the code the vendor provides; that gets them password access to change the blocking list or uninstall the software.

The list of blocked sites, Kelly says, comes from several sources: the Internet Watch Foundation's list and similar lists from other countries; a manual assessment team also reviews sites. Sites that feel they are wrongly blocked should email NetIntelligence support. The company has, he adds, tried to make it easier for parents to implement the policies they want; originally social networks were not broken out into their own category. Now, they are easily unblocked by clicking one button.

The simple reaction is to denounce filtering software and all who sail in her - censorship! - but the Internet is arguably now more complicated than that. Research Becta conducted on the pilot group found that 70 percent of the parents surveyed felt that the built-in safety features were very important. Even the most technically advanced of parents struggle to balance their legitimate concerns in protecting their children with the complex reality of their children's lives.

For example: will what today's children post to social networks damage their chances of entry into a good university or a job? What will they find? Not just pornography and hate speech; some parents object to creationist sites, some to scary science fiction, others to Fox News. Yesterday's harmless flame wars are today's more serious cyber-bullying and online harassment. We must teach kids to be more resilient, Byron said; but even then kids vary widely in their grasp of social cues, common sense, emotional make-up, and technical aptitude. Even experts struggle with these issues.

"We are progressively adding more information for parents to help them," says Kelly. "We want the people to keep the product at the end. We don't want them to just uninstall it - we want them to understand it and set the policies up the way they want them." Like all of us, Kelly thinks the ideal is for parents to engage with their children on these issues, "But those are the rules that have come along, and we're doing the best we can."

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series.

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 5:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When last seen, our new widow was wrestling with her late husband's password, unable to get into the Microsoft Money files he used to manage their finances or indeed his desktop computer in general. Hours of effort from the best geekish minds (we are grateful to Drew and Peter) led nowhere. Eventually, we paid £199 to Elcomsoft (the company whose employee Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested in 2001 at Defcon for cracking Adobe eBook files) for its Advanced Office Password Recovery software and it found the password after about 18 hours of constrained brute-force attempts. That password, doctored in line with the security hint my friend had left behind, unlocked his desktop.

My widow had only one digit wrong in that password, by the way. Computers have no concept of "close enough".

But the fun was only beginning. It is a rarely discussed phenomenon of modern life that when someone close to you dies, alongside the memories and any property real and personal they bequeath you a full-time job. The best-arranged, most orderly financial affairs do not transfer themselves gently after the dying of the light.

For one thing, it takes endless phone calls to close, open, or change the names on accounts. Say an average middle-class American: maybe five credit card accounts, two bank accounts, a brokerage account, a couple of IRA accounts, and a 401(K) plan per job held? Plus mortgage, utilities (gas, electric, broadband, cellphone, TV cable), government agencies (motor vehicles, Social Security, federal and state tax), plus magazine/product/service subscriptions. Shall we guess 40 to 50 accounts?

All these organizations are, of course, aware that people die, and they have Procedures. What varies massively (from eavesdropping on some of those phone calls) is the behavior of the customer service people you have to talk to. In a way, this makes sense: customer service representatives are people, too (sometimes), and if you've ever had to tell someone that your just died unexpectedly you'll know that the reactions run the gamut from embarrassed to unexpectedly kind to abrupt to uncomfortably inquisitive to (occasionally) angry. That customer service rep isn't going to be any different. Unfortunately. Because you, the customer, are making your 11th call of the day, and it isn't getting any easier or more fun.

A desire to automate this sort of thing was often the reason given for the UK to bring in an ID card. Report once, update everywhere. It sounds wonderful (assuming they've got the right dead person). Although my suspicion is that what organizations do with the information will be as different then as it is now: some automatically close accounts and send a barcoded letter with a number to call if you want to take the account over; some just want you to spell the new name; a few actually try to help you while doing the job they have to do.

What hasn't been set up with death in mind, though, is online account access. I'm told that in the UK, where direct debits and standing orders have a long history, all automated payments are immediately cancelled when the account holder dies and must be actively reinstated if they are to continue. In the US, where automated payments basically arrived with the Internet, things are different: some (such as mortgage payments) may be arranged with your bank, but others may be run through a third-party electronic payment service. In the case of one such account, we discovered that although both my friend and his wife had individual logins she could not change his settings while logged in using her ID and password. In other words, she could not cancel the payments he'd set up.

Cue another password battle. Our widow had already supplied death certificate and confirmation that she was executor. The company accordingly reset his password for her. But using her computer instead of his to access the site and enter the changed password triggered the site's suspicions, and it demanded an answer to the ancillary security question: "What city was your mother born in?"

There turned out to be some uncertainty about that. And then how the right town was spelled. By which time the site had thrown a hissy fit and locked her out for answering incorrectly too many times. And this time customer service couldn't unlock it without an in-person office visit.

Who thinks to check when they're setting up an automated payment how the site will handle matters when you're dead or incapacitated? We all should - and the services should help us by laying this stuff out up front in the FAQs.

The bottom line: these services are largely new, and they're being designed primarily by younger people who are dismissive about the technical aptitude of older people. At every technical conference the archetypal uncomprehending non-technical user geeks refer to is "your grandmother" or "my mother". Yet it does not seem to occur to them that these are the people who, at the worst moment of their lives, are likely to have to take over and operate these accounts on someone else's behalf and they are going to need help.

Death's a bitch - and then you die.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Unfortunately, this blog eats non-spam comments and I don't know why.

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 4:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"I didn't like to ask him what his passwords were just as he was going in for surgery," said my abruptly widowed friend.

Now, of course, she wishes she had.

Death exposes one of the most significant mismatches between security experts' ideas of how things should be done and the reality for home users. Every piece of advice they give is exactly the opposite of what you'd tell someone trying to create a disaster recovery plan to cover themselves in the event of the death of the family computer expert, finance manager, and media archivist. If this were a business, we'd be talking about losing the CTO, CIO, CSO, and COO in the same plane crash.

Fortunately, while he was alive, and unfortunately, now, my friend was a systems programmer of many decades of expertise. He was acutely aware of the importance of good security. And so he gave his Windows desktop, financial files, and email software fine passwords. Too fine: the desktop one is completely resistant to educated guesses based on our detailed knowledge of his entire life and partial knowledge of some of his other PINs and passwords.

All is not locked away. We think we have the password to the financial files, so getting access to those is a mere matter of putting the hard drive in another machine, finding the files, copying them, installing the financial software on a different machine, and loading them up. But it would be nice to have direct as-him access to his archive of back (and new) email, the iTunes library he painstakingly built and digitized, his Web site accounts, and so on. Because he did so much himself, and because his illness was an 11-day chase to the finish, our knowledge of how he did things is incomplete. Everyone thought there was time.

With backups secured and the financial files copied, we set to the task of trying to gain desktop access.

Attempt 1: ophcrack. This is a fine piece of software that's easy to use as long as you don't look at any of the detail. Put it on a CD, boot from said CD, run it on automatic, and you're fine. The manual instructions I'm sure are fine, too, for anyone who has studied Windows SAM files.

Ophcrack took a happy 4 minutes and 39 seconds to disclose that the computer has three accounts: administrator, my friend's user account, and guest. Administrator and guest have empty passwords; 's is "not found". But that's OK, said the security expert I consulted, because you can log in as administrator using the empty password and change the user account. Here is a helpful command. Sure. No problem.

Except, of course, that this is Vista, and Vista hides the administrator account to make sure that no brainless idiot accidentally got into the administrator account and ran around the system creating havoc and corrupted files. By "brainless idiot" I mean: the user-owner of the computer. Naturally, my friend had left it hidden.

In order to unhide the administrator account so you can run the commands to reset 's password, you have to run the command prompt in administrator mode. Which we can't do because, of course, there are only two administrator accounts and one is hidden and the other is the one we want the password for. Next.

Attempt 2: Password Changer. Now, this is a really nifty thing: you download the software, use it to create a bootable CD, and boot the computer. Which would be fine, except that the computer doesn't like it because apparently command.com is missing...

We will draw a veil over the rest. But my point is that no one would advise a business to operate in this way - and now that computers are in (almost) every home, homes are businesses, too. No one likes to think they're going to die, still less without notice. But if you run your family on your computer you need a disaster recovery plan - fire, flood, earthquake, theft, computer failure, stroke, and yes, unexpected death,

- Have each family member write down their passwords. Privately, if you want, in sealed envelopes to be stored in a safe deposit box at the bank. Include: Windows desktop password, administrator password, automated bill-paying and financial record passwords, and the list of key Web sites you use and their passwords. Also the passwords you may have used to secure phone records and other accounts. Credit and debit card PINs. Etc.

- Document your directory structure so people know where the important data - family photos, financial records, Web accounts, email address books - is stored. Yes, they can figure it out, but you can make it a lot easier for them.

- Set up your printer so it works from other computers on the home network even if yours is turned off. (We can't print anything, either.)

- Provide an emergency access route. Unhide the administrator account.

- Consider your threat model.

Meanwhile, I think my friend knew all this. I think this is his way of taking revenge on me for never letting him touch *my* computer.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series.

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 3:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Frightened people often don't make very good decisions. If I were in charge of aviation security, I'd have been pretty freaked out by the Christmas Day crotch bomber - failure or no failure. Even so, like all of us Boxing Day quarterbacks, I'd like to believe I'd have had more sense than to demand that airline passengers stay seated and unmoving for an hour, laps empty.

But the locking-the-barn elements of the TSA's post-crotch rules are too significant to ignore: the hastily implemented rules were very specifically drafted to block exactly the attack that had just been attempted. Which, I suppose, makes sense if your threat model is a series of planned identical, coordinated attacks and copycats. But as a method of improving airport security it's so ineffective and irrelevant that even the normally rather staid Economist accused the TSA of going insane and Bruce Schneier called the new rulesmagical thinking.

Consider what actually happened on Christmas Day:

- Intelligence failed. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was on the watch list (though not, apparently, the no-fly list), and his own father had warned the US embassy.

- Airport screening failed. He got through with his chunk of explosive attached to his underpants and the stuff he needed to set it off. (As the flyer boards have noted, anyone flying this week should be damned grateful he didn't stuff it in a condom and stick it up his ass.)

- And yet, the plan failed. He did not blow up the plane; there were practically no injuries, and no fatalities.

That, of course, was because a heroic passenger was paying attention instead of snoozing and leaped over seats to block the attempt.

The logical response, therefore, ought to be to ask passengers to be vigilant and to encourage them to disrupt dangerous activities, not to make us sit like naughty schoolchildren being disciplined. We didn't do anything wrong. Why are we the ones who are being punished?

I have no doubt that being on the plane while the incident was taking place was terrifying. But the answer isn't to embark upon an arms race with the terrorists. Just as there are well-funded research labs churning out new computer viruses and probing new software for vulnerabilities, there are doubtless research facilities where terrorist organizations test what scanners can detect and in what quantity.

Matt Blaze has a nice analysis of why this approach won't work to deter terrorists: success (plane blown up) and failure (terrorist caught) are, he argues, equally good outcomes for the terrorist, whose goal is to sow terror and disruption. All unpredictable screening does is drive passengers nuts and, in some cases, put their health at risk. Passengers work to the rules. If there are no blankets, we wear warmer clothes; if there is no bathroom access, we drink less; if there is no in-flight entertainment, we rearrange the hours we sleep.

As Blaze says, what's needed is a correct understanding of the threat model - and as Schneier has often said, the most effective changes since 9/11 have been reinforcing the cockpit doors and the fact that passengers now know to resist hijackers.

Since the incident, much of the talk has been about whole-body scanners - "nudie scanners" Dutch privacy advocates have dubbed them - as if these will secure airplanes for once and for all. I think if people think that whole-body scanners are the answer they have misunderstood the problem.

Or problems, because there is more than one. First: how can we make air travel secure from terrorists? Second: how can we make air travelers feel secure? Third: how can we accomplish those things while still allowing travelers to be comfortable, a specification which includes respecting their right to privacy and civil liberties? If your reaction to that last is to say that you don't care whose rights are violated, all that matters is perfect security I'm going to guess that: 1) you fly very infrequently; 2) you would be happy to do so chained to your seat naked with a light coating of Saran wrap; and 3) that your image of the people who are threats is almost completely unlike your own.

It is particularly infuriating to read that we are privacy victims: that the opposition of privacy advocates to invasive practices such as whole-body scanners are the reason this clown got as close as he did. Such comments are as wrong-headed as Jack Straw claiming after 9/11 that opponents of key escrow were naïve.

The most rational response, it seems to me, is for TSA and airlines alike to solicit volunteers among their most loyal and committed passengers. Elite flyers know the rhythms of flights; they know when something is amiss. Train us to help in emergencies and to spot and deter mishaps.

Because the thing we should have learned from this incident is that we are never going to have perfect security: terrorists are a moving target. We need fallbacks, for when our best efforts fail.

The more airport security becomes intrusive, annoying, and visibly stupid, the more motive passengers will have to find workarounds and the less respect they will have for these authorities. That process is already visible. Do you feel safer now?

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, follow on Twitter, or send email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk.

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 6:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"And what's your mother's maiden name?"

A lot of attention has been paid over the years to the quality of passwords: how many letters, whether there's a sufficient mix of numbers and "special characters", whether they're obviously and easily guessable by anyone who knows you (pet's name, spouse's name, birthday, etc.), whether you've reset them sufficiently recently. But, as someone noted this week on UKCrypto, hardly anyone pays attention to the quality of the answers to the "password hint" questions sites ask so they can identify you when you eventually forget your password. By analogy, it's as though we spent all our time beefing up the weight, impenetrability, and lock quality on our front doors while leaving the back of the house accessible via two or three poorly fitted screen doors.

On most sites it probably doesn't matter much. But the question came up after the BBC broadcast an interview with the journalist Angela Epstein, the loopily eager first registrant for the ID card, in which she apparently mentioned having been asked to provide the answers to five rather ordinary security questions "like what is your favorite food". Epstein's column gives more detail: "name of first pet, favourite song and best subject at school". Even Epstein calls this list "slightly bonkers". This, the UKCrypto poster asked, is going to protect us from terrorists?

Dave Birch had some logic to contribute: "Why are we spending billions on a biometric database and taking fingerprints if they're going to use the questions instead? It doesn't make any sense." It doesn't: she gave a photograph and two fingerprints.

But let's pretend it does. The UKCrypto discussion headed into technicalities: has anyone studied challenge questions?

It turns out someone has: Mike Just, described to me as "the world expert on challenge questions". Just, who's delivered two papers on the subject this year, at the Trust (PDF) and SOUPS (PDF) conferences, has studied both the usability and the security of challenge questions. There are problems from both sides.

First of all, people are more complicated and less standardized than those setting these questions seem to think. Some never had pets; some have never owned cars; some can't remember whether they wrote "NYC", "New York", "New York City", or "Manhattan". And people and their tastes change. This year's favorite food might be sushi; last year's chocolate chip cookies. Are you sure you remember accurately what you answered? With all the right capitalization and everything? Government services are supposedly thinking long-term. You can always start another Amazon.com account; but ten years from now, when you've lost your ID card, will these answers be valid?

This sort of thing is reminiscent of what biometrics expert James Wayman has often said about designing biometric systems to cope with the infinite variety of human life: "People never have what you expect them to have where you expect them to have it." (Note that Epstein nearly failed the ID card registration because of a burn on her finger.)

Plus, people forget. Even stuff you'd think they'd remember and even people who, like the students he tested, are young.

From the security standpoint, there are even more concerns. Many details about even the most obscure person's life are now public knowledge. What if you went to the same school for 14 years? And what if that fact is thoroughly documented online because you joined its Facebook group?

A lot depends on your threat model: your parents, hackers with scripted dictionary attacks, friends and family, marketers, snooping government officials? Just accordingly came up with three types of security attacks for the answers to such questions: blind guess, focused guess, and observation guess. Apply these to the often-used "mother's maiden name": the surname might be two letters long; it is likely one of the only 150,000 unique surnames appearing more than 100 times in the US census; it may be eminently guessable by anyone who knows you - or about you. In the Facebook era, even without a Wikipedia entry or a history of Usenet postings many people's personal details are scattered all over the online landscape. And, as Just also points out, the answers to challenge questions are themselves a source of new data for the questioning companies to mine.

My experience from The Skeptic suggests that over the long term trying to protect your personal details by not disclosing them isn't going to work very well. People do not remember what they tell psychics over the course of 15 minutes or an hour. They have even less idea what they've told their friends or, via the Internet, millions of strangers over a period of decades or how their disparate nuggets of information might match together. It requires effort to lie - even by omission - and even more to sustain a lie over time. It's logically easier to construct a relatively small number of lies. Therefore, it seems to me that it's a simpler job to construct lies for the few occasions when you need the security and protect that small group of lies. The trouble then is documentation.

Even so, says Birch, "In any circumstance, those questions are not really security. You should probably be prosecuted for calling them 'security'."

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, follow on Twitter, or send email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk.

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 6:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Let's face it: Las Vegas ought not to exist. A city in the middle of the desert that shows off extravagant water fountains. (No matter how efficient these are, they must lose plenty of water to the 110F dry desert air.) Where in a time of energy crisis few can live without cars or air-conditioning and many shops and hotels air-condition to a climate approximating that of Britain in winter. A city that specializes in gigantic, all-night light displays. And, a city with so little respect for its own history that it tears itself down and rebuilds every five years, on average. (It even tore down the hotel that Elvis made famous and replaced it.)

In fact, of course, the Strip is all façade. Go a block east or west and look at the backs of the hotels and what you see is the rear side of a movie set.

There is of course a real Las Vegas away from the Strip that's cooler and much prettier, but much of the above still applies: it is a perfect advertisement for unsustainability. Which is why it seemed particularly apt this year as the location for the annual Black Hat and Defcon security/hacker conferences. Just as Las Vegas itself is an exemplar of the worst abuse of a fragile ecosystem, so increasingly do the technologies we use and trust daily.

If you're not familiar with these twin conferences, they're held on successive days in Las Vegas in late July. At Black Hat during the week, a load of (mostly) guys in (mostly) suits present their latest research into new security problems and their suggested fixes. On Thursday night, (mostly) the same crowd trade in their (mostly) respectable clothes for (mostly) cargo shorts and T-shirts and head for Defcon for the weekend to present (many of) the same talks over again to a (mostly) younger, wilder crowd. Black Hat has executive stationery for sale and sit-down catered lunches; Defcon has programmable badges, pizza in the hotel's food court, and is much, much cheaper.

It's noticeable that, after years when people have been arrested for or sued to prevent their disclosures, a remarkable number of this year's speakers took pains to emphasize the responsible efforts they'd made to contact manufacturers and industry associations and warn them about what they'd found. Some of the presentations even ended with, "And they've fixed it in the latest release." What fun is that?

The other noticeable trend this year was away from ordinary computer issues and into other devices. This was only to be (eventually) expected: as computers infiltrate all parts of our lives they're bringing insecurity along with them into areas where it pretty much didn't exist before. Electric meters: once mechanical devices that went round and round; now smart gizmos that could be remotely reprogrammed. Flaws in the implementation of SMS mean that phishing messages and other scams most likely lie in the future of our mobile phones.

Even such apparently stolid mechanisms such as parking meters can be gamed. Know what's inside those things? Z80 chips! Yes, the heart of those primitive 1980s computers live on in that parking meter that just clicked over to VIOLATION.

Las Vegas seems to go on as if the planet were not in danger. Similarly, we know - because we write and read it daily - that the Internet was built as a sort of experiment on underpinnings that are ludicrously, laughably wrongly designed for the weight we're putting on them. And yet every day we go on buying things with credit cards, banking, watching our governments shift everything online, all I suppose with the shared hope that it will all come right somehow.

You do wonder, though, after two days of presentations that find the same fundamental errors we've known about for decades: passwords submitted in plain text, confusion between making things easy for users and depriving them of valuable information to help them spot frauds. The failure, as someone said in the blur of the last few days, to teach beginning programmers about the techniques of secure coding. Plus, of course, the business urgency of let's get this thing working and worry about security later.

On the other hand, it was just as alarming to hear Robert Lentz, deputy assistant secretary of Defense, say it was urgent to "get the anonymity out of the network" and ensure that real-world and cyber identities converge with multifactor biometric identification in both logical and physical worlds. My laptop computer was perfectly secure against all the inquisitors at Black Hat because it never left my immediate possession and I couldn't connect to the wireless; but that's not how I want to live.

The hardest thing about security seems to be understanding when we really need it and how. But the thing about Vegas - as IBM's Jeff Jonas so eloquently explained at etech in 2008 - is that behind the Strip (which I always like to say is what you'd get if you gave a band of giant children an unlimited supply of melted plastic and bad taste) and its city block-sized casinos lies a security system so sophisticated that it doesn't interfere with customers' having a good time. Vegas, so fake in other ways, is the opposite of security theater. Whereas, so much of our security - which is often intrusive enough to feel real - might as well be the giant plastic Sphinx in front of the Luxor.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, to follow on Twitter or send email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk.

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Many governments, faced with the question of how to improve national security, would do the obvious thing: round up the usual suspects. These would be, of course, the experts - that is, the security services and law enforcement. This exercise would be a lot like asking the record companies and film studios to advise on how to improve copyright: what you'd get is more of the same.

This is why it was so interesting to discover that the US National Academies of Science was convening a workshop to consult on what research topics to consider funding, and began by appointing a committee that included privacy advocates and usability experts, folks like Microsoft researcher Butler Lampson, Susan Landau, co-author of books on privacy and wiretapping, and Donald Norman, author of the classic book The Design of Everyday Things. Choosing these people suggests that we might be approaching a watershed like that of the late 1990s, when the UK and the US governments were both forced to understand that encryption was not just for the military any more. The peace-time uses of cryptography to secure Internet transactions and protect mobile phone calls from casual eavesdropping are much broader than crypto's war-time use to secure military communications.

Similarly, security is now everyone's problem, both individually and collectively. The vulnerability of each individual computer is a negative network externality, as NYU economist Nicholas Economides pointed out. But, as many asked, how do you get people to understand remote risks? How do you make the case for added inconvenience? Each company we deal with makes the assumption that we can afford the time to "just click to unsubscribe" or remember one password, without really understanding the growing aggregate burden on us. Norman commented that door locks are a trade-off, too: we accept a little bit of inconvenience in return for improved security. But locks don't scale; they're acceptable as long as we only have to manage a small number of them.

In his 2006 book, Revolutionary Wealth, Alvin Toffler comments that most of us, without realizing it, have a hidden third, increasingly onerous job, "prosumer". Companies, he explained, are increasingly saving money by having us do their work for them. We retrieve and print out our own bills, burn our own CDs, provide unpaid technical support for ourselves and our families. One of Lorrie Cranor's students did the math to calculate the cost in lost time and opportunities if everyone in the US read annually the privacy policy of each Web site they visited once a month. Most of these things require college-level reading skills; figure 244 hours per year per person, $3,544 each...$781 billion nationally. Weren't computers supposed to free us of that kind of drudgery? As everything moves online, aren't we looking at a full-time job just managing our personal security?

That, in fact, is one characteristic that many implementations of security share with welfare offices - and that is becoming pervasive: an utter lack of respect for the least renewable resource, people's time. There's a simple reason for that: the users of most security systems are deemed to be the people who impose it, not the people - us - who have to run the gamut.

There might be a useful comparison to information overload, a topic we used to see a lot about ten years back. When I wrote about that for ComputerActive in 1999, I discovered that everyone I knew had a particular strategy for coping with "technostress" (the editor's term). One dealt with it by never seeking out information and never phoning anyone. His sister refused to have an answering machine. One simply went to bed every day at 9pm to escape. Some refused to use mobile phones, others to have computers at home..

But back then, you could make that choice. How much longer will we be able to draw boundaries around ourselves by, for example, refusing to use online banking, file tax returns online, or participate in social networks? How much security will we be able to opt out of in future? How much do security issues add to technostress?

We've been wandering in this particular wilderness a long time. Angela Sasse, whose 1999 paper Users Are Not the Enemy talked about the problems with passwords at British Telecom, said frankly, "I'm very frustrated, because I feel nothing has changed. Users still feel security is just an obstacle there to annoy them."

In practice, the workshop was like the TV game Jeopardy: the point was to generate research questions that will go into a report, which will be reviewed and redrafted before its eventual release. Hopefully, eventually, it will all lead to a series of requests for proposals and some really good research. It is a glimmer of hope.

Unless, that is, the gloominess of the beginning presentations wins out. If you listened to Lampson, Cranor, and to Economides, you got the distinct impression that the best thing that could happen for security is that we rip out the Internet (built to be open, not secure), trash all the computers (all of whose operating systems were designed in the pre-Internet era), and start over from scratch. Or, like the old joke about the driver who's lost and asking for directions, "Well, I wouldn't start from here".

So, here's my question: how can we make security scale so that the burden stays manageable?

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, follow on Twitter, or send email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk.

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 4:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For the last several weeks I've been mulling over the phrase security fatigue. It started with a paper (PDF) co-authored by Angela Sasse, in which she examined the burden that complying with security policies imposes upon corporate employees. Her suggestion: that companies think in terms of a "compliance budget" that, like any other budget (money, space on a newspaper page), has to be managed and used carefully. And, she said, security burdens weigh differently on different people and at different times, and a compliance budget needs to comprehend that, too.

Some examples (mine, not hers). Logging onto six different machines with six different user IDs and passwords (each of which has to be changed once a month) is annoying but probably tolerable if you do it once every morning when you get to work and once in the afternoon when you get back from lunch. But if the machines all log you out every time you take your hands off the keyboard for two minutes, by the end of the day they will be lucky to survive your baseball bat. Similarly, while airport security is never fun, the burden of it is a lot less to a passenger traveling solo after a good night's sleep who reaches the checkpoints when they're empty than it is to the single parent with three bored and overtired kids under ten who arrives at the checkpoint after an overnight flight and has to wait in line for an hour. Context also matters: a couple of weeks ago I turned down a ticket to Court 1 at Wimbledon on men's semi-finals day because I couldn't face the effort it would take to comply with their security rules and screening. I grudgingly accept airport security as the trade-off for getting somewhere, but to go through the same thing for a supposedly fun day out?

It's relatively easy to see how the compliance budget concept could be worked out in practice in a controlled environment like a company. It's very difficult to see how it can be worked out for the public at large, not least because none of the many companies each of us deals with sees it as beneficial to cooperate with the others. You can't, for example, say to your online broker that you just can't cope with making another support phone call, can't they find some other way to unlock your account? Or tell Facebook that 61 privacy settings is too many because you're a member of six other social networks and Life is Too Short to spend a whole day configuring them all.

Bruce Schneier recently highlighted that last-referenced paper, from Joseph Bonneau and Soeren Preibusch at Cambridge's computer lab, alongside another by Leslie John, Alessandro Acquisti, and George Loewenstein from Carnegie-Mellon, to note a counterintuitive discovery: the more explicit you make privacy concerns the less people will tell you. "Privacy salience" (as Schneier calls it) makes people more cautious.

In a way, this is a good thing and goes to show what privacy advocates have been saying along: people do care about privacy if you give them the chance. But if you're the owners of Facebook, a frequent flyer program, or Google it means that it is not in your business interest to spell out too clearly to users what they should be concerned about. All of these businesses rely on collecting more and more data about more and more people. Fortunately for them, as we know from research conducted by Lorrie Cranor (also at Carnegie-Mellon), people hate reading privacy policies. I don't think this is because people aren't interested in their privacy. I think this goes back to what Sasse was saying: it's security fatigue. For most people, security and privacy concerns are just barriers blocking the thing they came to do.

But choice is a good thing, right? Doesn't everyone want control? Not always. Go back a few years and you may remember some widely publicized research that pointed out that too many choices stall decision-making and make people feel...tired. A multiplicity of choices adds weight and complexity to the decision you're making: shouldn't you investigate all the choices, particularly if you're talking about which of 56 mutual funds to add to your 401(k)?

It seems obvious, therefore, that the more complex the privacy controls offered by social networks and other services the less likely people are to use them: too many choices, too little time, too much security fatigue. In minor cases in real life, we handle this by making a decision once and sticking to it as a kind of rule until we're forced to change: which brand of toothpaste, what time to leave for work, never buy any piece of clothing that doesn't have pockets. In areas where rules don't work, the best strategy is usually to constrain the choices until what you have left is a reasonable number to investigate and work with. Ecommerce sites notoriously get this backwards: they force you to explore group by group instead of allowing you to exclude choices you'll never use.

How do we implement security and privacy so that they're usable? This is one of the great unsolved, under-researched questions in security. I'm hoping to know more next week.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, follow on , or send email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk.

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 2:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Are users getting better or worse?

At what? you might ask. Naturally: at being thorns in the side of IT security people. Users see security as damage, and route around it.

You didn't need to look any further than this week's security workshop, where this question was asked, to see this principle in action. The hotel-supplied wireless was heavily filtered: Web and email access only, no VPNs, "undesirable" sites blocked. Over lunch, the conversation: how to set up VPNs using port 443 to get around this kind of thing. The perfect balanced sample: everyone's a BOFH *and* a hostile user. Kind of like Jacqui Smith, who has announced plans to largely circumvent the European Court of Human Rights' ruling that Britain has to remove the DNA of innocent people from the database. Apparently, this government perceives European law as damage.

But the question about users was asked seriously. The workshop gathered security folks from all over to brain storm and compare notes: what are the emerging security threats? What should we be worrying about? And, most important, what should people be researching?

Three working groups - smart environments, malware and fraud, and critical systems - came up with three different lists, mostly populated with familiar stuff - but the familiar stuff keeps going and getting worse. According to Symantec's latest annual report spam, for example, was up 162 percent in 2008 over 2007, with a total of 349.6 billion messages sent - simply a staggering waste of resources. What has changed is targeting; new attacks are short-lived, small distribution affairs - much harder to shut down.

Less familiar to me was the "patch window" problem, which basically goes like this: it takes 24 hours for 80 percent of Windows users to get a new patch from Windows Update. An attacker who downloads the patch as soon as it's available can quickly - within minutes - reverse-engineer it to find out what bug(s) it's fixing. Then the attacker has most of a day in which to exploit the bug. Last year, Carnegie-Mellon's David Brumley and others found a way to automate this process (PDF). An ironic corollary: the more bug-free the program, the easier a patch window attack becomes. Various solutions were discussed for this, none of them entirely satisfactory; the most likely was to roll out the patch locked, and distribute a key only after the download cycle is complete.

But back to the trouble with users: systems are getting more and more complex. A core router now has 5,000 lines of code; an edge router 11,000. Someone has to read and understand all those lines. And that's just one piece. "Today's networks are now so complex we don't understand them any more," said Cisco's Michael Behrenger. Critical infrastructures need to be more like the iPhone, a complex system that nonetheless just about anyone can operate.

As opposed, I guess, to being like what most people have now: systems that are a mish-mash of strategies for getting around things that don't work. But I do see his point. Once you could debug even a large network by reading the entire configuration. Pause to remember the early days of Demon Internet, when the technical support staff would debug your connection by directly editing the code of the dial-up software we were all using, KA9Q. If you'd taken *those* humans out of the system, no one could have gotten online.

It's my considered view that while you can blame users for some things - the one in 12.5 million spam recipients Christian Kreibich said actually buys the pharma products so advertised springs to mine - blaming them in general is a lot like the old saw about how "only a poor workman blames his tools". It's more than 20 years since Donald Norman pointed out in The Design of Everyday Things that user error is often a result of poor system design. Yet a depressing percentage of security folks complaining about system complexity don't even know his name and a failure to understand human factors is security's single biggest failure.

Joseph Bonneau made this point in a roundabout way by considering Facebook which, he said, really is inventing the Web - not just in the rounded corners sense, but in the sense of inventing its own protocols for things for which standards already exist. Plus - and more important for the user question - it's training users to do things that security people would rather they didn't, like click on emailed links without checking the URLs. "Social networks," he said, "are repeating all the Web's security problems - phishing, spam, 419 scams, identity theft, malware, cross-site scripting, click fraud, stalking...privacy is the elephant in the room." Worse, "They really don't yet have a business model, which makes dealing with security difficult."

It's a typical scenario in computing, where each new generation reinvents every wheel. And that's the trouble with automation with everything, too. Have these people never used voice menus?

Get rid of the humans and replace them with automated systems that operate perfectly, great. But won't humans have to write the automated systems? No, automated systems will do that. And who will program those? Computers. And who...

Never mind.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to follow (and reply) on , post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 3:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The basic complaints we've been making for years about law enforcement's and government's desire to collect masses of data have primarily focused on the obvious set of civil liberties issues: the chilling effect of surveillance, the right of individuals to private lives, the risk of abuse of power by those in charge of all that data. On top of that we've worried about the security risks inherent in creating such large targets from which data will, inevitably, leak sometimes.

This week, along came the National Research Council to offer a new trouble with dataveillance: it doesn't actually work to prevent terrorism. Even if it did work, the tradeoff of the loss of personal liberties against the security allegedly offered by policies that involve tracking everything everyone does from cradle to grave was hard to justify. But if it doesn't work - if all surveillance all the time won't make us actually safer - then the discussion really ought to be over.

The NAS report, Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists: A Framework for Assessment, makes its conclusions clear: "Modern data collection and analysis techniques have had remarkable success in solving information-related problems in the commercial sector... But such highly automated tools and techniques cannot be easily applied to the much more difficult problem of detecting and preempting a terrorist attack, and success in doing so may not be possible at all."

Actually, the many of us who have had our cards stopped for no better reason than that the issuing bank didn't like the color of the Web site we were buying from, might question how successful these tools have been in the commercial sector. At the very least, it has become obvious to everyone how much trouble is being caused by false positives. If a similar approach is taken to all parts of everyone's lives instead of just their financial transactions, think how much more difficult it's going to be to get through life without being arrested several times a year.

The report again: "Even in well-managed programs such tools are likely to return significant rates of false positives, especially if the tools are highly automated." Given the masses of data we're talking about - the UK wants to store all of the nation's communications data for years in a giant shed, and a similar effort in the US would have to be many times as big - the tools will have to be highly automated. And - the report yet again - the difficulty of detecting terrorist activity "through their communications, transactions, and behaviors is hugely complicated by the ubiquity and enormoity of electronic databases maintained by both government agencies and private-sector corporations." The bigger the haystack, the harder it is to find the needle.

In a recent interview, David Porter, CEO of Detica, who has spent his entire career thinking about fraud prevention, said much the same thing. Porter's proposed solution - the basis of the systems Detica sells -is to vastly shrink the amount of data to be analyzed by throwing out everything we know is not fraud (or, as his colleague, Tom Black, said at the Homeland and Border Security conference in July, terrorist activity). To catch your hare, first shrink your haystack.

This report, as the title suggests, focuses particularly on balancing personal privacy against the needs of anti-terrorist efforts. (Although, any terrorist watching the financial markets the last couple of weeks would be justified in feeling his life's work had been wasted, since we can do all the damage that's needed without his help.) The threat from terrorists is real, the authors say - but so is the threat to privacy. Personal information in databases cannot be fully anonymized; the loss of privacy is real damage; and data varies substantially in quality. "Data derived by linking high-quality data with data of lesser quality will tend to be low-quality data." If you throw a load of silly string into your haystack, you wind up with a big mess that's pretty much useless to everyone and will be a pain in the neck to clean up.

As a result, the report recommends requiring systematic and periodic evaluation of every information-based government program against core values and proposes a framework for carrying that out. There should be "robust, independent oversight". Research and development of such programs should be carried out with synthetic data, not real data "anonymized"; real data should only be used once a program meets the proposed criteria for deployment and even then only phased in at a small number of sites and tested thoroughly. Congress should review privacy laws and consider how best to protect privacy in the context of such programs.

These things seem so obvious; but to get to this the point it's taken three years of rigorous documentation and study by a 21-person committee of unimpeachable senior scientists and review by members of a host of top universities, telephone companies, and top technology companies. We have to think the report's sponsors, who include the the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Homeland Security, will take the results seriously. Writing for Cnet, Declan McCullagh notes that the similar 1996 NRC CRISIS report on encryption was followed by decontrol of the export and use of strong cryptography two years later. We can but hope.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It took a confluence of several different factors for a six-year-old news story to knock 75 percent off the price of United Airlines shares in under an hour earlier this week. The story said that United Airlines was filing for bankruptcy, and of course was true - in 2002. Several media owners are still squabbling about whose fault it was. Trading was halted after that first hour by the systems put in place after the 1987 crash, but even so the company's shares closed 10 percent down on the day. Long-term it shouldn't matter in this case, but given a little more organization and professionalism that sort of drop provides plenty of opportunities for securities fraud.

The factor the companies involved can't sue: human psychology. Any time you encounter a story online you make a quick assessment of its credibility by considering: 1) the source; 2) its likelihood; 3) how many other outlets are saying the same thing. The paranormal investigator and magician James Randi likes to sum this up by saying that if you claimed you had a horse in your back yard he might want a neighbor's confirmation for proof, but if you said you had a unicorn in your back yard he'd also want video footage, samples of the horn, close-up photographs, and so on. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the necessary proof. The converse is also true: the less extraordinary the claim and the better the source, the more likely we are to take the story on faith and not bother to check.

Like a lot of other people, I saw the United story on Google News on Monday. There's nothing particularly shocking these days about an airline filing for bankruptcy protection, so the reaction was limited to "What? Again? I thought they were doing better now" and a glance underneath the headline to check the source. Bloomberg. Must be true. Back to reading about the final in prospect between Andy Murray and Roger Federer at the US Open.

That was a perfectly fine approach in the days when all content was screened by humans and media were slow to publish. Even then there were mistakes, like the famous 1993 incident when a shift worker at Sky News saw an internal rehearsal for the Queen Mother's death on a monitor and mentioned it on the phone to his mother in Australia, who in turn passed it on to the media, which took it up and ran with it.

But now in the time that thought process takes daytraders have clicked in and out of positions and automated media systems have begun republishing the story. It was the interaction of several independently owned automated systems made what ought to have been a small mistake into one that hit a real company's real financial standing - with that effect, too, compounded by automated systems. Logically, we should expect to see many more such incidents, because all over the Web 2.0 we are building systems that talk to each other without human intervention or oversight.

A lot of the Net's display choices are based on automated popularity contests: on-the-fly generated lists of the current top ten most viewed stories, Amazon book rankings, Google's page rank algorithm that bumps to the top sites with the most inbound links for a given set of search terms. That's no different from other media: Jacqueline Kennedy and Princess Diana were beloved of magazine covers for the most obvious sale-boosting reasons. What's different is that on the Net these measurements are made and acted upon instantaneously, and sometimes from very small samples, which is why in a very slow news hour on a small site a single click on a 2002 story seems to have bumped it up to the top, where Google spotted it and automatically inserted it into its feed.

The big issue, really - leaving aside the squabble between the Tribune and Google over whether Google should have been crawling its site at all - is the lack of reliable dates. It's always a wonder to me how many Web sites fail to anchor their information in time: the date a story is posted or a page is last updated should always be present. (I long, in fact, for a browser feature that would display at the top of a page the last date a page's main content was modified.)

Because there's another phenomenon that's insufficiently remarked upon: on the Internet, nothing ever fully dies. Every hour someone discovers an old piece of information for the first time and thinks it's new. Most of the time, it doesn't matter: Dave Barry's exploding whale is hilariously entertaining no matter how many times you've read it or seen the TV clip. But Web 2.0 will make new money for endless recycling part of our infrastructure rather than a rare occurrence.

In 1998 I wrote that crude hacker defacement of Web sites was nothing to worry about compared to the prospect of the subtle poisoning of the world's information supply that might become possible as hackers became more sophisticated. This danger is still with us, and the only remedy is to do what journalists used to be paid to do: check your facts. Twice. How do we automate that?

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"His checks keep bouncing because his signature varies," says a CIA operative (Sam Waterston) admiringly of the movie's retired spy hero Miles Kendig (Walter Matthau) in the 1980 movie Hopscotch. "He's a class act."

These days, Kendig would be using credit cards. And he'd be having the same problem: the part of his signature would be played by his usage patterns as seen by the credit card company's computers.

This would be doubly true if he used Amazon's Marketplace sellers. It seems - or so Barclaycard tells me every time they block my card - that putting through several purchases through Amazon Marketplace and then, a few days later, buying something larger like a plane ticket or a digital recorder exactly fits one of the fraud patterns their computers are programmed to look for.

Buy a dozen items in a day on eBay (go on, I dare you), and your statement will show a dozen transactions - but they'll all be from Paypal. Buy a dozen items in a single shopping basket on Amazon, and you'll get a dozen transactions all from different unknown sellers. To the computer what seems to you to be a single Amazon purchase looks exactly like someone testing the card with a dozen small transactions to see if it's a) live and b) possessed of available credit. Then, y'see, when the card has passed the test, the fraudster goes for the big one - that airplane ticket or digital recorder.

It's not clear to me why Barclaycard's computer doesn't recognize this pattern as typical after the first outing or two. (I fly one route, but my Barclaycard will not buy me a plane ticket.) Nor is it clear to me why it doesn't occur to the Barclaycard computer that as frauds go buying a digital recorder or a plane ticket for delivery to the cardholder's name and address ranks as fairly incompetent. Why doesn't it check that point before causing trouble?

You might ask a similar question of one of my US cards, which trips the fraud meter any time it's used outside the US. Even though they know I live in...London.

This week Amazon announced that it's offering its payment system, including One-Click, to third party sellers as one of its Web services offerings.

Much of the early press coverage of Amazon's decision seems to be characterizing Amazon Checkout, along with Google Checkout, as a competitor to Paypal. In fact, things are more complicated than that. Paypal, before it was bought by eBay, was one of the oldest businesses on the Net. Its roots, which still show every time you go through the intricate procedure of opting to use a credit card instead of a bank transfer, are in making it possible for anyone to send cash to anyone with an email address. Its first competitor was Western Union; its long tail business opportunity was online sellers who couldn't get credit card authorizations because they were too small. For eBay, buying Paypal meant being able to integrate payments into its ecology with some additional control over fraud while making extra money off each transaction.

Paypal is being adopted as an alternative payment method by all sorts of third parties, and as much of a pain as Paypal is (it can't cope with multinational people and you cannot opt out of giving it a bank account to verify) this is useful for consumers. Its security is generally well regarded by both banks and credit card companies and surely it's better to store financial details with one known company than with dozens of less familiar ones you may only trade with once. Given the choice, I'd far rather that single account were with the much-pleasanter-to-use Amazon. It's clear, though, that if you're offering a platform for others to build businesses on, as Amazon is, payment services are an obvious tool you want to include. Most likely, just as many stores now display multiple credit and debit card logos, many Web sellers will offer users a choice among multiple payment aggregators. Who wants to call the whole thing off because you say Google and I say Paypal?

Unfortunately, none of this solves my actual problem, those damn fraud-detecting algorithms. If Amazon actually aggregated payments into a single transaction - which is actually what you imagine it's doing the first time you buy from Marketplace - and spit the money back out to the intended destinations, there'd be no problem. For you: for Amazon, of course, it would raise a host of questions about whether it's a financial service, and how much responsibility it should assume for fraud. Those are, of course, very much the reasons why Paypal is so unpleasant - and yet also why it offers eBay buyers insurance.

What is clear is that this is yet another step that brings Amazon and eBay into closer competiton with each other: they are increasingly alike. Amazon's recent quarterly statement notes that about 30 percent of its revenues come from Marketplace sellers - and that the profitability of a sale is roughly the same whether it's direct or indirect. On eBay 42 percent of items now are straightforward sales, not auctions, and the changes it's made that favor its biggest sellers are making it more Wal-Mart than flea market.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 2:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A certain amount of government and practical policy is being made these days based on the idea that you can take large amounts of data and anonymize it so researchers and others can analyze it without invading anyone's privacy. Of particular sensitivity is the idea of giving medical researchers access to such anonymized data in the interests of helping along the search for cures and better treatments. It's hard to argue with that as a goal - just like it's hard to argue with the goal of controlling an epidemic - but both those public health interests collide with the principle of medical confidentiality.

The work of Latanya Sweeney was I think the first hint that anonymizing data might not be so straightforward; I've written before about her work. This week, at the Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium in Leuven, Belgium (which I regrettably missed) researchers Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov from the University of Texas at Austin won an award sponsored by Microsoft for taking reidentifying supposedly anonymized data a step further.

The pair took a database released by the online DVD rental company Netflix last year as part of the $1 million Netflix Prize, a project to improve upon the accuracy of the system's predictions. You know the kind of thing, since it's built into everything from Amazon to Tivos - you give the system an idea of your likes and dislikes by rating the movies you've rented and the system makes recommendations for movies you'll like based on those expressed preferences. To enable researchers to work on the problem of improving these recommendations, Netflix released a dataset containing more than 100 million movie ratings contributed by nearly 500,000 subscribers between December 1999 and December 2005 with, as the service stated in its FAQ, all customer identifying information removed.

Maybe in a world where researchers only had one source of information that would be a valid claim. But just as Sweeney showed in 1997 that it takes very little in the way of public records to re-identify a load of medical data supplied to researchers in the state of Massachusetts, Narayananan and Shamtikov's work reminds us that we don't live in a world like that. For one thing, people tend disproportionately to rate their unusual, quirky favorites. Rating movies takes time; why spend it on giving The Lord of the Rings another bump when what people really need is to know about the wonders of King of Hearts, All That Jazz, and The Tall Blond Man with One Black Shoe? The consequence is that the Netflix dataset is what they call "sparse" - that is, there few subscribers have very similar records.

So: how much does someone need to know about you to identify a particular user from the database? It turns out, not much. The is the public ratings and dates at the Internet Movies Database, which include dates and real names. Narayanan and Shmatikov concluded that 99 percent of records could be uniquely identified from only eight matching ratings (of which two could be wrong); for 68 percent of the records you only need two (and reidentifying the rest becomes easier). And of course, if you know a little bit about the particular person whose record you want to identify things get a lot easier - the three movies I've just listed would probably identify me and a few of my friends.

Even if you don't care if your tastes in movies are private - and both US law and the American Library Association's take on library loan records would protect you more than you yourself would - there are couple of notable things here. First of all, the compromise last week whereby Google agreed to hand Viacom anonymized data on YouTube users isn't as good a deal for users as they might think. A really dedicated searcher might well think it worth the effort to come up with a way to re-identify the data - and so far rightsholders have shown themselves to be very dedicated indeed.

Second of all, the Thomas-Walport review on data-sharing actually recommends requiring NHS patients to agree to sharing data with medical researchers. There is a blithe assumption running through all the government policies in this area that data can be anonymized, and that as long as they say our privacy is protected it will be. It's a perfect example of what someone this week called "policy-based evidence-making".

Third of all, most such policy in this area assumes it's the past that matters. What may be of greater significance, as Narayanan and Shmatikov point out, is the future: forward privacy. Once a virtual identity has been linked to a real-world identity, that linkage is permanent. Yes, you can create a new virtual identity, but any slip that links it to either your previous virtual or your real-world identity blows your cover.

The point is not that we should all rush to hide our movie ratings. The point is that we make optimistic assumptions every day that the information we post and create has little value and won't come back to bite us on the ass. We do not know what connections will be possible in the future.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 3:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The (only) good thing about a war is you can tell when it's over.

The problem with the "War on Terror" is that terrorism is always with us, as Liberty's director, Shami Chakrabarti, said yesterday at the Homeland and Border Security 08 conference. "I do think the threat is very serious. But I don't think it can be addressed by a war." Because, "We, the people, will not be able to verify a discernible end."

The idea that "we are at war" has justified so much post 9/11 legislation, from the ID card (in the UK) and Real ID (US) to the continued expansion of police powers.

How long can you live in a state of emergency before emergency becomes the new normal? If there is no end, when do you withdraw the latitude wartime gives a government?

Several of yesterday's speakers talked about preserving "our way of life" while countering the threat with better security. But "our way of life" is a moving target.

For example, Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones, the shadow security minister, talked about the importance of controlling the UK's borders. "Perimeter security is absolutely basic." Her example: you can't go into a building without having your identity checked. But it's not so long ago - within the 18 years I've been living in London - that you could do exactly that, even sometimes in central London. In New York, of course, until 9/11, everything was wide open; these days midtown Manhattan makes you wait in front of barriers while you're photographed, checked, and treated with great suspicion if the person you're visiting doesn't answer the phone.

Only seven years ago, flying did not involve two hours of standing in line. Until January, tourists do not have to register three days before flying to the US for pre-screening.

It's not clear how much would change with a Conservative government. "There is a very great deal by this government we would continue," said Neville-Jones. But, she said, besides trackling threats, whether motivated (terrorists) or not (floods, earthquakes, "we are also at any given moment in the game of deciding what kind of society we want to have and what values we want to preserve." She wants "sustainable security, predicated on protecting people's freedom and ensuring they have more, not less, control over their lives." And, she said, "While we need protective mechanisms, the surveillance society is not the route down which we should go. It is absolutely fundamental that security and freedom lie together as an objective."

To be sure, Neville-Jones took issue with some of the present government's plans - the Conservatives would not, she said, go ahead with the National Identity Register, and they favour "a more coherent and wide-ranging border security force". The latter would mean bringing together many currently disparate agencies to create a single border strategy. The Conservatives also favour establishing a small "homeland command for the armed forces" within the UK because, "The qualities of the military and the resources they can bring to complex situations are important and useful." At the moment, she said, "We have to make do with whoever happens to be in the country."

OK. So take the four core elements of the national security strategy according to Admiral Lord Alan West, a Parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Home Office: pursue, protect, prepare, and prevent. "Prevent" is the one that all this is about. If we are in wartime, and we know that any measure that's brought in is only temporary, our tolerance for measures that violate the normal principles of democracy is higher.

Are the Olympics wartime? Security is already in the planning stages, although, as Tarique Ghaffur pointed out, the Games are one of several big events in 2012. And some events like sailing and Olympic football will be outside London, as will 600 training camps. Add in the torch relay, and it's national security.

And in that case, we should be watching very closely what gets brought in for the Olympics, because alongside the physical infrastructure that the Games always leave behind - the stadia and transport - may be a security infrastructure that we wouldn't necessarily have chosen for daily life.

As if the proposals in front of us aren't bad enough. Take for example, the clause of the counterterrorism bill (due for its second reading in the Lords next week) that would allow the authorities to detain suspects for up to 42 days without charge. Chakrabarti lamented the debate over this, which has turned into big media politics.

"The big frustration," she said, "is that alternatives created by sensible, proportionate means of early intervention are being ignored." Instead, she suggested, make the data legally collected by surveillance and interception admissible in fair criminal trials. Charge people with precursor terror offenses so they are properly remanded in custody and continue the investigation for the more serious plot. "That is a way of complying with ancient principles that you should know what you are accused of before being banged up, but it gives the police the time and powers they need."

Not being at war gives us the time to think. We should take it.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 2:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This week we got the detail on what went wrong at Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs that led to the loss of those two CDs full of the personal details of 25 million British households last year with the release of the Poynter Review (PDF). We also got a hint of how and whether the future might be different with the publication yesterday of Data Handling: Proecures in Government (PDF), written by Sir Gus O'Donnell and commissioned by the Prime Minister after the HMRC loss. The most obvious message of both reports: government needs to secure data better.

The nicest thing the Poynter review said was that HMRC has already made changes in response to its criticisms. Otherwise, it was pretty much a surgical demonstration of "institutional deficiencies".

The chief points:

- Security was not HMRC's top priority.

- HMRC in fact had the technical ability to send only the selection of data that NAO actually needed, but the staff involved didn't know it.

- There was no designated single point of contact between HMRC and NAO.

- HMRC used insecure methods for data storage and transfer.

- The decision to send the CDs to the NAO was taken by junior staff without consulting senior managers - which under HMRC's own rules they should have done.

- The reason HMRC's junior staff did not consult managers was that they believed (wrongly) that NAO had absolute authority to access any and all information HMRC had.

- The HMRC staffer who dispatched the discs incorrectly believed the TNT Post service was secure and traceable, as required by HMRC policy. A different TNT service that met those requirements was in fact available.

- HMRC policies regarding information security and the release of data were not communicated sufficiently through the organization and were not sufficiently detailed.

- HMRC failed on accountability, governance, information security...you name it.

The real problem, though, isn't any single one of these things. If junior staff had consulted senior staff, it might not have mattered that they didn't know what the policies were. If HMRC used proper information security and secure methods for data storage (that is, encryption rather than simple password protection), they wouldn't have had access to send the discs. If they'd understood TNT's services correctly, the discs wouldn't have gotten lost - or at least been traceable if they had.

The real problem was the interlocking effect of all these factors. That, as Nassim Nicholas Taleb might say, was the black swan.

For those who haven't read Taleb's The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, the black swan stands for the event that is completely unpredictable - because, like black swans until one was spotted in Australia, no such thing has ever been seen - until it happens. Of course, data loss is pretty much a white swan; we've seen lots of data breaches. The black swan, really, is the perfectly secure system that is still sufficiently open for the people who need to use it.

That challenge is what O'Donnell's report on data handling is about and, as he notes, it's going to get harder rather than easier. He recommends a complete rearrangement of how departments manage information as well as improving the systems within individual departments. He also recommends greater openness about how the government secures data.

"No organisation can guarantee it will never lose data," he writes, "and the Government is no exception." O'Donnell goes on to consider how data should be protected and managed, not whether it should be collected or shared in the first place. That job is being left for yet another report in progress, due soon.

It's good to read that some good is coming out of the HMRC data loss: all departments are, according to the O'Donnell report, reviewing their data practices and beginning the process of cultural change. That can only be a good thing.

But the underlying problem is outside the scope of these reports, and it's this government's fondness for creating giant databases: the National Identity Register, ContactPoint, the DNA database, and so on. If the government really accepted the principle that it is impossible to guarantee complete data security, what would they do? Logically, they ought to start by cancelling the data behemoths on the understanding that it's a bad idea to base public policy on the idea that you can will a black swan into existence.

It would make more sense to create a design for government use of data that assumes there will be data breaches and attempts to limit the adverse consequences for the individuals whose data is lost. If my privacy is compromised alongside 50 million other people's and I am the victim of identity theft does it help me that the government department that lost the data knows which staff member to blame?

As Agatha Christie said long ago in one of her 80-plus books, "I know to err is human, but human error is nothing compared to what a computer can do if it tries." The man-machine combination is even worse. We should stop trying to breed black swans and instead devise systems that don't create so many white ones.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 4:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I couldn't have been more embarrassed than if the tall guy carrying a laptop had just told me I was wearing a wet T-shirt.

There I was, sitting in the Queen's club international press room. And there was he, the only other possessor of a red laptop in the entire building, showing me a screen full of a hotel reservation from a couple of months back, in full detail. With my name and address on it.

"If I can see it," he said in that maddening you-must-be-an-idiot IT security guy way, "so can everyone else."

DUH.

I took that laptop to Defcon!

(And nothing bad happened. That I know of. Yet.)

Despite the many Guardian readers who are convinced that I am technically incompetent because I've written pieces in which it seemed more entertaining to pretend to be so for dramatic effect, I am not an idiot. I'm not even technically incompetent, or not completely so. I am just, like most people, busy, and, like most people, the problem most of the time is to get my computers to work, not to stop them from working. And I fall into that shadowland of people who know just enough to want to run their computers their way but not enough to understand all the ramifications of what they're doing.

So, for example: file shares (not file-sharing, a different kettle of worms entirely). What you are meant to do, because you are an ignorant and brain-challenged consumer, is drop any files you need to share on the network into the Shared Documents folder. While it's no more secure than any other folder (and its name is eminently guessable by outside experts), the fact that you have to knowingly put files in it means that very little of your system is exposed.

I, of course, am far too grand (and perverse) to put up with Microsoft telling me how to organize my system, so of course I don't do things that way. Instead, I share specific directories using a structure I devised myself that is the same on all my machines. That's where I fouled up, of course. That laptop runs XP, and in XP, as I suppose I am the last to notice, the default settings have what's known as "simple file-sharing" turned on, so that if you share a directory it's basically open to all comers. XP warns you you're doing something risky; what it doesn't do is tell you in a simple way how to reduce the risk.

Yes, I tried to read the help files. They're impenetrable. Help files, like most of the rest of computing, separate into two types: either they're written for the completely naïve user, or they're written for the professional system administrator. Despite the fact that people like me are a growing class of users, we have to learn this stuff behind the bicycle shed from people randomly selected via Google.

This is what it should have said. Do one of the following two things: either set permissions so that only those users who have passwords on your system can access this directory or stick a $ sign at the end of the directory name to make it hidden. If you do the latter, you will have to map the directory as a network drive on all the machines that want to use it. I note that they seem to have improved things in Vista, which I will no doubt start using sometime around 21012). I know Apple probably does this better and Linux is secured out the wazoo, but that's not the point: the point is that it's incredibly easy for moderately knowledgeable users to leave their systems with gaping wide open holes. What I would have liked them to do is offer me the option to view how my system looks to someone connecting from outside with no authentication. I feel sure this could be done.

The problem for Microsoft on this kind of thing is the same problem that afflicts everyone trying to do IT security: everything you do to make the system more secure makes it harder for users to make things work. In the case of the file shares, as long as your computer is at home sitting behind the kind of firewalled router the big ISPs supply, it's more important to grant access to other household members than it is to worry about outsiders. It's when you take that laptop out of the house...and the really awkward thing is that there isn't any really easy way to test for open shares within your own network if, like many people, you tend to use the same login ID and password on all your machines for simplicity's sake. Do friends let friends drive open shares?

The security guys (really, the wi-fi suppliers and tech support), who were only looking around the network for open shares because they were bored, had a good laugh, especially when I told them who I write for (latest addition to the list: Infosecurity magazine!). And they obligingly produced some statistics. Out of the 60 to 100 journalists in the building using the wireless, three had open shares. One, they said, was way more embarrassing than mine, though they declined to elaborate. I think they were just being nice.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 2:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Early this week the news broke that the Home Office wants to create a giant database in which will be stored details of all communications sent in Britain. In other words, instead of data retention, in which ISPs, telephone companies, and other service providers would hang onto communications data for a year or seven in case the Home Office wanted it, everything would stream to a Home Office data center in real time. We'll call it data swallowing.

Those with long memories - who seem few and far between in the national media covering this sort of subject - will remember that in about 1999 or 2000 there was a similar rumor. In the resulting outraged media coverage it was more or less thoroughly denied and nothing had been heard of it since, though privacy advocates continued to suspect that somewhere in the back of a drawer the scheme lurked, dormant, like one of those just-add-water Martians you find in the old Bugs Bunny cartoons. And now here it is again in another leak that the suspicious veteran watcher of Yes, Minister might think was an attempt to test public opinion. The fact that it's been mooted before makes it seem so much more likely that they're actually serious.

This proposal is not only expensive, complicated, slow, and controversial/courageous (Yes, Minister's Fab Four deterrents), but risk-laden, badly conceived, disproportionate, and foolish. Such a database will not catch terrorists, because given the volume of data involved trying to use it to spot any one would-be evil-doer will be the rough equivalent of searching for an iron filing in a haystack the size of a planet. It will, however, make it possible for anyone trawling the database to make any given individual's life thoroughly miserable. That's so disproportionate it's a divide-by-zero error.

The risks ought to be obvious: this is a government that can't keep track of the personal details of 25 million households, which fit on a couple of CDs. Devise all the rules and processes you want, the bigger the database the harder it will be to secure. Besides personal information, the giant communications database would include businesses' communication information, much of likely to be commercially sensitive. It's pretty good going to come up with a proposal that equally offends civil liberties activists and businesses.

In a short summary of the proposed legislation, we find this justification: "Unless the legislation is updated to reflect these changes, the ability of public authorities to carry out their crime prevention and public safety duties and to counter these threats will be undermined."

Sound familiar? It should. It's the exact same justification we heard in the late 1990s for requiring key escrow as part of the nascent Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The idea there was that if the use of strong cryptography to protect communications became widespread law enforcement and security services would be unable to read the content of the messages and phone calls they intercepted. This argument was fiercely rejected at the time, and key escrow was eventually dropped in favor of requiring the subjects of investigation to hand over their keys under specified circumstances.

There is much, much less logic to claiming that police can't do their jobs without real-time copies of all communications. Here we have real analogies: postal mail, which has been with us since 1660. Do we require copies of all letters that pass through the post office to be deposited with the security services? Do we require the Royal Mail's automated sorting equipment to log all address data?

Sanity has never intervened in this government's plans to create more and more tools for surveillance. Take CCTV. Recent studies show that despite the millions of pounds spent on deploying thousands of cameras all over the UK, they don't cut crime, and, more important, the images help solve crime in only 3 percent of cases. But you know the response to this news will not be to remove the cameras or stop adding to their number. No, the thinking will be like the scheme I once heard for selling harmless but ineffective alternative medical treatments, in which the answer to all outcomes is more treatment. (Patient gets better - treatment did it. Patient stays the same - treatment has halted the downward course of the disease. Patient gets worse - treatment came too late.)

This week at Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, I heard about the Electronic Privacy Information Center's work on fusion centers, relatively new US government efforts to mine many commercial and public sources of data. EPIC is trying to establish the role of federal agencies in funding and controlling these centers, but it's hard going.

What do these governments imagine they're going to be able to do with all this data? Is the fantasy that agents will be able to sit in a control room somewhere and survey it all on some kind of giant map on which criminals will pop up in red, ready to be caught? They had data before 9/11 and failed to collate and interpret it.

Iron filing; haystack; lack of a really good magnet.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 2:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There was a wonderful cartoon that cycled frequently around computer science departments in the pre-Internet 1970s - I still have my paper copy - that graphically illustrated the process by which IT systems get specified, designed, and built, and showed precisely why and how far they failed the user's inner image of what it was going to be. There is a scan here. The senior analyst wanted to make sure no one could possibly get hurt; the sponsor wanted a pretty design; the programmers, confused by contradictory input, wrote something that didn't work; and the installation was hideously broken.

Translate this into the UK's national ID card. Consumers, Sir James Crosby wrote in March (PDF)want identity assurance. That is, they - or rather, we - want to know that we're dealing with our real bank rather than a fraud. We want to know that the thief rooting through our garbage can't use any details he finds on discarded utility bills to impersonate us, change our address with our bank, clean out our accounts, and take out 23 new credit cards in our name before embarking on a wild spending spree leaving us to foot the bill. And we want to know that if all that ghastliness happens to us we will have an accessible and manageable way to fix it.

We want to swing lazily on the old tire and enjoy the view.

We are the users with the seemingly simple but in reality unobtainable fantasy.

The government, however - the project sponsor - wants the three-tiered design that barely works because of all the additional elements in the design but looks incredibly impressive. ("Be the envy of other major governments," I feel sure the project brochure says.) In the government's view, they are the users and we are the database objects.

Crosby nails this gap when he draws the distinction between ID assurance and ID management:

The expression 'ID management' suggests data sharing and database consolidation, concepts which principally serve the interests of the owner of the database, for example, the Government or the banks. Whereas we think of "ID assurance" as a consumer-led concept, a process that meets an important consumer need without necessarily providing any spin-off benefits to the owner of any database.

This distinction is fundamental. An ID system built primarily to deliver high levels of assurance for consumers and to command their trust has little in common with one inspired mainly by the ambitions of its owner. In the case of the former, consumers will extend use both across the population and in terms of applications such as travel and banking. While almost inevitably the opposite is true for systems principally designed to save costs and to transfer or share data.

As writer and software engineer Ellen Ullman wrote in her book Close to the Machine, databases infect their owners, who may start with good intentions but are ineluctibly drawn to surveillance.

So far, the government pushing the ID card seems to believe that it can impose anything it likes and if it means the tree collapses with the user on the swing, well, that's something that can be ironed out later. Crosby, however, points out that for the scheme to achieve any of the government's national security goals it must get mass take-up. "Thus," he writes, "even the achievement of security objectives relies on consumers' active participation."

This week, a similarly damning assessment of the scheme was released by the Independent Scheme Assurance Panel (PDF) (you may find it easier to read this clean translation - scroll down to policywatcher's May 8 posting). The gist: the government is completely incompetent at handling data, and creating massive databases will, as a result, destroy public trust in it and all its systems.

Of course, the government is in a position to compel registration, as it's begun doing with groups who can't argue back, like foreigners, and proposes doing for employees in "sensitive roles or locations, such as airports". But one of the key indicators of how little its scheme has to do with the actual needs and desires of the public is the list of questions it's asking in the current consultation on ID cards, which focus almost entirely on how to get people to love, or at least apply for, the card. To be sure, the consultation document pays lip service to accepting comments on any ID card-related topic, but the consultation is specifically about the "delivery scheme".

This is the kind of consultation where we're really damned if we do and damned if we don't. Submit comments on, for example, how best to "encourage" young people to sign up ("Views are invited particularly from young people on the best way of rolling out identity cards to them") without saying how little you like the government asking how best to market its unloved policy to vulnerable groups and when the responses are eventually released the government can say there are now no objectors to the scheme. Submit comments to the effect that the whole National Identity scheme is poorly conceived and inappropriate, and anything else you say is likely to be ignored on the grounds that they've heard all that and it's irrelevant to the present consultation. Comments are due by June 30.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 1:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Las Vegas shouldn't exist. Who drops a sprawling display of electric lights with huge fountains and luxury hotels that into the best desert scenery on the planet during an energy crisis? Indoors, it's Britain in mid-winter; outdoors you're standing in a giant exhaust fan. The out-of-proportion scale means that everything is four times as far away as you think, including the jackpot you're not going to win at one of its casinos. It's a great place to visit if you enjoy wallowing in self-righteous disapproval.

This all makes it the stuff of song, story, and legend and explains why Jeff Jonas's presentation at etech was packed.

The way Jonas tells it in his blog and at his presentation, he got into the gaming industry by driving through Las Vegas in 1989 idly wondering what was going on behind the scenes at the casinos. A year later he got the tiny beginnings of an answer when he picked up a used couch he'd found in the newspaper classified ads (boy, that dates it, doesn't it?) and found that its former owner played blackjack "for a living". Jonas began consulting to the gaming industry in 1991, helping to open Treasure Island, Bellagio, and Wynn.

"Possibly half the casinos in the world use technology we created," he said at etech.

Gaming revenues are now less than half of total revenues, he said, and despite the apparent financial win they might represent problem gamblers are in fact bad for business. The goal is for people to have fun. And because of that, he said, a place like the Bellagio is "optimized for consumer experience over interference. They don't want to spend money on surveillance."

Jonas began with a slide listing some common ideas about how Las Vegas works, culled from movies like Ocean's 11 and the TV show Las Vegas. Does the Bellagio have a vault? (No.) Do casinos perform background checks on guests based on public records? (No.) Is there a gaming industry watch list you can put yourself on but not take yourself off? (Yes, for people who know they have a gambling addiction.) Do casinos deliberately hire ex-felons? (Yes, to rehabilitate them.) Do they really send private jets for high rollers? (Cue story.)

There was, he said, a casino high roller who had won some $18 million. A win like that is going to show up in a casino's quarterly earnings. So, yes, they sent a private jet to his town and parked a limo in front of his house for the weekend. If you've got the bug, we're here for you, that kind of thing. He took the bait, and lost $22 million.

Do they help you create cover stories? (Yes.) "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" is an important part of ensuring that people can have fun that does not come back to bite them when they go home. The casinos' problem is with identity, not disguises, because they are required by anti-money laundering rules to report it any time someone crosses the $10,000 threshold for cash transactions. So if you play at several different tables, then go upstairs and change disguises, and come back and play some more, they have to be able to track you through all that. ID, therefore, is extremely important. Disguises are welcome; fake ID is not.

Do they use facial recognition to monitor the doors to spot cheaters on arrival? (Well...)

Of course technology-that-is-indistinguishable-from-magic-because-it-actually-is-magic appears on every crime-solving TV show these days. You know, the stuff where Our Heroes start with a fuzzy CCTV image and they punch in on a tiny piece of it and blow it up. And then someone says, "Can you enhance that?" and someone else says, "Oh, yes, we have new software," and a second later a line goes down the picture filling in detail. And a second after that you can read the brand on the face of a wrist watch (Numb3rs or the manufacturer's coding on a couple of pills (Las Vegas. Or they have a perfect matching system that can take a partial fingerprint lifted off a strand of hair or something and bang! the database can find not only the person's identity but their current home address and phone number (Bones). And who can ever forget the first episode of 24, when Jack Bauer, alarmed at the disappearance of his daughter, tosses his phone number to an underling and barks, "Find me all the Internet passwords associated with this phone number."

And yet...a surprising number of what ought to be the technically best-educated audience on the planet thought facial recognition was in operation to catch cheaters. Folks, it doesn't work in airports, either.

Which is the most interesting thing Jonas said: he now works for IBM (which bought his company) on privacy and civil liberties issues, including work on software to help the US government spot terrorists without invading privacy. It's an interesting concept, partly because security at airports and other locations is now so invasive. But also because if Las Vegas can find a way to deploy surveillance such that only the egregious problems are caught and everyone else just has a good time...why can't governments?

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 3:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the last ten days or so a stormlet has broken out about the announcement that BT, Carphone Warehouse, and TalkTalk, who jointly cover about 70 percent of British Internet subscribers, have signed up for a new advertising service. The supplier, Phorm (previously, 121Media), has developed Open Internet Exchange (OIX), a platform to serve up "relevant" ads to ISPs' customers. Ad agencies and Web sites also sign up to the service which, according to Phorm's FAQ, can serve up ads to any Web site "in the regular places the website shows ads". Partners include most British national newspapers, iVillage, and MGM OMD.

A brief chat with BT revealed that the service, known to consumers as Webwise, will apply only to BT's retail customers, not its wholesale division. Consumers will be able to opt out, and BT is planning an educational exercise to explain the service.

Obviously all concerned hope Webwise will be acceptable to consumers, but to make it a little more palatable, not signing out of it gets you warnings if you land on suspected phishing sites. I don't think improved security should, ethically, be tied to a person's ad-friendliness, but this is the world we live in.

"We've done extensive research with our customer base," says BT's spokesman, "and it's very clear that when customers know what is happening they're overwhelmingly in favor of it, particularly in terms of added security."

But the Net folk are suspicious folk, and words like "spyware" and "adware" are circling, partly because Phorm's precursor, 121Media, was blocked by Symantec and F-Secure as spyware. Plus, The Register discovered that BT had been sharing data with Phorm as long ag as last summer, and, apparently, lying about it.

Phorm's PR did not reply to a request for an interview, but a spokeswoman contacted briefly last week defended the company. "We are absolutely not and in no way an adware product at all."

The overlooked aspect: Phorm called in Privacy International's new commercial arm, 80/20, to examine its system.

PI's executive director, Simon Davies, one of the examiners, says, "Phorm has done its very best to eliminate and minimise the use of personal information and build privacy into the core of the technology. In that sense, it's a privacy-friendly technology, but that does not get us away from the intrusion aspect." In general, the principle is that ads shouldn't be served on an opt-out basis; users should have to opt in to receive them.

Tailoring advertising to the clickstream of user interests is of course endemic online now; it's how Google does AdSense, and it's why that company bought DoubleClick, which more or less invented the business of building up user profiles to create personalized ads. Phorm's service, however, does not build user profiles.

A cookie with a unique ID is stored on the user's system - but does not associate that ID with an individual or the computer it's stored on. Say you're browsing car sites like Ford and Nissan. The ISP does not give Phorm personally identifiable information like IP addresses, but does share the information that the computer this cookie is on is looking at car sites right now. OIX serves up car ads. The service ignores niche sites, secure sites (HTTPS), and low-traffic sites. Firewalling between Phorm and the ISP means that the ISP doesn't know and can't deduce the information that the OIX platform knows about what ads are being served. Nothing is stored to create a profile. Phorm instead offers advertisers instead is the knowledge that they are serving ads that reflect users' interests in real time.

The difference to Davies is that Google, which came last in Privacy International's privacy rankings, stores search histories and browsing data and ties them to personal identifiers, primarily login IDs and IP addresses. (Next month, the Article 29 Group will report its opinion as to whether IP addresses are personal information, so we will know better then which way the cookie crumbles.)

"The potential to develop a profile covertly is extremely limited, if not eliminated," says Davies.

Phorm itself says, "We really think what our stuff does dispells the myth that in order to provide relevance you have to store data."

I hate advertising as much as the next six people. But most ISPs are operating on razor-thin margins if they make money at all, and they're looking at continuously increasing demand for bandwidth. That demand can only get worse as consumers flock to the iPlayer and other sources of streaming video. The pressure on pricing is steadily downward with people like TalkTalk and O2 offering free or extremely cheap broadband as an add-on to mobile phone accounts. Meanwhile, the advertising revenues go to everyone but them. Is it surprising that they'd leap at this? Analysts estimate that BT will pick up £85 million in the first year. Nice if you can get it.

We all want low-cost broadband and free content. None of us wants ads. How exactly do we propose all this free stuff is going to be paid for?

As for Phorm, it's going to take a lot to make some users trust them. I'd say, though, that the jury is still out. Sometimes people do learn from past mistakes.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 11:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (1)

One of the key identifiers of an addiction is that indulgence in it persists long after all the reasons for doing it have turned from good to bad.

A sobered-up Scottish alcoholic once told me the following examplar of alcoholic thinking. A professor is lecturing to a class of alcoholics on the evils of drinking. To make his point, he takes two glasses, one filled with water, the other with alcohol. Into each glass he drops a live worm. The worm in the glass of water lives; the worm in the glass of alcohol dies.

"What," the professor asks, "can we learn from this?"

One of the alcoholics raises his hand. "If you have worms, drink alcohol."

In alcoholic thinking, of course, there is no circumstance in which the answer isn't "Drink alcohol."

So, too, with the ID card. The purpose as mooted between 2001 and 2004 was preventing benefit fraud and making life more convenient for UK citizens and residents. The plan promised perfect identification via the combination of a clean database (the National Identity Register) and biometrics (fingerprints and iris scans). The consultation document made a show of suggesting the cheaper alternative of a paper card with minimal data collection, but it was clear what they really wanted: the big, fancy stuff that would make them the envy of other major governments.

Opponents warned of the UK's poor track record with large IT projects, the privacy-invasiveness, and the huge amount such a system was likely to cost. Government estimates, now at £5.4 billion, have been slowly rising to meet Privacy International's original estimate of £6 billion.

By 2006, when the necessary legislation was passed, the government had abandoned the friendly "entitlement card" language and was calling it a national ID card. By then, also, the case had changed: less entitlement, more crime prevention.

It's 2008, and the wheels seem to be coming off. The government's original contention that the population really wanted ID cards has been shredded by the leaked documents of the last few weeks. In these, it's clear that the government knows the only way it will get people to adopt the ID card is by coercion, starting with the groups who are least able to protest by refusal: young people and foreigners.

Almost every element deemed important in the original proposal is now gone - the clean database populated through interviews and careful documentation (now the repurposed Department of Work and Pensions database); the iris scans (discarded); probably the fingerprints (too expensive except for foreigners). The one element that for sure remains is the one the government denied from the start: compulsion.

The government was always open about its intention for non-registration to become increasingly uncomfortable and eventually to make registration compulsory. But if the card is coming at least two years later than they intended, compulsion is ahead of schedule.

Of course, we've always maintained that the key to the project is the database, not the card. It's an indicator of just how much of a mess the project is that the Register, the heart of the system, was first to be scaled back because of its infeasibility. (I mean, really, guys. Interview and background-check the documentation of every one of 60 million people in any sort of reasonable time scale?)

The project is even fading in popularity with the very vendors who want to make money supplying the IT for it. How can you specify a system whose stated goals keep changing?

The late humorist and playwright Jean Kerr (probably now best known for her collection of pieces about raising five boys with her drama critic husband in a wacky old house in Larchmont, NY, Please Don't Eat the Daisies) once wrote a piece about the trials and tribulations of slogging through the out-of-town openings of one of her plays. In these pre-Broadway trial runs, lines get cut and revised; performances get reshaped and tightened. If the play is in trouble, the playwright gets no sleep for weeks. And then, she wrote, one day you look up at the stage, and, yes, the play is much better, and the performances are much better, and the audience seems to be having a good time. And yet - the play you're seeing on the stage isn't the play you had in mind at all.

It's one thing to reach that point in a project and retain enough perspective to be honest about it. It may be bad - but it isn't insane - to say, "Well, this play isn't what I had in mind, but you know, the audience is having a good time, and it will pay me enough to go away and try again."

But if you reach the point where the project you're pushing ahead clearly isn't any more the project you had in mind and sold hard, and yet you continue to pretend to yourself and everyone else that it is - then you have the kind of insanity problem where you're eating worms in order to prove you're not an alcoholic.

The honorable thing for the British government to do now is say, "Well, folks, we were wrong. Our opponents were right: the system we had in mind is too complicated, too expensive, and too unpopular because of its privacy-invasiveness. We will think again." Apparently they're so far gone that eating worms looks more sensible.

Wendy M. Grossman's Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 5:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There are many ways for a computer system to fail. This week's disclosure that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has played lost-in-the-post with two CDs holding the nation's Child Benefit data is one of the stranger ones. The Child Benefit database includes names, addresses, identifying numbers, and often bank details, on all the UK's 25 million families with a child under 16. The National Audit Office requested a subset for its routine audit; the HMRC sent the entire database off by TNT post.

There are so many things wrong with this picture that it would take a village of late-night talk show hosts to make fun of them all. But the bottom line is this: when the system was developed no one included privacy or security in the specification or thought about the fundamental change in the nature of information when paper-based records are transmogrified into electronic data. The access limitations inherent in physical storage media must be painstakingly recreated in computer systems or they do not exist. The problem with security is it tends to be inconvenient.

With paper records, the more data you provide the more expensive and time-consuming it is. With computer records, the more data you provide the cheaper and quicker it is. The NAO's file of email relating to the incident (PDF) makes this clear. What the NAO wanted (so it could check that the right people got the right benefit payments): national insurance numbers, names, and benefit numbers. What it got: everything. If the discs hadn't gotten lost, we would never have known.

Ironically enough, this week in London also saw at least three conferences on various aspects of managing digital identity: Digital Identity Forum, A Fine Balance, and Identity Matters. All these events featured the kinds of experts the UK government has been ignoring in its mad rush to create and collect more and more data. The workshop on road pricing and transport systems at the second of them, however, was particularly instructive. Led by science advisor Brian Collins, the most notable thing about this workshop is that the 15 or 20 participants couldn't agree on a single aspect of such a system.

Would it run on GPS or GSM/GPRS? Who or what is charged, the car or the driver? Do all roads cost the same or do we use differential pricing to push traffic onto less crowded routes? Most important, is the goal to raise revenue, reduce congestion, protect the environment, or rebalance the cost of motoring so the people who drive the most pay the most? The more purposes the system is intended to serve, the more complicated and expensive it will become, and the less likely it is to answer any of those goals successfully. This point has of course also been made about the National ID card by the same sort of people who have warned about the security issues inherent in large databases such as the Child Benefit database. But it's clearer when you start talking about something as limited as road charging.

For example: if you want to tag the car you would probably choose a dashboard-top box that uses GPS data to track the car's location. It will have to store and communicate location data to some kind of central server, which will use it to create a bill. The data will have to be stored for at least a few billing cycles in case of disputes. Security services and insurers alike would love to have copies. On the other hand, if you want to tag the driver it might be simpler just to tie the whole thing to a mobile phone. The phone networks are already set up to do hand-off between nodes, and tracking the driver might also let you charge passengers, or might let you give full cars a discount.

The problem is that the discussion is coming from the wrong angle. We should not be saying, "Here is a clever technological idea. Oh, look, it makes data! What shall we do with it?" We should be defining the problem and considering alternative solutions. The people who drive most already pay most via the fuel pump. If we want people to drive less, maybe we should improve public transport instead. If we're trying to reduce congestion, getting employers to be more flexible about working hours and telecommuting would be cheaper, provide greater returns, and, crucially for this discussion, not create a large database system that can be used to track the population's movements.

(Besides, said one of the workshop's participants: "We live with the congestion and are hugely productive. So why tamper with it?")

It is characteristic of our age that the favored solution is the one that creates the most data and the biggest privacy risk. No one in the cluster of organisations opposing the ID card - No2ID, Privacy International, Foundation for Information Policy Research, or Open Rights Group - wanted an incident like this week's to happen. But it is exactly what they have been warning about: large data stores carry large risks that are poorly understood, and it is not enough for politicians to wave their hands and say we can trust them. Information may want to be free, but data want to leak.

Wendy M. Grossman’s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 1:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A few months ago, a neighbour phoned me and asked if I'd be willing to position a camera on my windowsill. I live at the end of a small dead-end street (or cul-de-sac), that ends in a wall about shoulder height. The railway runs along the far side of the wall, and parallel to it and further away is a long street with a row of houses facing the railway. The owners of those houses get upset because graffiti keeps appearing alongside the railway where they can see it and covers flat surfaces such as the side wall of my house. The theory is that kids jump over the wall at the end of my street, just below my office window, either to access the railway and spray paint or to escape after having done so. Therefore, the camera: point it at the wall and watch to see what happens.

The often-quoted number of times the average Londoner is caught on camera per day is scary: 200. (And that was a few years ago; it's probably gone up.) My street is actually one of those few that doesn't have cameras on it. I don't really care about the graffiti; I do, however, prefer to be on good terms with neighbours, even if they're all the way across the tracks. I also do see that it makes sense at least to try to establish whether the wall downstairs is being used as a hurdle in the getaway process. What is the right, privacy-conscious response to make?

I was reminded of this a few days ago when I was handed a copy of Privacy in Camera Networks: A Technical Perspective, a paper published at the end of July. (We at net.wars are nothing if not up-to-date.)

Given the amount of money being spent on CCTV systems, it's absurd how little research there is covering their efficacy, their social impact, or the privacy issues they raise. In this paper, the quartet of authors – Marci Lenore Meingast (UC Berkeley), Sameer Pai (Cornell), Stephen Wicker (Cornell), and Shankar Sastry (UC Berkeley) – are primarily concerned with privacy. They ask a question every democratic government deploying these things should have asked in the first place: how can the camera networks be designed to preserve privacy? For the purposes of preventing crime or terrorism, you don't need to know the identity of the person in the picture. All you want to know is whether that person is pulling out a gun or planting a bomb. For solving crimes after the fact, of course, you want to be able to identify people – but most people would vastly prefer that crimes were prevented, not solved.

The paper cites model legislation (PDF) drawn up by the Constitution Project. Reading it is depressing: so many of the principles in it are such logical, even obvious, derivatives of the principles that democratic governments are supposed to espouse. And yet I can't remember any public discussion of the idea that, for example, all CCTV systems should be accompanied by identification of and contact information for the owner. "These premises are protected by CCTV" signs are everywhere; but they are all anonymous.

Even more depressing is the suggestion that the proposals for all public video surveillance systems should specify what legitimate law enforcement purpose they are intended to achieve and provide a privacy impact assessment. I can't ever remember seeing any of those either. In my own local area, installing CCTV is something politicians boast about when they're seeking (re)election. Look! More cameras! The assumption is that more cameras equals more safety, but evidence to support this presumption is never provided and no one, neither opposing politicians nor local journalists, ever mounts a challenge. I guess we're supposed to think that they care about us because they're spending the money.
The main intention of Meingast, Pai, et al, however, is to look at the technical ways such networks can be built to preserve privacy. They suggest, for example, collecting public input via the Internet (using codes to identify the respondents on whom the cameras will have the greatest impact). They propose an auditing system whereby these systems and their usage is reviewed. As the video streams become digital, they suggest using layers of abstraction of the resulting data to limit what can be identified in a given image. "Information not pertinent to the task in hand," they write hopefully, "can be abstracted out leaving only the necessary information in the image." They go on into more detail about this, along with a lengthy discussion of facial recognition.

The most depressing thing of all: none of this will ever happen, and for two reasons. First, no government seems to have the slightest qualm of conscience about installing surveillance systems. Second, the mass populace don't seem to care enough to demand these sorts of protections. If these protections are to be put in place at all, it must be done by technologists. They must design these systems so that it's easier to use them in privacy-protecting ways than to use them in privacy-invasive ways. What are the odds?

As for the camera on my windowsill, I told my neighbour after some thought that they could have it there for a maximum of a couple of weeks to establish whether the end of my street was actually being used as an escape route. She said something about getting back to me when something or other happened. Never heard any more about it. As far as I am aware, my street is still unsurveilled.

Wendy M. Grossman’s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 5:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It was Edward Hasbrouck who drew my attention to a bit of rulemaking being proposed by the Transportation Security Agency. Under current rules, if you want to travel on a plane out of, around, into, or over the US you buy a ticket and show up at the airport, where the airline compares your name and other corroborative details to the no-fly list the TSA maintains. Assuming you're allowed onto the flight, unbeknownst to you, all this information has to be sent to the TSA within 15 minutes of takeoff (before, if it's a US flight, after if it's an international flight heading for the US).

Under the new rules, the information will have to arrive at the TSA 72 hours before the flight takes off – after all, most people have finalised their travel plans by that time, and only 7 to 10 percent of itineraries change after that – and the TSA has to send back an OK to the airline before you can be issued a boarding pass.

There's a whole lot more detail in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, but that's the gist. (They'll be accepting comments until October 22, if you would like to say anything about these proposals before they're finalised.)

There are lots of negative things to say about these proposals – the logistical difficulties for the travel industry, the inadequacy of the mathematical model behind this (which at the public hearing the ACLU's Barry Steinhardt compared to trying to find a needle in a haystack by pouring more hay on the stack), and the privacy invasiveness inherent in having the airlines collect the many pieces of data the government wants and, not unnaturally, retaining copies while forwarding it on to the TSA. But let's concentrate on one: the profound alteration such a scheme will make to American society at large. The default answer to the question of whether you had the right to travel anywhere, certainly within the confines of the US, has always been "Yes". These rules will change it to "No".

(The right to travel overseas has, at times, been more fraught. The folk scene, for example, can cite several examples of musicians who were denied passports by the US State Department in the 1950s and early 1960s because of their left-wing political beliefs. It's not really clear to me why the US wanted to keep people whose views it disapproved of within its borders but some rather hasty marriages took place in order to solve some of these immigration problems, though everyone's friends again now and it's fresh passports all round.)

Hasbrouck, Steinhardt, and EFF founder John Gilmore, who sued the government over the right to travel anonymously within the US, have all argued that the key issue here is the right to assemble guaranteed in the First Amendment. If you can't travel, you can't assemble. And if you have to ask permission to travel, your right of assembly is subject to disruption at any time. The secrecy with which the TSA surrounds its decision-making doesn't help.

Nor does the amount of personal data the TSA is collecting from airline passenger name records. The Identity Project's recent report on the subject highlights that these records may include considerable detail: what books the passenger is carrying, what answer you give when asked where you've been or are going, names and phone numbers given as emergency contacts, and so on. Despite the data protection laws, it isn't always easy to find out what information is being stored; when I made such a request of US Airways last year, the company refused to show me my PNR from a recent flight and gave as the reason: "Security." Civilisation as we know it is at risk if I find out what they think they know about me? We really are in trouble.

In Britain, the chief objections to the ID card and, more important, the underlying database, have of course been legion, but they have generally focused on the logistical problems of implementing it (huge cost, complex IT project, bound to fail) and its general privacy-invasiveness. But another thing the ID card – especially the high-tech, biometric, all-singing, all-dancing kind – will do is create a framework that could support a permission-based society in which the ID card's interaction with systems is what determines what you're allowed to do, where you're allowed to go, and what purchases you're allowed to make. There was a novel that depicted a society like this: Ira Levin's This Perfect Day, in which these functions were all controlled by scanner bracelets and scanners everywhere that lit up green to allow or red to deny permission. The inhabitants of that society were kept drugged, so they wouldn't protest the ubiquitous controls. We seem to be accepting the beginnings of this kind of life stone, cold sober.

American children play a schoolyard game called "Mother, May I?" It's one of those games suitable for any number of kids, and it involves a ritual of asking permission before executing a command. It's a fine game, but surely it isn't how we want to live.

Wendy M. Grossman’s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 1:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I seem to have spent the summer dodging in and out of science fiction novels featuring four general topics: energy, security, virtual worlds, and what someone at the last conference called "GRAIN" technologies (genetic engineering, robotics, AI, and nanotechnology). So the summer started with doom and gloom and got progressively more optimistic. Along the way, I have mysteriously lost a lot of hats. The phenomena may not be related.

I lost the first hat in June, a Toyota Motor Racing hat (someone else's joke; don't ask) while I was reading the first of many very gloomy books about the end of the world as we know it. Of course, TEOTWAWKI has been oft-predicted, and there is, as Damian Thompson, the Telegraph's former religious correspondent, commented when I was writing about Y2K – a "wonderful and gleeful attention to detail" in these grand warnings. Y2K was a perfect example: a timetable posted to comp.software.year-2000 had the financial system collapsing around April 1999 and the cities starting to burn in October…

Energy books can be logically divided into three categories. One, apocalyptics: fossil fuels are going to run out (and sooner than you think), the world will continue to heat up, billions will die, and the few of us who survive will return to hunting, gathering, and dying young. Two, deniers: fossil fuels aren't going to run out, don't be silly, and we can tackle global warming by cleaning them up a bit. Here. Have some clean coal. Three, optimists: fossil fuels are running out, but technology will help us solve both that and global warming. Have some clean coal and a side order of photovoltaic panels.

I tend, when not wracked with guilt for having read 15 books and written 30,000 words on the energy/climate crisis and then spent the rest of the summer flying approximately 33,000 miles, toward optimism. People can change – and faster than you think. Ten years ago, you'd have been laughed off the British isles for suggesting that in 2007 everyone would be drinking bottled water. Given the will, ten years from now everyone could have a solar collector on their roof.

The difficulty is that at least two of those takes on the future of energy encourage greater consumption. If we're all going to die anyway and the planet is going inevitably to revert to the Stone Age, why not enjoy it while we still can? All kinds of travel will become hideously expensive and difficult; go now! If, on the other hand, you believe that there isn't a problem, well, why change anything? The one group who might be inclined toward caution and saving energy is the optimists – technology may be able to save us, but we need time to create create and deploy it. The more careful we are now, the longer we'll have to do that.

Unfortunately, that's cautious optimism. While technology companies, who have to foot the huge bills for their energy consumption, are frantically trying to go green for the soundest of business reasons, individual technologists don't seem to me to have the same outlook. At Black Hat and Defcon, for example (lost hats number two and three: a red Canada hat and a black Black Hat hat), among all the many security risks that were presented, no one talked about energy as a problem. I mean, yes, we have all those off-site backups. But you can take out a border control system as easily with an electrical power outage as you can by swiping an infected RFID passport across a reader to corrupt the database. What happens if all the lights go out, we can't get them back on again, and everything was online?

Reading all those energy books changes the lens through which you view technical developments somewhat. Singapore's virtual worlds are a case in point (lost hat: a navy-and-tan Las Vegas job): everyone is talking about what kinds of laws should apply to selling magic swords or buying virtual property, and all the time in the back of your mind is the blog posting that calculated that the average Second Life avatar consumes as much energy as the average Brazilian. And emits as much carbon as driving an SUV for 2,000 miles. Bear in mind that most SL avatars aren't figured up that often, and the suggestion that we could curb energy consumption by having virtual conferences instead of physical ones seems less realistic. (Though we could, at least, avoid airport security.) In this, as in so much else, the science fiction writer Vernor Vinge seems to have gotten there first: his book Marooned in Real Time looks at the plight of a bunch of post-Singularity augmented humans knowing their technology is going to run out.

It was left to the most science fictional of the conferences, last week's Center for Responsible Nanotechnology conference (my overview is here) to talk about energy. In wildly optimistic terms: technology will not only save us but make us all rich as well.

This was the one time all summer I didn't lose any hats (red Swiss everyone thought was Red Cross, and a turquoise Arizona I bought just in case). If you can keep your hat while all around you everyone is losing theirs…

Wendy M. Grossman’s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 3:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week at Defcon my IM ID and just enough of the password to show they knew what it was appeared on the Wall of Sheep. This screen projection of the user IDs, partial passwords, and activities captured by the installed sniffer inevitably runs throughout the conference.

It's not that I forgot the sniffer was there, or that there is a risk in logging onto an IM client unencrypted over a Wi-Fi hot spot (at a hacker conference!) but that I had forgotten that it was set to log in automatically whenever it could. Easily done.

It's strange to remember now that once upon a time this crowd – or at least, type of crowd – was considered the last word in electronic evil. In 1995 the capture of Kevin Mitnick made headlines everywhere because he was supposed to be the baddest hacker ever. Yet other than gaining online access and free phone calls, Mitnick is not known to have ever profited from his crimes – he didn't sell copied source code to its owners' competitors, and he didn't rob bank accounts. We would be grateful – really grateful – if Mitnick were the worst thing we had to deal with online now.

Last night, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee released its report on Personal Internet Security. It makes grim reading even for someone who's just been to Defcon and Black Hat. The various figures the report quotes, assembled after what seems to have been an excellent information-gathering process (that means, they name-check a lot of people I know and would have picked for them to talk to) are pretty depressing. Phishing has cost US banks around $2 billion, and although the UK lags well behind - £33.5 million in bank fraud in 2006 – here, too, it's on the rise. Team Cymru found (PDF) that on IRC channels dedicated to the underground you could buy credit card account information for between $1 (basic information on a US account) to $50 (full information for a UK account); $1,599,335.80 worth of accounts was for sale on a single IRC channel in one day. Those are among the few things that can be accurately measured: the police don't keep figures breaking out crimes committed electronically; there are no good figures on the scale of identity theft (interesting, since this is one of the things the government has claimed the ID card will guard against); and no one's really sure how many personal computers are infected with some form of botnet software – and available for control at four cents each.

The House of Lords recommendations could be summed up as "the government needs to do more". Most of them are unexceptional: fund more research into IT security, keep better statistics. Some measures will be welcomed by a lot of us: make banks responsible for losses resulting from electronic fraud (instead of allowing them to shift the liability onto consumers and merchants); criminalize the sale or purchase of botnet "services" and require notification of data breaches. (Now I know someone is going to want to say, "If you outlaw botnets, only outlaws will have botnets", but honestly, what legitimate uses are there for botnets? The trick is in defining them to include zombie PCs generating spam and exclude PCs intentionally joined to grids folding proteins.)

Streamlined Web-based reporting for "e-crime" could only be a good thing. Since the National High-Tech Crime Unit was folded into the Serious Organised Crime Agency there is no easy way for a member of the public to report online crime. Bringing in a central police e-crime unit would also help. The various kite mark schemes – for secure Internet services and so on – seem harmless but irrelevant.

The more contentious recommendations revolve around the idea that we the people need to be protected, and that it's no longer realistic to lay the burden of Internet security on individual computer users. I've said for years that ISPs should do more to stop spam (or "bad traffic") from exiting their systems; this report agrees with that idea. There will likely be a lot of industry ink spilled over the idea of making hardware and software vendors liable if "negligence can be demonstrated". What does "vendor" mean in the context of the Internet, where people decide to download software on a whim? What does it mean for open source? If I buy a copy of Red Hat Linux with a year's software updates, that company's position as a vendor is clear enough. But if I download Ubuntu and install it myself?

Finally, you have to twitch a bit when you read, "This may well require reduced adherence to the 'end-to-end' principle." That is the principle that holds that the network should carry only traffic, and that services and applications sit at the end points. The Internet's many experiments and innovations are due to that principle.
The report's basic claim is this: criminals are increasingly rampant and increasingly rapacious on the Internet. If this continues, people will catastrophically lose confidence in the Internet. So we must improve security by making the Internet safer. Couldn't we just make it safer by letting people stop using it? That's what people tell you to do when you're going to Defcon.

Wendy M. Grossman’s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 3:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Las Vegas really is the perfect place to put a security conference: don't security people always feel like an island of sanity surrounded by lunatic gamblers? Although, equally, it's probably true that Las Vegas casinos probably have some of the smartest security in the world when it comes to making sure that the house will always win.

A repeated source of humor this week at Black Hat has been the responses from various manufacturers when they're told that their systems are in fact hackable. My favorite was the presentation explaining how to hack the RDS-TMC radio service that delivers information about upcoming traffic jams and other disruptions to in-car satellite navigation systems. The industry's response to the news that Italian guys could effectively control traffic was pretty much that even if it was possible, which they seemed inclined to doubt, it would take a lot of knowledge, and anyway, it's illegal…

Adam Laurie got a similar response from RFID people when he showed you could in fact crack one of those all-singing, all-dancing new e-passports and, more than that, that you can indeed clone those supposedly "unique" RFID chips with a device small enough that you could pick up the information you need just standing next to someone in an elevator. (What a Las Vegas close-up magician could do with one of those…)

The industry's response to the news that Laurie could clone ID tags was to complain triumphantly that Laurie's clones "don't have the same form factor". You're an RFID chip reader. What do you see?
"I believe in full disclosure," said Laurie. "They must know you can program in any ID you want." But that's not what they tell the public.

And then there's mobile phone malware, which according to F-secure's Mikko Hypponen is about where PC viruses were ten years ago. We have, he figures, a chance to stop them now, so we won't wind up ten years from now with all the same security risks that we face with PCs. Some of the biggest manufacturers have joined the Trusted Computing Group (an effort to secure computer systems that unfortunately has the problem that it treats the user as a potentially hostile invader).

But viruses and other bad things spread a lot faster between mobile phones because they are specifically designed for…communication. The average smartphone has Bluetooth, infrared, USB, and its network connection, and each of those is a handy way of getting a virus into the phone, not to mention also MMS, user downloads, and memory card slots. And, in future, probably WLAN, email, SMS, and even P2P. This is the bad side of having phones that can run third-party applications and that are designed to be, damn it, communications devices.

Viruses that spread by Bluetooth are particularly entertaining because of the way Bluetooth's software handles incoming connections. Say a nearby phone tries to send your phone a virus. Your phone puts up a message asking you to confirm that you want to accept it. You click No. The message instantly reappears (viruses don't like to take no for an answer). There is in fact a simple solution: walk out of range. But most users don't know to do this, and in the meantime until they say Yes, their phone is unusable. The first virus to appear in the wild, 2004's Cabir, spreads very easily if users do something risky – like turn on their phone.

This is obviously a design problem caused by a failure of imagination, even though anti-virus companies such as Kaspersky have been warning for at least a decade that as the computing power of mobile phones increased they would become vulnerable to the same problems as desktop computers.

By far the vast majority of mobile phone malware is written for Symbian phones, by the way. Palm, Windows Mobile, and other operating systems barely figure in F-Secure's statistics. Trojans are the biggest threat, and the biggest way phones get infected is user downloads.

It would not noticeably ruin the user experience for mobile phone manufacturers to change the way Bluetooth handles such incoming requests.

It took the Meet the Feds panel to regain a sense of proportion. The most a mobile phone virus can do to a new phone equipped with a mobile wallet is steal your money and send out text messages to all your contacts that will alienate them forever, leaving you with a ruined life. (Take comfort from the words of the novelist Edward Whittemore, in his book Sinai Tapestry: "No one was safe, and there was no security – just life itself.")

Bad security is still bad security, and "the Feds" sure do a lot of it, and the rather stolid face they present to the public pushes us to regard them as comical. But they're gambling with far bigger consequences than any of us, as Chris Marshall of the NSA reminded everyone. He was out to dinner with his counterparts from a variety of countries, and they were discussing what "homeland security" really means. The representative from New Zealand spoke up: he has children living in New Zealand, Australia, the US, and France, where he also has grandchildren.

"Homeland security," he said simply, "is where my children are."

Wendy M. Grossman’s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 4:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Voter-verified paper audit trails won't save us. That was the single clearest bit of news to come out of this week's electronic voting events.

This is rather depressing, because for the last 15 years it's looked as though VVPAT (as they are euphoniously calling it) might be something everyone could compromise on.: OK, we'll let you have your electronic voting machines as long as we can have a paper backup that can be recounted in case of dispute. But no. According to Rebecca Mercuri in London this week (and others who have been following this stuff on the ground in the US), what we thought a paper trail meant is definitely not what we're getting. This is why several prominent activist organisations have come out against the Holt bill HR811, introduced into Congress this week, despite its apparent endorsement of paper trails.

I don't know about you, but when I imagined a VVPAT, what I saw in my mind's eye was something like an IBM punch card dropping individually into some kind of display where a voter would press a key to accept or reject. Instead, vendors (who hate paper trails) are providing cheap, flimsy, thermal paper in a long roll with no obvious divisions to show where individual ballots are. The paper is easily damaged, it's not clear whether it will survive the 22 months it's supposed to be stored, and the mess is not designed to ease manual recounts. Basically, this is paper that can't quite aspire to the lofty quality of a supermarket receipt.

The upshot is that yesterday you got a programme full of computer scientists saying they want to vote with pencils and paper. Joseoph Kiniry, from University College, Dublin, talked about using formal methods to create a secure system – and says he wants to vote on paper. Anne-Marie Ostveen told the story of the Dutch hacker group who bought up a couple of Nedap machines to experiment on and wound up publicly playing chess on them – and exposing their woeful insecurity – and concluded, "I want my pencil back." And so on.

The story is the same in every country. Electronic voting machines – or, more correctly, electronic ballot boxes – are proposed and brought in without public debate. Vendors promise the machines will be accurate, reliable, secure, and cheaper than existing systems. Why does anyone believe this? How can a voting computer possibly be cheaper than a piece of paper and a pencil? In fact, Jason Kitcat, a longtime activist in this area, noted that according to the Electoral Commission the cost of the 2003 pilots were astounding – in Sheffield £55 per electronic vote, and that's with suppliers waiving some charges they didn't expect either. Bear in mind, also, that the machines have an estimated life of only ten years.

Also the same: governments lack internal expertise on IT, basically because anyone who understand IT can make a lot more money in industry than in either government or the civil service.

And: everywhere vendors are secretive about the inner workings of their computers. You do not have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that privatizing democracy has serious risks.

On Tuesday, Southport LibDem MP John Pugh spoke of the present UK government's enchantment with IT. "The procurers who commission IT have a starry-eyed view of what it can do," he said. "They feel it's a very 'modern' thing." Vendors, also, can be very persuasive (I'd like to see tests on what they put in the ink in those brochures, personally). If, he said, Bill Gates were selling voting machines and came up against Tony Blair, "We would have a bill now."

Politicians are, probably, also the only class of people to whom quick counts appeal. The media, for example, ought to love slow counts that keep people glued to their TV sets, hitting the refresh button on their Web browsers, and buying newspapers throughout. Florida 2000 was a media bonanza. But it's got to be hard on the guys who can't sleep until they know whether they have a job next month.

I would propose the following principles to govern the choice of balloting systems:

- The mechanisms by which votes are counted should be transparent. Voters should be able to see that the vote they cast is the vote they intended to cast,

- Vendors should be contractually prohibited from claiming the right to keep secret their source code, the workings of their machines, or their testing procedures, and they should not be allowed to control the circumstances or personnel under which or by whom their machines are tested. (That's like letting the psychic set the controls of the million-dollar test.)

- It should always be possible to conduct a public recount of individual ballots.

Pugh made one other excellent point: paper-based voting systems are mature. "The old system was never perfect," he said, but over time "we've evolved a way of dealing with almost every conceivable problem." Agents have the right to visit every polling station and watch the count, recounts can consider every single spoiled ballot. By contrast, electronic voting presumes everything will go right.

Guys, it's a computer. Next!

Wendy M. Grossman’s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It is a truth that ought to be universally acknowledged that the more you know about computer security the less you are in favor of electronic voting. We thought – optimists that we are – that the UK had abandoned the idea after all the reports of glitches from the US and the rather indeterminate results of a couple of small pilots a few years ago. But no: there are plans for further trials for the local elections in May.

It's good news, therefore, that London is to play host to two upcoming events to point out all the reasons why we should be cautious. The first, February 6, is a screening of the HBO movie Hacking Democracy, a sort of documentary thriller. The second, February 8, is a conference bringing together experts from several countries, most prominently Rebecca Mercuri, who was practically the first person to get seriously interested in the security problems surrounding electronic voting. Both events are being sponsored by the Open Rights Group and the Foundation for Information Policy Research, and will be held at University College London. Here is further information and links to reserve seats. Go, if you can. It's free.

Hacking Democracy (a popular download) tells the story of ,a href="http://www.blackboxvoting.org">Bev Harris and Andy Stephenson. Harris was minding her own business in Seattle in 2000 when the hanging chad hit the Supreme Court. She began to get interested in researching voting troubles, and then one day found online a copy of the software that runs the voting machines provided by Diebold, one of the two leading manufacturers of such things. (And, by the way, the company whose CEO vowed to deliver Ohio to Bush.) The movie follows this story and beyond, as Harris and Stephenson dumpster-dive, query election officials, and document a steady stream of glitches that all add up to the same point: electronic voting is not secure enough to protect democracy against fraud.

Harris and Stephenson are not, of course, the only people working in this area. Among computer experts such as Mercuri, David Chaum, David Dill, Deirdre Mulligan, Avi Rubin, and Peter Neumann, there's never been any question that there is a giant issue here. Much argument has been spilled over the question of how votes are recorded; less so around the technology used by the voter to choose preferences. One faction – primarily but not solely vendors of electronic voting equipment – sees nothing wrong with Direct Recording Electronic, machines that accept voter input all day and then just spit out tallies. The other group argues that you can't trust a computer to keep accurate counts, and that you have to have some way for voters to check that the vote they thought they cast is the vote that was actually recorded. A number of different schemes have been proposed for this, but the idea that's catching on across the US (and was originally promoted by Mercuri) is adding a printer that spits out a printed ballot the voter can see for verification. That way, if an audit is necessary there is a way to actually conduct one. Otherwise all you get is the machine telling you the same number over again, like a kid who has the correct answer to his math homework but mysteriously can't show you how he worked the problem.

This is where it's difficult to understand the appeal of such systems in the UK. Americans may be incredulous – I was – but a British voter goes to the polls and votes on a small square of paper with a stubby, little pencil. Everything is counted by hand. The UK can do this because all elections are very, very simple. There is only one election – local council, Parliament – at a time, and you vote for one of only a few candidates. In the US, where a lemon is the size of an orange, an orange is the size of a grapefruit, and a grapefruit is the size of a soccer ball, elections are complicated and on any given polling day there are a lot of them. The famous California governor's recall that elected Arnold Schwarzeneger, for example, had hundreds of candidates; even a more average election in a less referendum-happy state than California may have a dozen races, each with six to ten candidates. And you know Americans: they want results NOW. Like staying up for two or three days watching the election returns is a bad thing.

It is of course true that election fraud has existed in all eras; you can "lose" a box of marked paper ballots off the back of a truck, or redraw districts according to political allegiance, or "clean" people off the electoral rolls. But those types of fraud are harder to cover up entirely. A flawed count in an electronic machine run by software the vendor allows no one to inspect just vanishes down George Orwell's memory hole.

What I still can't figure out is why politicians are so enthusiastic about all this. Yes, secure machines with well-designer user interfaces might get rid of the problem of "spoiled" and therefore often uncounted ballots. But they can't really believe – can they? – that fancy voting technology will mean we're more likely to elect them? Can it?

Wendy M. Grossman’s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 1:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A person can dream, right?

- Scrap the UK ID card. Last week's near-buried Strategic Action Plan for the National Identity Scheme (PDF) included two big surprises. First, that the idea of a new, clean, all-in-one National Identity Register is being scrapped in favor of using systems already in use in government departments; second, that foreign residents in the UK will be tapped for their biometrics as early as 2008. The other thing that's new: the bald, uncompromising statement that it is government policy to make the cards compulsory.

No2ID has pointed out the problems with the proposal to repurpose existing systems, chiefly that they were not built to do the security the legislation promised. The notion is still that everyone will be re-enrolled with a clean, new database record (at one of 69 offices around the country), but we still have no details of what information will be required from each person or how the background checks will be carried out. And yet, this is really the key to the whole plan: the project to conduct background checks on all 60 million people in the UK and record the results. I still prefer my idea from 2005: have the ID card if you want, but lose the database.

The Strategic Action Plan includes the list of purposes of the card; we're told it will prevent illegal immigration and identity fraud, become a key "defence against crime and terrorism", "enhance checks as part of safeguarding the vulnerable", and "improve customer service".

Recall that none of these things was the stated purpose of bringing in an identity card when all this started, back in 2002. Back then, first it was to combat terrorism, then it was an "entitlement card" and the claim was that it would cut benefit fraud. I know only a tiny mind criticizes when plans are adapted to changing circumstances, but don't you usually expect the purpose of the plans to be at least somewhat consistent? (Though this changing intent is characteristic of the history of ID card proposals going back to the World Wars. People in government want identity cards, and try to sell them with the hot-button issue of the day, whatever it is.

As far as customer service goes, William Heath has published some wonderful notes on the problem of trust in egovernment that are pertinent here. In brief: trust is in people, not databases, and users trust only systems they help create. But when did we become customers of government, anyway? Customers have a choice of supplier; we do not.

- Get some real usability into computing. In the last two days, I've had distressed communications from several people whose computers are, despite their reasonable and best efforts, virus-infected or simply non-functional. My favourite recent story, though, was the US Airways telesales guy who claimed that it was impossible to email me a ticket confirmation because according to the information in front of him it had already been sent automatically and bounced back, and they didn't keep a copy. I have to assume their software comes with a sign that says, "Do not press this button again."

Jakob Nielson published a fun piece this week, a list of top ten movie usability bloopers. Throughout movies, computers only crash when they're supposed to, there is no spam, on-screen messages are always easily readable by the camera, and time travellers have no trouble puzzling out long-dead computer systems. But of course the real reason computers are usable in movies isn't some marketing plot by the computer industry but the same reason William Goldman gave for the weird phenomenon that movie characters can always find parking spaces in front of their destination: it moves the plot along. Though if you want to see the ultimate in hilarious consumer struggles with technology, go back to the 1948 version of Unfaithfully Yours (out on DVD!) starring Rex Harrison as a conductor convinced his wife is having an affair. In one of the funniest scenes in cinema, ever, he tries to follow printed user instructions to record a message on an early gramophone.

- Lose the DRM. As Charlie Demerjian writes, the high-def wars are over: piracy wins. The more hostile the entertainment industries make their products to ordinary use, the greater the motivation to crack the protective locks and mass-distribute the results. It's been reasonably argued that Prohibition in the US paved the way for organized crime to take root because people saw bootleggers as performing a useful public service. Is that the future anyone wants for the Internet?

Losing the DRM might also help with the second item on this list, usability. If Peter Gutmann is to be believed, Vista will take a nosedive downwards in that direction because of embedded copy protection requirements.

- Converge my phones. Please. Preferably so people all use just the one phone number, but all routing is least-cost to both them and me.

- One battery format to rule them all. Wouldn't life be so much easier if there were just one battery size and specification, and to make a bigger battery you'd just snap a bunch of them together?

Happy New Year!

Wendy M. Grossman’s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 3:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Elections have always had two parts: the election itself, and the dickering beforehand (and occasionally afterwards) over who gets to vote. The latest move in that direction: at the end of September the House of Representatives passed the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 (H.R. 4844), which from 2010 will prohibit election officials from giving anyone a ballot who can't present a government-issued photo ID whose issuing requirements included proof of US citizenship. (This lets out driver's licenses, which everyone has, though I guess it would allow passports, which relatively few have.)
These days, there is a third element: specifying the technology that will tabulate the votes. Democracy depends on the voters' being able to believe that what determines the election is the voters' choices rather than the latter two.

The last of these has been written about a great deal in technology circles over the last decade. Few security experts are satisfied with the idea that we should trust computers to do "black box voting" where they count up and just let us know the results. Even fewer security experts are happy with the idea that so many politicians around the world want to embrace: Internet (and mobile phone) voting.

The run-up to this year's mid-term US elections has seen many reports of glitches. My favorite recent report comes from a test in Maryland, where it turned out that the machines under test did not communicate with each other properly when the touch screens were in use. If they don't communicate correctly, voters might be able to vote more than once. Attaching mice to the machines solves the problem – but the incident is exactly the kind of wacky glitch that's familiar from everyday computing life and that can take absurd amounts of time to resolve. Why does anyone think that this is a sensible way to vote? (Internet voting has all the same risks of machine glitches, and then a whole lot more.)

The 2000 US Presidential election isn’t as famous for the removal from the electoral rolls in Florida of few hundred thousand voters as it is for hanging chad – but read or watch on the subject. Of course, wrangling over who gets to vote didn't start then. Gerrymandering districts, fighting over giving the right to vote to women, slaves, felons, expatriates…

This is in fact the sort of point that opponents are making.

There are plenty of other logistical problems, of course, such as: what about absentee voters? I registered in Ithaca, New York, in 1972. A few months before federal primaries, the Board of Elections there mails me a registration form; returning it gets me absentee ballots for the Democratic primaries and the elections themselves. I've never known whether my vote is truly anonymous; nor whether it's actually counted. I take those things on trust, just as, I suppose, the Board of Elections trusts that the person sending back these papers is not some stray British person who's does my signature really well. To insert voter ID into that process would presumably require turning expatriate voters over to, say, the US Embassies, who are familiar with authentication and checking identity documents.

Given that most countries have few such outposts, the barriers to absentee voting would be substantially raised for many expatriates. Granted, we're a small portion of the problem. But there's a direct clash between the trend to embrace remote voting - the entire state of Oregon votes by mail – and the desire to authenticate everyone.
We can fix most of the voting technology problems by requiring voter-verifiable, auditable, paper trails, as Rebecca Mercuri began pushing for all those years ago (and most computer scientists now agree with), and there seem to be substantial moves in that direction as state electors test the electronic equipment and scientists find more and more serious potential problems. Twenty-seven states now have laws requiring paper trails. But how we control who votes is the much more difficult and less talked-about frontier.

Wendy M. Grossman’s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 12:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Could mobile phones be the solution to online security problems? Fred Piper posed this question yesterday to a meeting of the UK branch of the Information Systems Security Association (something like half of whom he'd taught at one point or another).

It wasn't that Piper favored the idea. He doesn't, he said, have a mobile phone. He was putt off the whole idea long ago by an ad he saw on TV that said the great thing about mobile phones was when you left the office it would go with you. He doesn't want to be that available. (This is, by the way, an old concern. I have a New Yorker cartoon from about the 1970s that shows a worried, harassed-looking businessman walking down the street being followed by a ringing telephone on a very long cord.)

But from his observation, mobile phones (PPT) are quietly sneaking their way into the security chain without anyone's thinking too much or too deeply about it. This trend he calls moving from two-factor authentication to two-channel authentication. You can see the sense of it. You want to do some online banking, so for extra security your bank could, in response to your entering your user name and password, send you a code to your previously registered mobile phone, which you then type into the Web site (PDF) as an extra way of proving you're you.

One reason things are moving in this direction is that even though security is supposed to be getting better in some ways it's actually regressing. For one thing, these days impersonating someone is easier than cracking the technology – so impersonation has become the real threat.

For another thing, there are traditionally three factors that may be used in creating an authentication system: something you know (a PIN or credit card number), something you have (a physical credit, ATM, or access card), or something you are (a personal characteristic such as a biometric). In general, good security requires at least two such factors. That way, if one factor is compromised although the security system is weakened it's not broken altogether.

But, despite the encryption protecting credit card details online, since you are not required to present the physical card, most of the time our online transactions rely for authentication on a single factor: something we know. The upshot is that credit cards no longer are as secure as in the physical world, where they rely on two factors, the physical card and something you know (the PIN or the exact shape of your signature). "The credit card number has become an extended password," he said.

Mobile phones have some obvious advantages. Most people have one, so you're not asking people to buy special readers, as you would have to if you wanted to use a smart card as an authentication token. To the consumer, using a mobile phone for authentication seems like a freel lunch. Most people, once they have one, carry them everywhere. So you're not asking them to keep track of anything more than they already are. The channel, as in the connection to the mobile phone, is owned by known entities and already secured by them. And mobile phones are intelligent devices (even if the people speaking into them on the Tube are not).

In addition, if you compare the cost of using mobile phones as a secure channel to exchange one-time passwords for specific sessions to the cost of setting up a public key infrastructure to do the same thing, it's clearly cheaper and less unwieldy.

There are some obvious disadvantages, too. There are black holes with no coverage. Increasingly, mobile phones will be multi-network devices. They will be able tocommunicate over the owned, relatively secure channel – but they will also be able to use insecure channels such as wi-fi. In addition, Bluetooth can add more risks.

Another possibility that occurs to me is that if mobile phones start being used in bank authentication systems we will see war-dialling of mobile phone numbers and phishing attacks on a whole new scale. Yes, such an attack would require far greater investment than today's phishing emails, but the rewards could be worth it. In a different presentation at the same meeting, Mike Maddison, a consultant with Deloitte, presented the results of surveys it's conducted of three industry sectors: financial services, telecommunications and media, and life sciences. All three say the same thing: attacks are becoming more sophisticated and more dangerous, and the teenaged hacker has been largely replaced by organised crime.

Piper was not proposing a "Mobile Key Infrastructure" as a solution. What he was suggesting is that phones are already being used in this way, and security professionals should be thinking about what it means and where the gotchas are going to be. In privacy circles, we talk a lot about mission creep. In computer software we talk about creeping featurism. I don't know if security folks have a standard phrase for what we're talking about here. But it seems to me that if you're going to build a security infrastructure it ought to be because you had a plan, not because a whole bunch of people converged on it.

Wendy M. Grossman’s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 1:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

I've never been much for conspiracy theories – in general, I tend to believe that I'm not important enough to be worth conspiring against – but if I were, this week would be a valid time. On Monday, they began lifting the draconian baggage restrictions imposed late last week. On Wednesday, we began seeing stories questioning the plausibility, chemistrywise, of the plot as we have been told it so far. On Thursday, the Guardian published a package of stories outlining the wonderful increased surveillance we have in store. Repeat after me: the timing is just coincidence. It is sheer paranoia to attribute to conspiracy what can be accounted for by coincidence.

Right.

One of the things I meant to mention in last week's net.wars but forgot is the US's new rules on passenger data, which require airlines to submit passenger records before the plane takes off instead of, as formerly, afterwards. Ed Hasbrouck has a helpful analysis of these new rules, their problems, and their probable costs. (has anyone calculated the lost productivity cost of the hours in airport security?). The EU now wants to adopt those rules for its ownself, a sad reversal from the notion that the EU might decline to provide passenger data to a country that has so little privacy protection.

One possibility that's been raised on both sides of the Atlantic is a "trusted passenger" scheme, whereby frequent travelers can register to be fast-tracked through the airport. In a sense, most airports already have the beginnings of such a scheme: frequent flyers. As a Gold Preferred US Airways Dividend Miles member, you use the first-class check-in, and in some airports even sped through security via a special line. Do I love it? You betcha. Do I think it's good security? No. If I were a terrorist wanting to get some of my cellmates onto planes to wreak havoc, I would have them flying all over the place building up a stainless profile until everyone trusted them. Only then would they be ready for activation. Obviously the scheme the security services have in mind will be more sophisticated and involve far more background checking, but the problem of the sleeper remains. It's like people who used to talk about gaming the system by getting a "dope-dealer's haircut" before traveling internationally: short, neat, and business-like. That will be the "terrorist's travel identity": suit, tie, briefcase, laptop, frequent flyer gold status, documented blameless existence.

The UK is also talking about "positive profiling" (although Statewatch notes that no explicit references to this appear in the joint press statement), which I guess is supposed to be more sophisticated than "Let's strip search all the Asian passengers" The now-MP-formerly-one-of-my-favorite-actresses Glenda Jackson has published a fairly cogent set of counter-arguments, though I'll note picayunally that the algorithm for picking passengers to search randomly had better be less clearly visible than just picking every third passenger in the queue. (You must immediately! report anyone who asks to change places with you!) The Home Secretary, John Reid, has said that such profiling will not target racial or religious groups but will be based on biometrics – fingerprints, iris scans. We hope Reid is aware of the years of research into fingerprints (DOC) attempting to prove that you could identify criminality in a fingerprint.

Closer to net.wars' heart is ministers' intention to make the Web hostile to terrorists. For example: by blocking Web sites that incite acts of terrorism or contain instructions on how to make a bomb. Aside from the years of evidence that blocking does not work, it's hard to see how you can get rid of bomb-making instructions, such as they are, without also getting rid of pretty much any Web site devoted to chemistry or safety. Though if you're an arts-educated politician who is proud of knowing little of science, that may seem like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Show me someone who's curious, who wants to know how things work, who likes to try making things and soldering things, and playing with electrical circuits, and I'll show you a dangerous specimen.

But beyond that, I'll bet professional terrorists do not learn how to make bombs by reading Wikipedia.or typing "how make bomb" into Google.

I'm not sure how you make the Web hostile to terrorists without making it hostile to everyone. If you really want to make the Web hostile, the simplest way is simply to limit, by government fiat, the speed of the connection anyone is allowed to buy. Shove us all back to dial-up, and not only does the Web become hostile for terrorists trying to find information on how to make bombs, but you've pretty much solved music/video file-trading, too. Bonus!

We hear quoted a lot, now, the American master-of-all-trades Benjamin Franklin who probably said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." But the liberties people deem essential seem to be narrowing, and no one wants to believe that safety is temporary. No plane full of passengers declines screening, saying, "We'll take our chances."

If there's a conspiracy, I guess that means we're in on it.

Wendy M. Grossman’s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 12:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The most interesting thing I heard anyone say yesterday came from Simon Sole, of Exclusive Analysis, a risk assessment company specializing in the Middle East and Africa, in an interview on CNBC. He said that it's no longer possible to track terrorists by following the money, because terrorism is now so cheap they don't need much: it cost, he said, only $4,000 to crash two Russian planes. That is an awfully long way from the kind of funding we used to hear the IRA had.

It is also clear that the arms race of trying to combat terrorism (by throwing out toothpaste in Grand Forks, North Dakota?) is speeding up. Eighteen years ago, the Lockerbie crash was caused by a bomb in checked baggage; that sparked better baggage screening. Five years ago, planes were turned into bombs by hijackers armed with small knives. The current chaos is being caused by a chemistry plot: carry on ordinary-looking items that aren't weapons in themselves and mix to make dangerous. Banning people from carrying liquids is, obviously, a lot more complicated than banning knives when you already have metal detectors. Lacking scanning technology sophisticated enough to distinguish dangerous liquids from safe ones, banning specific liquids requires detailed, item-by-item searching. Which is why, presumably, the UK (unlike the US) has banished all hand luggage to the hold: maybe they just don't have the staffing levels to search everything in a reasonable amount of time.

The UK has always hated cabin baggage anyway, and the CAA has long restricted it to 6Kg, where the US has always been far more liberal. So yesterday's extremity is the kind of panic response someone might make in a crisis when they already think carrying a laptop is a sign of poor self-control (a BA staffer once said that to me). Ban everything! Yes, even newspapers! Go!

Passengers in and leaving the US can still carry stuff on, just not liquids or gels. You may regard this as reckless or enlightened, depending on your nationality or point of view. Rich pickings in the airport garbage tonight.

The Times this morning speculates that the restrictions on hand luggage may become permanent. When you read a little more closely, they mean the restrictions on liquids, not necessarily all hand luggage. If I ran an airline, I'd be campaigning pretty heavily against yesterday's measures. For one thing, it's going to kill business travel, the industry's most profitable segment. If you can't read or use your laptop in-flight or while waiting in the airport club before departure, you're losing many hours of productivity. Plus, imagine being cabin staff trying to control a plane full of hundreds of bored, hungry, frustrated people, some of them adults.

Security expert Bruce Schneier links to a logical reason why the restrictions should be temporary: blocking a particular method only works until the terrorists switch to something else. Schneier also links to a collection of weapons made in prison under the most unpromising of circumstances with the most limited materials. View those, and you know the truth: it will never be possible to secure everything completely. Anything we do to secure air travel is a balance of trade-offs.

One reason people are so dependent on their carry-on luggage is that airline travel is uncomfortable and generally unpleasant. Passengers carry bottles of water because aircraft air is dry. I carry a milk on selected flights because I hate synthetic creamer, and dried fruit and biscuits because recent cutbacks mean on some flights you go hungry. I also carry travel chopsticks (easier to eat with than a plastic fork), magazines to read and discard, headphones with earplugs in them, and I never check anything because I hate waiting for hours for luggage that may be lost, stolen, or tampered with. Better service would render a lot of this unnecessary.

I know these measures are for our own good: we don't want planes falling out of the sky and killing people. (Though we seem perfectly innured to the many thousands more deaths every year from car crashes.) But the extremity of the British measures seems like punishment: if you are so morally depraved as to want to travel by air, you deserve to be thoroughly miserable while doing it. In fact, part of air travel's increasingly lousy service is the cost of security. We lose twice.

I read – somewhere – about a woman of a much earlier generation who expressed sadness at the thought that today's weary wanders would never know "the pleasure of traveling". We know the pleasure of being somewhere else. But we do not know the pleasure of the process of getting there as they did in a time when you were followed by trunks that were packed by servants, who came along to ensure that you were comfortable and your needs catered to. Of course, you had to be rich to afford all that. I bet it wasn't so much fun for the servants, or for the starving poor stuffed into the ship's hold. Even so, yesterday I thought about that a lot, and with the same kind of sadness.

Wendy M. Grossman’s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 1:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If there is one thing we always said about the ID card it's that it was going to be tough to implement. About ten days ago, the Sunday Times revealed how tough: manufacturers are oddly un-eager to bid to make something that a) the Great British Public is likely to hate, and b) they're not sure they can manufacture anyway. That suggests (even more strongly than before) that in planning the ID card the government operated like an American company filing a dodgy patent: if we specify it, they will come.

I sympathize with IBM and the other companies, I really do. Anyone else remember 1996, when nearly all the early stories coming out of the Atlanta Olympics blamed IBM' prominently for every logistical snafu? Some really weren't IBM's fault (such as the traffic jams). Given the many failures of UK government IT systems, being associated with the most public, widespread, visible system of all could be real stock market poison.

But there's a secondary aspect to the ID card that I, at least, never considered before. It's akin to the effect often seen in the US when an amendment to the Constitution is proposed. Even if it doesn't get ratified in enough states – as, for example, the Equal Rights Amendment did not – the process of considering it often inspires a wave of related legislation. The fact that ID cards, biometric identifiers, and databases are being planned and thought about at such a high level seems to be giving everyone the idea that identity is the hammer for every nail.

Take, for example, the announcement a couple of days ago of NetIDme, a virtual ID card intended to help kids identify each other online and protect them from the pedophiles our society apparently now believes are lurking behind every electron.

There are a lot of problems with this idea, worthy though the intentions behind it undoubtedly are. For one thing, placing all your trust in an ID scheme like this is a risk in itself. To get one of these IDs, you fill out a form online and then a second one that's sent to your home address and must be counter-signed by a professional person (how like a British passport) and a parent if you're under 18. It sounds to me as though this system would be relatively easy to spoof, even if you assume that no professional person could possibly be a bad actor (no one has, after all, ever fraudulently signed passports). No matter how valid the ID is when it's issued, in the end it's a computer file protected by a password; it is not physically tied to the holder in any way, any more than your Hotmail ID and password are. For a third thing, "the card removes anonymity," the father who designed the card, Alex Hewitt, told The Times. But anonymity can protect children as well as crooks. And you'd only have to infiltrate the system once to note down a long list of targets for later use.

But the real kicker is in NetIDme's privacy policy, in which the fledgling company makes it absolutely explicit that the database of information it will collect to issue IDs is an asset of a business: it may sell the database, the database will be "one of the transferred assets" if the company itself is sold, and you explicitly consent to the transfer of your data "outside of your country" to wherever NetIDme or its affiliates "maintain facilities". Does this sound like child safety to you?

But NetIDme and other systems – fingerprinting kids for school libraries, iris-scanning them for school cafeterias – have the advantage that they can charge for their authentication services. Customers (individuals, schools) have at least some idea of what they're paying for. This is not true for the UK's ID card, whose costs and benefits are still unclear, even after years of dickering over the legislation. A couple of weeks ago, it became known that as of October 5 British passports will cost £66, a 57 percent increase that No2ID attributes in part to the costs of infrastructure needed for ID cards but not for passports. But if you believe the LSE's estimates, we're not done yet. Most recent government estimates are that an ID card/passport will cost £93, up from £85 at the time of the LSE report. So, a little quick math: the LSE report also guessed that entry into the national register would cost £35 to £40 with a small additional charge for a card, so revising that gives us a current estimate of £38.15 to £43.60 for registration alone. If no one can be found to make the cards but the government tries to forget ahead with the database anyway, it will be an awfully hard sell. "Pay us £40 to give us your data, which we will keep without any very clear idea of what we're going to do with it, and in return maybe someday we'll sell you a biometric card whose benefits we don't know yet." If they can sell that, they may have a future in Alaska selling ice boxes to Eskimos.

Wendy M. Grossman’s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 1:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

It's funny. Half the time we hear that the security of the nation depends on the security of its networks. The other half the time we're being told by governments that if the networks are too secure the security of the nation is at risk.

This schizophrenia was on display this week in a ruling by the US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, which ruled in favor of the Federal Communications Commission: yes, the FCC can extend the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act to VoIP providers. Oh, yeah, and other people providing broadband Internet access, like universities.

Simultaneously, a clutch of experts – to wit, Steve Bellovin (Columbia University), Matt Blaze (University of Pennsylvania), Ernest Brickell (Intel), Clinton Brooks (NSA, retired), Vinton Cerf (Google), Whifield Diffie (Sun), Susan Landau (Sun), Jon Peterson (NeuStar), and John Treichler (Applied Signal Technology) – released a paper explaining why requiring voice over IP to accommodate wiretapping is dangerous. Not all of these folks are familiar to me, but the ones who are could hardly be more distinguished, and it seems to me when experts on security, VOIP, Internet protocols, and cryptography all get together to tell you there's a problem, you (as in the FCC) should listen. Together, this week they released Security Implications of Applying the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act to Voice over IP (PDF), which carefully documents the problems.

First of all – and they of course aren't the only ones to have noticed this – the Internet is not your father's PSTN. On the public switched telephone network, you have fixed endpoints, you have centralized control, and you have a single, continuously open circuit. The whole point of VoIP is that you take advantage of packet switching to turn voice calls into streams of data that are more or less indistinguishable from all the other streams of data whose packets are flying alongside. Yes, many VoIP services give you phone numbers that sound the same as geographically fixed numbers – but the whole point is that neither caller nor receiver need to wait by the phone. The phone is where your laptop is. Or, possibly, where your secretary's laptop is. Or you're using Skype instead of Vonage because your contact also uses Skype.

Nonetheless, as the report notes, the apparent simplicity of VoIP, its design that makes it look as though it functions the same as old-style telephones, means that people wrongly conclude that anything you can do on the PSTN you should be able to do just as easily with VoIP.

But the real problems lie in security. There's no getting round the fact that when you make a hole in something you've made a hole through which stuff leaks out. And where in the PSTN world you had just a few huge service providers and a single wire you could follow along and place your wiretap wherever was most secure, in the VoIP world you have dozens of small providers, and an unpredictable selection of switching and routing equipment. You can't be sure any wiretap you insert will be physically controlled by the VoIP provider, which may be one of dozens of small operators. Your targets can create new identities at no cost faster than you can say "pre-pay mobile phone". You can't be sure the signals you intercept can be securely transported to Wiretap Central. The smart terminals we use have a better chance of detecting the wiretap – which is both good and bad, in terms of civil liberties. Under US law, you're supposed to tap only the communications pertaining to the court authorization; difficult to do because of the foregoing. And then, there's a hole, as the IETF observed in 2000, which could be exploited by someone else. Whom do you fear more will gain access to your communications: government, crook, hacker, credit reporting agency, boss, child, parent, or spouse? Fun, isn't it?

And then there's the money. American ISPs can look forward to the cost of CALEA with all the enthusiasm that European ISPs had for data retention. Here, the government helpfully provided its own data: a VoIP provider paid $100,000 to a contractor to develop its CALEA solution, plus a monthly fee of $14,000 to $15,000 and, on top of that, $2,000 for each intercept.

Two obvious consequences. First: VoIP will be primarily sold by companies overseas into the US because in general the first reason people buy VoIP is that it's cheap. Second: real-time communications will migrate to things that look a lot less like phone calls. The report mentions massively multi-player online role-playing games and instant messaging. Why shouldn't criminals adopt pink princess avatars and kill a few dragons while they plot?

It seems clear that all of this isn't any way to run a wiretap program, though even the report (two of whose authors, Landau and Diffie, have written a history of wiretapping) allows that governments have a legitimate need to wiretap, within limits. But the last paragraph sounds like a pretty good way to write a science fiction novel. In fact, something like the opening scenes of Vernor Vinge's new Rainbows End.

Wendy M. Grossman’s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series. Readers are welcome to post here, at net.wars home, at her personal blog, or by email to netwars@skeptic.demon.co.uk (but please turn off HTML).

Posted by Wendy M. Grossman at 2:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)