7 ms·

Surveillance and the Internet of Things

146 points by Tsiolkovsky 13y ago

rogerchucker 13y ago
Why does he always have to be such a pessimistic grandpa? Privacy as he knows it doesn't exist anymore because majority have made a choice to give it up in exchange of new value created by new technology. I'm unsure of what Bruce Schneier has added of any value to the society lately except his rampant skepticism. To me he's turning into a Richard Stallman of security/privacy.
- stephengillie 13y ago
  At this point, I think this may be the only way in which Schneier can get any attention. Everything else he does is too bizarre to the rest of us to be relevant. Edit: I believe I was incorrect about the email thing.
  - WickyNilliams 13y ago
    He doesn't use email like us, therefore his argument is not valid. A slight case of Ad Hominem, don't you think? Though I am curious as to what that might mean - how does he use email?
    - 16s 13y ago
      I've emailed him before. He replied to the email. I think this is how normal people use email. Just my experience.
- rubbingalcohol 13y ago
  Skepticism _is_ valuable when people otherwise blunder blindly forward. Although, I would like to see proposed solutions with his account of the problem.
  - crikli 13y ago
    I read the implication that there isn't a solution; his point seems to be that connected devices are becoming so pervasive that even if you want to avoid them you can't. The implication, at least to me, is that the only way to avoid it would be to go mountain man (I'm aware that may be a bit non-sequitor). But even that would be a wasted effort should the government, for example, decides it wants to surveil you. I've recently finished reading The Triple Agent (http://www.amazon.com/Triple-Agent-al-Qaeda-Mole-Infiltrated/dp/0307742318 http://www.amazon.com/Triple-Agent-al-Qaeda-Mole-Infiltrated...) and Manhunt (http://www.amazon.com/Manhunt-Ten-Year-Search-Laden-Abbottabad/dp/0307955885/ref=sr_1_1 http://www.amazon.com/Manhunt-Ten-Year-Search-Laden-Abbottab...). The capabilities held to detect and surveil are staggering and the abilities developed over the last decade to find and capture/kill are impressive and a bit scary.
- cytzol 13y ago
  The majority have made a choice, but not a conscious choice. Not only do many people still chase the latest shiny thing or hand over their details willy-billy without thinking of the consequences, but it's quickly becoming the default to do so, making it even less of a choice, and more just what you do in everyday life! There are plenty of things I've found worth trading my privacy for, but it's been a conscious choice every time.
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    Do you really have a choice? Some things you really need to sign up for, like say signing up for an internet connection, but you have no choice about what happens to your data. You know almost all ISPs will roll over if any authority wants your data from them. You just have to accept it if you want the service, and often things are vital services. Its not much of a choice.
  - progrock 13y ago
    Funny you say that. A lot of retail chains in the UK, ask for your postcode as you make a purchase, and basically identify you. I'm never comfortable with that arrangement, but hand out the data anyway, basically because I don't want to make a scene in public. I like the way you've phrased it: not a conscious choice. I wouldn't say that ignorance is an active part in choice making. But it certainly feels less complicated.
    - DanielStraight 13y ago
      This practice is relatively common in the US as well, and it's never turned into scene if I refused. I've also been asked for (and refused without making a scene) my phone number and email address. I just say I'd prefer not to give it out, and they go on with the process. Obviously can't vouch for the UK, but I'd say at least try it once.
      - progrock 13y ago
        You are right of course, I doubt there would be a scene, only me embarrassing myself by probably dragging out some kind of justification of not wanting to hand over my details. Perhaps it's down to being schooled in implicit compliance, and it feels a little weird! It drags you down though. Every supermarket you go to asks for your loyalty card - which I refused to opt-in to for years, but you still are confronted with the question everytime - it gets tiresome. I do my shopping by proxy, through a partners' loyalty card, and I've been pretty surprised at how sophisticated these systems have become. There's a desperate battle between outlets now for custom. Loyalty cards now lead to offers (coupons) on items from the weekly shop, and our shopping basket is quite anormal I'd say. We are actually recouping some worthwhile savings, for once. Rather than being offered some promotional discount on something I have no interest in. I feel a little wrong about it, but I no longer can resist the enticement.
- _seininn 13y ago
  And we need people like Richard Stallman to provide a contrast. That said, I think the guy provided a fair article on how things might turn out based on how they are currently progressing.
- kaoD 13y ago
  > To me he's turning into a Richard Stallman of security/privacy. Which means... that he's always right? Richard Stallman is usually dismissed due to his eccentricity, but he's ALWAYS right. AL-WAYS. I lost track on how many times I've seen the internet raging about something while I think "Richard Stallman told you so".
- sp332 13y ago
  You're saying, even though the near future will be as he describes, we shouldn't worry about it because most people prefer things that way?
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  I think the issue is that people outside of our space often fail to fully understand how information can be collected on them and how much analysis is possible. For example, people don't necessarily really understand basic stuff like client/server architecture and believe that their facebook profile just "is" without thinking that every time they do something on facebook a row is being added to a relational database on a computer that is somebody elses private property. And that row will probably never be deleted regardless of how they toggle their privacy settings.
- betterunix 13y ago
  I think you are overestimating the majority's ability to make an informed decision on these issues. Most people are still shocked by the idea of web servers keeping logs, let alone the privacy implications of their decision to use GMail or Facebook.
- asmithmd1 13y ago
  I work in the IoT space and I try to temper my enthusiasm for it when I talk to non tech people. After giving some cool examples I tell people, "Soon, Moore's Law will make it cheap enough to connect everything you own to the Internet - it is not a question of if, just when. All your things may or may not talk to you; but they will definitely be talking to each other about you."
squozzer 13y ago
I think it is up to us to figure out how to make this brave new world work. As Bruce says, the real issue now is not surveillance or even information, but power. Who gets to watch whom, and (of course) who watches the watchers? I see four strategies for coping with the issue of power -- 1) Default - maintain current trajectory - this is what most of us will do. 2) Withdraw - lower one's profile. This seems to be Bruce's plan. 3) Expose - bring buried secrets to light, and the watchers under surveillance. Expect harsh repercussions. The US govt has been increasingly secretive. It has been removing whistleblower protections for some years now. It has been punishing exposures of information more harshly than in the past (though I suppose the exposure of Valerie Plame might pass as an exception, unless your name is Scooter Libby.) 4) Disrupt -- frustrate the collection of information through jamming, feeding false info, deletion. But info seems to be cheap enough that bad info doesn't really hurt those using it.
- sinnerswing 13y ago
  > As Bruce says, the real issue now is not surveillance or even information, but power. Who gets to watch whom, and (of course) who watches the watchers? I couldn't agree more. "Fox News Reporter James Rosen’s Private Emails Given To Justice Dept. By Google" http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/affidavit-for-search-warrant/162/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/affidavit-for-se...
- cmnzs 13y ago
  I think breaking down those strategies is actually really useful. It's interesting to think of these strategies from a product development perspective as well; how will products react to new consumer strategies? 1) Default - most products will (I think) continue to collect as much data as they can 2) Withdraw - I doubt most companies will withdraw from the data collection frenzy that is the current marketplace 3) Expose - There's definitely room out there for more services that expose patterns in public data, or more mechanisms for publicizing private data (the New Yorker Strongbox, for example) 4) Disrupt - One example in this space that I love are location spoofers like MediaHint, that allow users to access content that is designed to be location-locked.
- knowaveragejoe 13y ago
cottonseed 13y ago
Speaking of feeling like science fiction, I wish everyone had read David Brin's The Transparent Society in 1998. Such a prescient book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- cottonseed 13y ago
  Some replied with this (somewhat old) response by Bruce Schneier to the Transparent Society: http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/03/securitymatters_0306 http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securityma... It is an interesting response, although I don't think I agree with his argument. I'm not sure why they deleted it.
tripzilch 13y ago
from one of the comments: > Bruce, it is getting depressing to read your posts. You don't prescribe any kind of resolution such as calling your congressperson. (I hope they were being facetious with this remark)
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  Why? Calling members of Congress is incredibly effective, especially in large volumes. Organizing politically has always been the way to create real, durable change in the law. It's how the U.S. got labor, civil rights, and environmental protections enshrined in the law despite well-funded opposition. I know it's very cool these days in Internet-land to consider the system too broken to engage, but that seems to me to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  - smacktoward 13y ago
    It's effective on an individual level, but just telling people "call your congressperson" doesn't scale. Most people are too busy to individually monitor each bill, vet it on privacy, and decide whether or not a call is needed. So to really effect change you need an organized movement or interest group that can pool the voices and resources of all those people together into something so big it can't be ignored. Currently the only group like that I know of on technology & privacy is the EFF, but so many corporate giants have an interest in eroding your privacy that you'd need to bulk up their funding base considerably to make them able to take those giants on directly. (Or go the other direction, people-power rather than money-power, and develop a base of activists who are willing to march for privacy.)
    - stinkytaco 13y ago
      I think you are right, but organized movements only work with grassroots efforts. It's up to organized movements to mobilize a grassroots base to effect change. We've seen how successful this is in political campaigns (the Republics were hurt in numerous elections by their lack of "ground game"). Additionally, and I mention this elsewhere, this is really a social problem, not technological. If the government (or corporation or powerful individual) wants to get me (via surveillance or anything else) the only thing that's stopping them from doing so is social norms and the laws those norms reflect. Without those, no amount of technology will keep me safe. With them, we can hope for a normal existence with all its requisite benefits (i.e. technology). The only way for us to protect ourselves is through political and social action.
D9u 13y ago
We don't have to use Google, nor Facebook, and we can still buy prepaid mobile phones with cash, and it's up to us just how much information we share online. Maybe I'm a hermit, but I'm online every day and images associated with my name are quite scarce. Add to that the fact that there are literally dozens of Americans who share my exact name, my privacy worries are negligle within the context proposed by the author. That said, I do agree with the premise that surveillance is growing increasingly intrusive, thus my habits outlined above.

146 points by Tsiolkovsky 13y ago

Why does he always have to be such a pessimistic grandpa? Privacy as he knows it doesn't exist anymore because majority have made a choice to give it up in exchange of new value created by new technology. I'm unsure of what Bruce Schneier has added of any value to the society lately except his rampant skepticism. To me he's turning into a Richard Stallman of security/privacy.

stephengillie 13y ago
At this point, I think this may be the only way in which Schneier can get any attention. Everything else he does is too bizarre to the rest of us to be relevant. Edit: I believe I was incorrect about the email thing.
- WickyNilliams 13y ago
  He doesn't use email like us, therefore his argument is not valid. A slight case of Ad Hominem, don't you think? Though I am curious as to what that might mean - how does he use email?
  - 16s 13y ago
    I've emailed him before. He replied to the email. I think this is how normal people use email. Just my experience.
rubbingalcohol 13y ago
Skepticism _is_ valuable when people otherwise blunder blindly forward. Although, I would like to see proposed solutions with his account of the problem.
- crikli 13y ago
  I read the implication that there isn't a solution; his point seems to be that connected devices are becoming so pervasive that even if you want to avoid them you can't. The implication, at least to me, is that the only way to avoid it would be to go mountain man (I'm aware that may be a bit non-sequitor). But even that would be a wasted effort should the government, for example, decides it wants to surveil you. I've recently finished reading The Triple Agent (http://www.amazon.com/Triple-Agent-al-Qaeda-Mole-Infiltrated/dp/0307742318 http://www.amazon.com/Triple-Agent-al-Qaeda-Mole-Infiltrated...) and Manhunt (http://www.amazon.com/Manhunt-Ten-Year-Search-Laden-Abbottabad/dp/0307955885/ref=sr_1_1 http://www.amazon.com/Manhunt-Ten-Year-Search-Laden-Abbottab...). The capabilities held to detect and surveil are staggering and the abilities developed over the last decade to find and capture/kill are impressive and a bit scary.
cytzol 13y ago
The majority have made a choice, but not a conscious choice. Not only do many people still chase the latest shiny thing or hand over their details willy-billy without thinking of the consequences, but it's quickly becoming the default to do so, making it even less of a choice, and more just what you do in everyday life! There are plenty of things I've found worth trading my privacy for, but it's been a conscious choice every time.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Do you really have a choice? Some things you really need to sign up for, like say signing up for an internet connection, but you have no choice about what happens to your data. You know almost all ISPs will roll over if any authority wants your data from them. You just have to accept it if you want the service, and often things are vital services. Its not much of a choice.
- progrock 13y ago
  Funny you say that. A lot of retail chains in the UK, ask for your postcode as you make a purchase, and basically identify you. I'm never comfortable with that arrangement, but hand out the data anyway, basically because I don't want to make a scene in public. I like the way you've phrased it: not a conscious choice. I wouldn't say that ignorance is an active part in choice making. But it certainly feels less complicated.
  - DanielStraight 13y ago
    This practice is relatively common in the US as well, and it's never turned into scene if I refused. I've also been asked for (and refused without making a scene) my phone number and email address. I just say I'd prefer not to give it out, and they go on with the process. Obviously can't vouch for the UK, but I'd say at least try it once.
    - progrock 13y ago
      You are right of course, I doubt there would be a scene, only me embarrassing myself by probably dragging out some kind of justification of not wanting to hand over my details. Perhaps it's down to being schooled in implicit compliance, and it feels a little weird! It drags you down though. Every supermarket you go to asks for your loyalty card - which I refused to opt-in to for years, but you still are confronted with the question everytime - it gets tiresome. I do my shopping by proxy, through a partners' loyalty card, and I've been pretty surprised at how sophisticated these systems have become. There's a desperate battle between outlets now for custom. Loyalty cards now lead to offers (coupons) on items from the weekly shop, and our shopping basket is quite anormal I'd say. We are actually recouping some worthwhile savings, for once. Rather than being offered some promotional discount on something I have no interest in. I feel a little wrong about it, but I no longer can resist the enticement.
_seininn 13y ago
And we need people like Richard Stallman to provide a contrast. That said, I think the guy provided a fair article on how things might turn out based on how they are currently progressing.
kaoD 13y ago
> To me he's turning into a Richard Stallman of security/privacy. Which means... that he's always right? Richard Stallman is usually dismissed due to his eccentricity, but he's ALWAYS right. AL-WAYS. I lost track on how many times I've seen the internet raging about something while I think "Richard Stallman told you so".
sp332 13y ago
You're saying, even though the near future will be as he describes, we shouldn't worry about it because most people prefer things that way?
jiggy2011 13y ago
I think the issue is that people outside of our space often fail to fully understand how information can be collected on them and how much analysis is possible. For example, people don't necessarily really understand basic stuff like client/server architecture and believe that their facebook profile just "is" without thinking that every time they do something on facebook a row is being added to a relational database on a computer that is somebody elses private property. And that row will probably never be deleted regardless of how they toggle their privacy settings.
betterunix 13y ago
I think you are overestimating the majority's ability to make an informed decision on these issues. Most people are still shocked by the idea of web servers keeping logs, let alone the privacy implications of their decision to use GMail or Facebook.
asmithmd1 13y ago
I work in the IoT space and I try to temper my enthusiasm for it when I talk to non tech people. After giving some cool examples I tell people, "Soon, Moore's Law will make it cheap enough to connect everything you own to the Internet - it is not a question of if, just when. All your things may or may not talk to you; but they will definitely be talking to each other about you."

squozzer 13y ago

I think it is up to us to figure out how to make this brave new world work. As Bruce says, the real issue now is not surveillance or even information, but power. Who gets to watch whom, and (of course) who watches the watchers? I see four strategies for coping with the issue of power -- 1) Default - maintain current trajectory - this is what most of us will do. 2) Withdraw - lower one's profile. This seems to be Bruce's plan. 3) Expose - bring buried secrets to light, and the watchers under surveillance. Expect harsh repercussions. The US govt has been increasingly secretive. It has been removing whistleblower protections for some years now. It has been punishing exposures of information more harshly than in the past (though I suppose the exposure of Valerie Plame might pass as an exception, unless your name is Scooter Libby.) 4) Disrupt -- frustrate the collection of information through jamming, feeding false info, deletion. But info seems to be cheap enough that bad info doesn't really hurt those using it.

sinnerswing 13y ago
> As Bruce says, the real issue now is not surveillance or even information, but power. Who gets to watch whom, and (of course) who watches the watchers? I couldn't agree more. "Fox News Reporter James Rosen’s Private Emails Given To Justice Dept. By Google" http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/affidavit-for-search-warrant/162/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/affidavit-for-se...
cmnzs 13y ago
I think breaking down those strategies is actually really useful. It's interesting to think of these strategies from a product development perspective as well; how will products react to new consumer strategies? 1) Default - most products will (I think) continue to collect as much data as they can 2) Withdraw - I doubt most companies will withdraw from the data collection frenzy that is the current marketplace 3) Expose - There's definitely room out there for more services that expose patterns in public data, or more mechanisms for publicizing private data (the New Yorker Strongbox, for example) 4) Disrupt - One example in this space that I love are location spoofers like MediaHint, that allow users to access content that is designed to be location-locked.
knowaveragejoe 13y ago

cottonseed 13y ago

Speaking of feeling like science fiction, I wish everyone had read David Brin's The Transparent Society in 1998. Such a prescient book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
cottonseed 13y ago
Some replied with this (somewhat old) response by Bruce Schneier to the Transparent Society: http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/03/securitymatters_0306 http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securityma... It is an interesting response, although I don't think I agree with his argument. I'm not sure why they deleted it.

tripzilch 13y ago

from one of the comments: > Bruce, it is getting depressing to read your posts. You don't prescribe any kind of resolution such as calling your congressperson. (I hope they were being facetious with this remark)

snowwrestler 13y ago
Why? Calling members of Congress is incredibly effective, especially in large volumes. Organizing politically has always been the way to create real, durable change in the law. It's how the U.S. got labor, civil rights, and environmental protections enshrined in the law despite well-funded opposition. I know it's very cool these days in Internet-land to consider the system too broken to engage, but that seems to me to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- smacktoward 13y ago
  It's effective on an individual level, but just telling people "call your congressperson" doesn't scale. Most people are too busy to individually monitor each bill, vet it on privacy, and decide whether or not a call is needed. So to really effect change you need an organized movement or interest group that can pool the voices and resources of all those people together into something so big it can't be ignored. Currently the only group like that I know of on technology & privacy is the EFF, but so many corporate giants have an interest in eroding your privacy that you'd need to bulk up their funding base considerably to make them able to take those giants on directly. (Or go the other direction, people-power rather than money-power, and develop a base of activists who are willing to march for privacy.)
  - stinkytaco 13y ago
    I think you are right, but organized movements only work with grassroots efforts. It's up to organized movements to mobilize a grassroots base to effect change. We've seen how successful this is in political campaigns (the Republics were hurt in numerous elections by their lack of "ground game"). Additionally, and I mention this elsewhere, this is really a social problem, not technological. If the government (or corporation or powerful individual) wants to get me (via surveillance or anything else) the only thing that's stopping them from doing so is social norms and the laws those norms reflect. Without those, no amount of technology will keep me safe. With them, we can hope for a normal existence with all its requisite benefits (i.e. technology). The only way for us to protect ourselves is through political and social action.

D9u 13y ago

We don't have to use Google, nor Facebook, and we can still buy prepaid mobile phones with cash, and it's up to us just how much information we share online. Maybe I'm a hermit, but I'm online every day and images associated with my name are quite scarce. Add to that the fact that there are literally dozens of Americans who share my exact name, my privacy worries are negligle within the context proposed by the author. That said, I do agree with the premise that surveillance is growing increasingly intrusive, thus my habits outlined above.