It’s ugly and getting more so. Proof that you can only rely on yourself when it comes to your digital privacy and security. You must be the one in control if you will have a chance to protect yourself. Details here. And a /. post here. After you read that you may need some comic relief:

The U.S. House of Representatives has the following to say about the TSA:

Since its inception, TSA has hired over 137,000 employees, grown into a mammoth bureaucracy
of 65,000 employees, spent almost $57 billion, yet has failed to detect any major terrorist threat
since 9/11, including the Shoe Bomber, the Underwear Bomber, the Times Square Bomber, and
the Toner Cartridge Bomb Plot. Congress created TSA to be a lean organization that would
analyze intelligence and set risk-based security standards for the U.S. transportation system.
Today, TSA suffers from bureaucratic morass and mismanagement. The agency needs to
properly refocus its resources on assessing threats and intelligence, instituting appropriate
regulations, and auditing and adjusting security performance. TSA cannot do this effectively as
a massive human resources agency.

Today, TSA‘s screening policies are based in theatrics. They are typical, bureaucratic responses to failed security policies meant to assuage the concerns of the traveling public.

The full report can be had HERE.

The report is great for those who did not already know its findings, so their education is important. However, I hope people will understand that the TSA is not a “safety” endeavor at its core. It is a planed desensitization of the people to an ongoing and increasing attempt at the removal of our rights. Don’t be fooled by the reports ulterior motive to distract you from the true cause of the TSA.

This is an excellent example of how powerful metadata can be easily parsed from the interwebs. It’s also really cool. Kudos to Eric Fischer and Mike McCandless for doing the work and to Google for making the CLD OSS.

This is likely the finest case for electronic privacy I have encountered and is worth reading.

A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto

by Eric Hughes

Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn’t want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn’t want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.

If two parties have some sort of dealings, then each has a memory of their interaction. Each party can speak about their own memory of this; how could anyone prevent it? One could pass laws against it, but the freedom of speech, even more than privacy, is fundamental to an open society; we seek not to restrict any speech at all. If many parties speak together in the same forum, each can speak to all the others and aggregate together knowledge about individuals and other parties. The power of electronic communications has enabled such group speech, and it will not go away merely because we might want it to.

Since we desire privacy, we must ensure that each party to a transaction have knowledge only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction. Since any information can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible. In most cases personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. When I ask my electronic mail provider to send and receive messages, my provider need not know to whom I am speaking or what I am saying or what others are saying to me; my provider only need know how to get the message there and how much I owe them in fees. When my identity is revealed by the underlying mechanism of the transaction, I have no privacy. I cannot here selectively reveal myself; I must always reveal myself.

Therefore, privacy in an open society requires anonymous transaction systems. Until now, cash has been the primary such system. An anonymous transaction system is not a secret transaction system. An anonymous system empowers individuals to reveal their identity when desired and only when desired; this is the essence of privacy.

Privacy in an open society also requires cryptography. If I say something, I want it heard only by those for whom I intend it. If the content of my speech is available to the world, I have no privacy. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy, and to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Furthermore, to reveal one’s identity with assurance when the default is anonymity requires the cryptographic signature.

We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their beneficence. It is to their advantage to speak of us, and we should expect that they will speak. To try to prevent their speech is to fight against the realities of information. Information does not just want to be free, it longs to be free. Information expands to fill the available storage space. Information is Rumor’s younger, stronger cousin; Information is fleeter of foot, has more eyes, knows more, and understands less than Rumor.

We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do.

We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money.

Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can’t get privacy unless we all do, we’re going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don’t much care if you don’t approve of the software we write. We know that software can’t be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can’t be shut down.

Cypherpunks deplore regulations on cryptography, for encryption is fundamentally a private act. The act of encryption, in fact, removes information from the public realm. Even laws against cryptography reach only so far as a nation’s border and the arm of its violence. Cryptography will ineluctably spread over the whole globe, and with it the anonymous transactions systems that it makes possible.

For privacy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract. People must come and together deploy these systems for the common good. Privacy only extends so far as the cooperation of one’s fellows in society. We the Cypherpunks seek your questions and your concerns and hope we may engage you so that we do not deceive ourselves. We will not, however, be moved out of our course because some may disagree with our goals.

The Cypherpunks are actively engaged in making the networks safer for privacy. Let us proceed together apace.

Onward.

Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>

9 March 1993

Do you use Dropbox? Have you read their new recently changed TOS? The following quote is from their “Your Stuff & Your Privacy” section and seems to me to have some far reaching implications that could cause some users major legal trouble. Particularly the last sentence of the quote. Think about that and the stuff you have in your folders. Additionally, the bulk of the statement regarding granting them sublicenseable rights undoubtedly relates to them making your data visible to you and those you share your information with. I suspect that this is with the best of intentions and results in broad language recommended by lawyers but, it is not restricted in any way. So the result is that it matters not what their intentions for your “stuff” are. They can do what they want with it. Just imagine if Facebook buys Dropbox at some point.

My opinion is, be informed and be cautious. It’s ok to use these services but only once you understand the consequences of doing so.

We sometimes need your permission to do what you ask us to do with your stuff (for example, hosting, making public, or sharing your files). By submitting your stuff to the Services, you grant us (and those we work with to provide the Services) worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable rights to use, copy, distribute, prepare derivative works (such as translations or format conversions) of, perform, or publicly display that stuff to the extent we think it necessary for the Service. You must ensure you have the rights you need to grant us that permission.