You Were Promised Neither Security Nor Privacy
If you remember hearing the song Istanbul (Not Constantinople) on the radio the first time around, then you remember all the predictions about what life in the 21st century was supposed to be like. Of particular note was the prediction that we would use flying cars and jet packs to get around, among other awesome technological advances.
Recently someone made the comment online (for the life of me I can’t find it now) that goes something like this: If you are the children of the people who were promised jet packs you should not be disappointed because you were not promised these things, you were promised life as depicted in Snow Crash or True Names.
Generation X for the win!
The amateur interpretation of leaked NSA documents has sparked this debate about how governments – the U.S. in particular – are undermining if not destroying the security and privacy of the ‘Net. We need no less than a “Magna Carta” to protect us, which would be a great idea if were actually being oppressed to such a degree that our liberties were being infringed upon by a despot and his arbitrary whims. For those not keeping track: the internet is not a person, nor is it run by DIRNSA.
I don’t claim to have been there at the beginning but in the early-mid 90s my first exposure to the internet was stereotypical. I knew what it took to protect global computer networks because that was my day job for the government; accessing the ‘Net (or BBSes) at home was basically the wild west. There was no Sheriff or fire department if case things got dangerous or you got robbed. Everyone knew this, no one was complaining and no one expected anything more.
What would become the commercial internet went from warez and naughty ASCII images to house hunting, banking, news, and keeping up with your family and friends. Now it made sense to have some kind of security mechanisms in place because, just like in meat-space, there are some things you want people to know and other things you do not. But the police didn't do that for you, you entrusted that to the people who were offering up the service in cyberspace, again, just like you do in the real world.
But did those companies really have an incentive to secure your information or maintain your privacy? Not in any meaningful way. For one, security is expensive and customers pay for functionality, not security. It actually makes more business sense to do the minimum necessary for security because on the off chance that there is a breach, you can make up any losses on the backs of your customers.
Secondly, your data couldn't be too secure because there was value in knowing who you are, what you liked, what you did, and who you talked to. The money you paid for your software license was just one revenue stream; a company could make even more money using and/or selling your information and online habits. Such practices manifest themselves in things like spam email and targeted ads on web sites; the people who were promised jet packs know it by another name: junk mail.
Let’s be clear: the only people who have really cared about network security are the military; everyone else is in this to make a buck (flowery, feel-good, kumbaya language notwithstanding). Commercial concerns operating online care about your privacy until it impacts their money.
Is weakening the security of a privately owned software product a crime? No. It makes crypto nerds really, really angry, but it’s not illegal. Imitating a popular social networking site to gain access to systems owned by terrorists is what an intelligence agency operating online should do (they don’t actually take over THE Facebook site, for everyone with a reading comprehension problem). Co-opting botnets? We ought to be applauding a move like that, not lambasting them.
There is something to the idea that introducing weaknesses into programs and algorithms puts more people than just terrorists and criminals at risk, but in order for that to be a realistic concern you would have to have some kind of evidence that the security mechanisms available in products today are an adequate defense against malicious attack, and they’re not. What passes for “security” in most code is laughable. Have none of the people raising this concern heard of Pwn2Own? Or that there is a global market for 0-day an the US government is only one of many, many customers?
People who are lamenting the actions of intelligence agencies talk like the internet is this free natural resource that belongs to all and come hold my hand and sing the Coca Cola song… I’m sure the Verizons of the world would be surprised to hear that. Free WiFi at the coffee shop? It’s only free to you because the store is paying for it (or not, because you didn't notice the $.05 across the board price increase on coffee and muffins when the router was installed).
Talking about the ‘Net as a human right doesn't make it so. Just like claiming to be a whistle blower doesn't make you one, or claiming something is unconstitutional when the nine people specifically put in place to determine such things hasn't ruled on the issue. You can still live your life without using TCP/IP or HTTP, you just don’t want to.
Ascribing nefarious intent to government action - in particular the NSA as depicted in Enemy of the State - displays a level of ignorance about how government - in particular intelligence agencies - actually work. The public health analog is useful in some regards, but it breaks down when you start talking about how government actions online are akin to putting civilians at risk in the real world. Our government’s number one responsibility is keeping you safe; that it has the capability to inflect harm on massive numbers of people does not mean they will use it and it most certainly does not mean they’ll use it on YOU. To think otherwise is simply movie-plot-thinking (he said, with a hint of irony).
