5 ms·

It's this kind of stuff that really scares me. 1) Some government agency builds massive computer system containing lots of information about the general public

It's this kind of stuff that really scares me. 1) Some government agency builds massive computer system containing lots of information about the general public. 2) There are numerous obvious holes in the "massive" computer system for obvious reasons (government's haste, lack of oversight, etc). 3) The government's computers get hacked. In my opinion, numbers two and three are inevitable when number one takes place. Something similar just happened in Canada a few years ago with all of our driving information: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/06/service-ontario-kiosks-ontario-government_n_2081077.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/06/service-ontario-kios...

ohwp 13y ago
And this is one of the reasons why the argument 'got nothing to hide' doesn't count. When a hacker can access all this information it becomes easy to steal someones identity.
- GigabyteCoin 13y ago
  Can you imagine the level of backlash any government would receive if it was discovered identities were being stolen directly from them? Something like that would be grounds for a complete loss of trust in my books.
frank_boyd 13y ago
And it will always be happening, as long as data gets stored. The only way to prevent it is to not store data.
- jleader 13y ago
  That's not entirely true. Take for example, passwords. If your requirement is "store passwords securely, so they can only be used to check logins", then you implement that as salted, one-way encryption. But if you add the shadow requirement "and be able to retrieve anyone's password when the government requests it", then your password storage will inevitably be much more vulnerable.
  - dylangs1030 13y ago
    Short of a one-time pad, there's no such thing as truly secure, only theoretically secure according to time and processing constraints. I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm just saying, it's not mathematically impossible to crack a salted encryption without the cipher key.
    - jleader 13y ago
      Agreed, data not stored is more secure than data that's stored, but I stand by my point that data stored in such a way as to provide the minimal necessary access can be substantially more secure than data stored in such a way as to provide that access, plus additional back-door access for spooks.
- GigabyteCoin 13y ago
  The only way? I beg to differ. There is always more than one way to skin a cat.
verytrivial 13y ago
Author Frank Herbert imagined at least one response to what might these days be referred to as "frictionless (government) sharing": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Sabotage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Sabotage
AsymetricCom 13y ago
You're missing: 0) Your personal hardware has lots of holes in it. which changes the equation quite a bit, doesn't it?
- GigabyteCoin 13y ago
  My head has no trouble keeping my name, address, social, and other pertinent information safe from prying eyes. I don't really know what you're getting at with this comment.

ohwp 13y ago

And this is one of the reasons why the argument 'got nothing to hide' doesn't count. When a hacker can access all this information it becomes easy to steal someones identity.

GigabyteCoin 13y ago
Can you imagine the level of backlash any government would receive if it was discovered identities were being stolen directly from them? Something like that would be grounds for a complete loss of trust in my books.

frank_boyd 13y ago

And it will always be happening, as long as data gets stored. The only way to prevent it is to not store data.

jleader 13y ago
That's not entirely true. Take for example, passwords. If your requirement is "store passwords securely, so they can only be used to check logins", then you implement that as salted, one-way encryption. But if you add the shadow requirement "and be able to retrieve anyone's password when the government requests it", then your password storage will inevitably be much more vulnerable.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  Short of a one-time pad, there's no such thing as truly secure, only theoretically secure according to time and processing constraints. I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm just saying, it's not mathematically impossible to crack a salted encryption without the cipher key.
  - jleader 13y ago
    Agreed, data not stored is more secure than data that's stored, but I stand by my point that data stored in such a way as to provide the minimal necessary access can be substantially more secure than data stored in such a way as to provide that access, plus additional back-door access for spooks.
GigabyteCoin 13y ago
The only way? I beg to differ. There is always more than one way to skin a cat.

verytrivial 13y ago

Author Frank Herbert imagined at least one response to what might these days be referred to as "frictionless (government) sharing": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Sabotage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Sabotage

AsymetricCom 13y ago

You're missing: 0) Your personal hardware has lots of holes in it. which changes the equation quite a bit, doesn't it?

GigabyteCoin 13y ago
My head has no trouble keeping my name, address, social, and other pertinent information safe from prying eyes. I don't really know what you're getting at with this comment.