[LINK] Security 'vs.' Privacy [Was Re: A security question
At 11:09 +1030 19/12/13, Janet Hawtin wrote: Where do security/privacy overlap? Reject the 'you can have security or privacy - choose one' mythology. It was created by national security extremists to get control of the agenda. There are multiple alternative scope definitions, from data, via the organisation, external users, industry sectors, nations and society, up to the biosphere. All are legitimate. (If defined sensibly, and kept under democratic control, 'national security' included). All have to be traded off against one another. All powers and rights have to be subject to controls. That applies to the security interests of individuals. And it applies even more so to the interests of the very powerful, including and especially intel agencies. http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/OECDS-1311.html http://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/WS-1301.html If the question is 'how do privacy and *data* security overlap?', then the way I've always put it is that 'data security is about 1/12th of privacy'. That's intentionally glib (for radio and TV, and attention-grabbing). It's justifiable on the basis that 'data security' is covered by just one of the c. 12 Principles that make up data privacy protection. -- Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/ Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 2 6288 6916http://about.me/roger.clarke mailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.auhttp://www.xamax.com.au/ Visiting Professor in the Faculty of LawUniversity of N.S.W. Visiting Professor in Computer ScienceAustralian National University ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] Security 'vs.' Privacy [Was Re: A security question
On 19 December 2013 11:35, Roger Clarke roger.cla...@xamax.com.au wrote: At 11:09 +1030 19/12/13, Janet Hawtin wrote: Where do security/privacy overlap? Reject the 'you can have security or privacy - choose one' mythology. I am playing an online computer game. It used to have trouble with bot players distorting the economy. It does not now. Other players said that the game can now check if the computer is running a bot through the Windows desktop. I thought that was interesting. Facebook. Political parties have people liking them or not. Campaigns for civil rights, through Facebook and other sites. People liking companies and products. Music, film, books each other Twitter ongoing opinions and connections Phone apps pick a topic.. Customised search results. Meanwhile cases are being fought to have evidence in camera for motorbike groups. TPP is conducted secretly. How much of UN or WIPO is accessible publically. imho people are becoming transparent systems government and corporate interests have the means and leverage to secure privacy. that changes the balance of rights companies are not people that used to mean rights for people allowed for civil rights. what does it mean now? voting is private what does that mean now if everything outside the ballot box is transparent what were the reasons for political privacy, how does democracy tilt without it i think the public and private spheres are getting different pressures on security/privacy i don't think we are talking about the both of them in context and what they mean in terms of power differential/right of way. ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] Security 'vs.' Privacy [Was Re: A security question
Great stuff Janet! Join an appropriate Committee or Board of APF, or EFA, and multiply your and our impacts. http://www.privacy.org.au/About/Contacts.html http://www.efa.org.au _ At 12:22 +1030 19/12/13, Janet Hawtin wrote: On 19 December 2013 11:35, Roger Clarke mailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.auroger.cla...@xamax.com.au wrote: At 11:09 +1030 19/12/13, Janet Hawtin wrote: Where do security/privacy overlap? Reject the 'you can have security or privacy - choose one' mythology. I am playing an online computer game. It used to have trouble with bot players distorting the economy. It does not now. Other players said that the game can now check if the computer is running a bot through the Windows desktop. I thought that was interesting. Facebook. Political parties have people liking them or not. Campaigns for civil rights, through Facebook and other sites. People liking companies and products. Music, film, books each other Twitter ongoing opinions and connections Phone apps pick a topic.. Customised search results. Meanwhile cases are being fought to have evidence in camera for motorbike groups. TPP is conducted secretly. How much of UN or WIPO is accessible publically. imho people are becoming transparent systems government and corporate interests have the means and leverage to secure privacy. that changes the balance of rights companies are not people that used to mean rights for people allowed for civil rights. what does it mean now? voting is private what does that mean now if everything outside the ballot box is transparent what were the reasons for political privacy, how does democracy tilt without it i think the public and private spheres are getting different pressures on security/privacy i don't think we are talking about the both of them in context and what they mean in terms of power differential/right of way. -- Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/ Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 2 6288 6916http://about.me/roger.clarke mailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.auhttp://www.xamax.com.au/ Visiting Professor in the Faculty of LawUniversity of N.S.W. Visiting Professor in Computer ScienceAustralian National University ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] Security 'vs.' Privacy [Was Re: A security question
if n entities(individuals and companies) have effectively infinite wealth leverage and privacy why would transparent civil groups have an impact if the law can be changed through secret trade agreements (dmca) and governments do not resist private priorities. people learn from what happens to those who seek change eg. what happens to whistle blowers? if change is possible it needs to address $ and other leverage. do the entities who have the leverage want it to change? what would make change attractive to those entities? On 19 December 2013 13:04, Roger Clarke roger.cla...@xamax.com.au wrote: Great stuff Janet! Join an appropriate Committee or Board of APF, or EFA, and multiply your and our impacts. http://www.privacy.org.au/About/Contacts.html http://www.efa.org.au _ At 12:22 +1030 19/12/13, Janet Hawtin wrote: On 19 December 2013 11:35, Roger Clarke mailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.auroger.cla...@xamax.com.au wrote: At 11:09 +1030 19/12/13, Janet Hawtin wrote: Where do security/privacy overlap? Reject the 'you can have security or privacy - choose one' mythology. I am playing an online computer game. It used to have trouble with bot players distorting the economy. It does not now. Other players said that the game can now check if the computer is running a bot through the Windows desktop. I thought that was interesting. Facebook. Political parties have people liking them or not. Campaigns for civil rights, through Facebook and other sites. People liking companies and products. Music, film, books each other Twitter ongoing opinions and connections Phone apps pick a topic.. Customised search results. Meanwhile cases are being fought to have evidence in camera for motorbike groups. TPP is conducted secretly. How much of UN or WIPO is accessible publically. imho people are becoming transparent systems government and corporate interests have the means and leverage to secure privacy. that changes the balance of rights companies are not people that used to mean rights for people allowed for civil rights. what does it mean now? voting is private what does that mean now if everything outside the ballot box is transparent what were the reasons for political privacy, how does democracy tilt without it i think the public and private spheres are getting different pressures on security/privacy i don't think we are talking about the both of them in context and what they mean in terms of power differential/right of way. -- Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/ Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 2 6288 6916http://about.me/roger.clarke mailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.auhttp://www.xamax.com.au/ Visiting Professor in the Faculty of LawUniversity of N.S.W. Visiting Professor in Computer ScienceAustralian National University ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] Security 'vs.' Privacy [Was Re: A security question
Better still, Janet, please start 'Privacy and Freedom Underground'. With those insights, you can do the activist stuff that us stuffy suits have to stay away from in order to seem respectable (:-)} At 13:16 +1030 19/12/13, Janet Hawtin wrote: if n entities(individuals and companies) have effectively infinite wealth leverage and privacy why would transparent civil groups have an impact if the law can be changed through secret trade agreements (dmca) and governments do not resist private priorities. people learn from what happens to those who seek change eg. what happens to whistle blowers? if change is possible it needs to address $ and other leverage. do the entities who have the leverage want it to change? what would make change attractive to those entities? ___ On 19 December 2013 13:04, Roger Clarke mailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.auroger.cla...@xamax.com.au wrote: Great stuff Janet! Join an appropriate Committee or Board of APF, or EFA, and multiply your and our impacts. http://www.privacy.org.au/About/Contacts.htmlhttp://www.privacy.org.au/About/Contacts.html http://www.efa.org.auhttp://www.efa.org.au _ At 12:22 +1030 19/12/13, Janet Hawtin wrote: On 19 December 2013 11:35, Roger Clarke mailto:mailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.auroger.cla...@xamax.com.aumailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.auroger.cla...@xamax.com.au wrote: At 11:09 +1030 19/12/13, Janet Hawtin wrote: Where do security/privacy overlap? Reject the 'you can have security or privacy - choose one' mythology. I am playing an online computer game. It used to have trouble with bot players distorting the economy. It does not now. Other players said that the game can now check if the computer is running a bot through the Windows desktop. I thought that was interesting. Facebook. Political parties have people liking them or not. Campaigns for civil rights, through Facebook and other sites. People liking companies and products. Music, film, books each other Twitter ongoing opinions and connections Phone apps pick a topic.. Customised search results. Meanwhile cases are being fought to have evidence in camera for motorbike groups. TPP is conducted secretly. How much of UN or WIPO is accessible publically. imho people are becoming transparent systems government and corporate interests have the means and leverage to secure privacy. that changes the balance of rights companies are not people that used to mean rights for people allowed for civil rights. what does it mean now? voting is private what does that mean now if everything outside the ballot box is transparent what were the reasons for political privacy, how does democracy tilt without it i think the public and private spheres are getting different pressures on security/privacy i don't think we are talking about the both of them in context and what they mean in terms of power differential/right of way. -- Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/http://www.rogerclarke.com/ Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA Tel: tel:%2B61%202%206288%206916+61 2 6288 6916 http://about.me/roger.clarkehttp://about.me/roger.clarke mailto:mailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.auroger.cla...@xamax.com.au http://www.xamax.com.au/http://www.xamax.com.au/ Visiting Professor in the Faculty of LawUniversity of N.S.W. Visiting Professor in Computer ScienceAustralian National University ___ Link mailing list mailto:Link@mailman.anu.edu.auLink@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/linkhttp://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link -- Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/ Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 2 6288 6916http://about.me/roger.clarke mailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.auhttp://www.xamax.com.au/ Visiting Professor in the Faculty of LawUniversity of N.S.W. Visiting Professor in Computer ScienceAustralian National University ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] Security 'vs.' Privacy [Was Re: A security question
On 19 December 2013 13:22, Roger Clarke roger.cla...@xamax.com.au wrote: Better still, Janet, please start 'Privacy and Freedom Underground'. With those insights, you can do the activist stuff that us stuffy suits have to stay away from in order to seem respectable (:-)} A few 'underground' people against infinite leverage .. Public opinion en masse might be effective but we learn civics in the existing system the NSA has not prompted response en masse i am not sure what will i don't have that kind of background. ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
