Bruce Schneier | |||||||||||
Schneier on SecurityA blog covering security and security technology. « Verifying Elections Using Risk-Limiting Auditing | Main | Yet Another Risk of Storing Everything in the Cloud » August 7, 2012Peter Swire Testifies on the Inadequacy of Privacy Self-RegulationOhio State University Law Professor Peter Swire testifies before Congress on the inadequacy of industry self-regulation to protect privacy. Posted on August 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM • 10 Comments To receive these entries once a month by e-mail, sign up for the Crypto-Gram Newsletter. Andrew G • August 7, 2012 4:25 PM I found this testimony depressing. I certainly don't share Bruce's conclusion that Swire says self-regulation is inadequate; to me he seems to harp on it as if it's some kind of moral good. He concludes "...personally I would not like to have an Internet where I believed that each moment of my browsing might be easily breached and shown to the entire world. ...That is not the experience we have today." It sounds to me exactly like the current state of affairs: Swire's assessment, and his professed optimism, seem 20 years out of date. And this is the guy advocating *stronger* privacy protections? Julien Couvreur • August 7, 2012 7:17 PM So we have a former government bureaucrat in charge of privacy policy claiming that there is insufficient privacy (in his opinion) and therefore we need more policy. Surprise! Nowhere does he actually explain how he is able to decide what are the proper trade-offs that consumers and the industry should make, or why such trade-offs should be centralized and monopolized (a single approach forced on all). I had a laugh at his first point "The threat of government regulation spurs the adoption of self-regulation." abc • August 8, 2012 1:32 AM "Privacy is just another feature which services compete on to respond to consumer preferences and demand. " I do not know whether the business keeps my password in a plaintext or not. There is no way to know. I have no access to almost any information required to decide whether my data are safe or whether the company collects more than I would agree with. There is no self regulation, because the customer is not in position to be able to decide these things. Dirk Praet • August 8, 2012 3:22 AM Self-regulation is a myth. The 2007-2008 financial crisis is but one of the countless examples showing us time and time and again how well this works. Danny Moules • August 8, 2012 5:36 AM "For you and your families, it would reduce the quality of the Internet if you thought that any page you visited needed to be treated like something that might be released to the public. That is not the experience we have today." Only because users are ignorant of what actually happens when they visit pages. If users were more familiar with what was actually happening then it would be the experience we'd have. It's certainly the experience _I_ have. vasiliy pupkin • August 8, 2012 12:15 PM @Dirk Praet.
Ian Brown • August 9, 2012 4:25 AM I've written a forthcoming book chapter on why self-regulation is unlikely to lead to "proper [privacy] trade-offs that consumers and the industry should make". Julien Couvreur • August 9, 2012 4:20 PM @abc says "I do not know whether the business keeps my password in a plaintext or not. There is no way to know." True, just like I don't know whether a business encrypts my credit card on their server. That is foreseeable and consumers can decide that they are not getting enough guarantees to earn their trust, and so abstain from using the product. As a business, you therefore have to come up with ways to signal that you are indeed doing the right thing. For example, you can offer guarantees (contract), commit publicly (put your reputation on the line), submit yourself to audits (trustEE, Underwriters Laboratory), or rely on other well-known provider (VISA certification).
Post a comment
Powered by Movable Type. Photo at top by Geoffrey Stone.
Schneier.com is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of BT. |
|
Comments