Make Privacy a 2016 Election Issue

EPIC has just launched "Data Protection 2016" to try to make privacy an issue in this year's elections.

You can buy swag.

Posted on February 11, 2016 at 6:13 AM • 19 Comments

Comments

keinerFebruary 11, 2016 6:57 AM

AB-SO-LUT-ELY cool!

Who get's the mild irony of buying a "Data Protection 2016" case for your Iphone or Android dumb phone?

Anybody out there?

rFebruary 11, 2016 8:24 AM

@keiner,

Who do we support in a case like this? Rand Paul?? Bernie???

Obama said he was going to reign in all this BS during his initial campaign and then quite nearly forgot.

If Bernie can get Elizabeth Warren as his running mate that could lead to somebody getting the salad tongs out.

One of the hoodies is very reasonably priced, might be a mistake? And theoretically one may be able to turn the messenger bag into a booster bag as a matter of principal lol.

keinerFebruary 11, 2016 8:36 AM

No advice from this side of the lake, make your own choice ;-) Obama was the Messiah for Europe (peace Nobel price and jokes like that), but is drone-killing people all around the world week by week. Misusing Ramstein for these war crimes.

Hard decision, no question, especially with Mr. Putin questioning the post-cold war changes to the political map in Europe induced by the US and dumb NATO.

Difficult times. Maybe Bernie will be a bit... eeehm... over his limit?

Dr. I. Needtob AtheFebruary 11, 2016 8:54 AM

"Who get's (sic) the mild irony of buying a 'Data Protection 2016' case for your Iphone or Android dumb phone?"

I'll buy one if it actually works.

keinerFebruary 11, 2016 9:44 AM

Oh, thanks Dr. Breathe, for improving my orthography! Maybe you improve your double-click skills in the meantime :-D

EPIC FAILFebruary 11, 2016 10:47 AM

We're accustomed to viewing EPIC as the real thing, compared to the accommodationist EFF. But in terms of what privacy actually legally is, EPIC's numbered facts focus almost exclusively on failures to protect our right to privacy: protection means prohibiting intrusions by entities other than the state. The state's first duty is to respect the right in its own actions. Where are the facts documenting direct state privacy interference and attacks by NSA, FBI, DEA, DHS, CIA, the Domestic Security Alliance Council, fusion centers, and state and local police?

EPIC's bullet points are more comprehensive, but EPIC takes the statist line: update state and federal privacy law. You don't need to update it, just comply with it. ICCPR Article 17 is supreme law of the land equivalent to federal statute, with which US law at all levels must come into conformity, with the assistance of precise interpretive guidance provided by General Comment 16. IACHR Article 11 is also supreme law of the land equivalent to federal statute, and US citizens have access to a petition and case system when their government fails them. UDHR Article 12 is state and federal common law.

Just goes to show, human rights chapter and verse is a bigger secret than anything Snowden ever leaked. You can't blame the US-trained lawyers and technologists for being unaware of this because they're products of state indoctrination - but Rotenberg, Pitts, Irion, and Flaherty know perfectly well what they're suppressing. Problem is, the staff's not going to break their rice bowls. You get to be a 'privacy expert' by working for the privacy rapists. That's bogus.

Dr. I. Needtob AtheFebruary 11, 2016 3:27 PM

Keiner, it was a joke! I'd buy a "Data Protection" case for my phone if it could actually protect my data. Get it?

pclobberedFebruary 11, 2016 5:16 PM

EPIC is a judas steer. If you want privacy advocates who advocate for you, not for Big Brother, stick with Joe Cannataci; the Human Rights Committee, which gave the US specific requirements for meeting its privacy obligations on 26 March 2014; and OHCHR.

End of InnocenceFebruary 11, 2016 6:30 PM

Certainly, all of the candidates seeing these buttons will listen.

Yeah, that will work! Just like how the primary works in the US, where delegates/superdelegates vote for whoever they'd want to, instead of the one who's won the primary in their state.

On second taught, these buttons may not work...

TFebruary 11, 2016 10:25 PM

@EPIC FAIL

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is towards a tangible improvement.

FFebruary 11, 2016 10:29 PM

@pclobbered

This isn't mutually exclusive. EPIC covers different ground than Joe Cannataci.

EPIC is well worth it. Privacy is worth it.

What I need to know is how EPIC will be marketing this aside from this blog and its own website.

RossFebruary 12, 2016 2:49 AM

@Bruce

Government surveillance is not a privacy issue. It is a liberty issue.

Using the word privacy is like using the words "enhanced interrogation" rather than torture, "strategic communication" rather than propaganda, or "bulk collection" rather than mass surveillance.

Blatrog SeriousnessFebruary 12, 2016 12:09 PM

Corporate-wise, I am not sure that there is a realistic agenda here. IT Security groups in corporations normally are deeply underfunded and regulations are very poor. Most of what gets done is because of PCI-DSS, and that is deeply incomplete. They do not seem to have taken into stock the major hacks over the past ten years.

Government wise, it is far more disorganized, and under funded (for the right things).

I do mean here by "disorganized" and "regulations are poor", 'flying by the seat of their pants'. Or, 'they don't know WTF they are doing'. And usually this means, "they aren't doing it".

One thing I see, even here, are critics are often entirely outside of the industry and do not understand the realities of it.

With government, you can see their arrogance on full display: private sector security experts already said back door schemes will not work. They are lobbying anyway, as if they know better. That is literally taking a stance of enmity against one of America's most powerful strengths: the technology sector.


There are government security experts. Fact is, most private sector security experts, have worked in government. Or a really damned good portion. Government sector security experts, in general, can not speak out.

Some may be biased. There is such a thing as sticking to your organization's company line.

Actually, we have had the head of the NSA speak out. So, who knows tech security better? Clapper? Or Michael Rogers?

I am perfectly willing to perform heart surgery or brain surgery on anyone, because I stayed at a Hilton last night. Not my field sure, but I am generally a competent person and a quick learner. That is the kind of attitude Clapper is showing here.


The **major** "todo" the FBI (and USSS -- United States Secret Service) need to do is provide government and corporations **data**.

We need to see as much data as possible. Who is hacking. How. Where from? Whom are they hacking? Now? Historically?

Data sets are required for funding and for defense strategies.

Instead, we rely on the "good will" of consultancies and other vendors. Their data is deeply incomplete and only summary.


Some of you may be aware of the time before seatbelts were mandated. That is what this is like, and worse. How many are dying? In what sort of accidents? How many could have been saved by seatbelts? Such things are not known.

Better, dig into car insurance, life insurance, and look at the data sets they have to work with. There is cyberinsurance, but they are working in the dark.

It is true, you can sign up with infragard and get some details. That is very weak methodology. No offense to the FBI on that, their agent here is very good and networks with corporate very well. The problem is the entire attitude. AV firms were wrong when they worked in a cabalistic manner. They were doing that not for security, but because of illusionary proprietary, selfish interests.

The 'full disclosure' approach hit hard in the late 90s and early 2000s and **worked**. It still works. And FYI, if you are wondering, look at some of the leaders resumes, and notice many came from government. They were not spies, they simply cared and were smart. It was and is a bit of a daring tactic, but it was well planned and works perfectly.

Script kiddies remain script kiddies. You can't teach that sort even if they wanted to be better. Criminal hackers with skills will continue.


For domestic abuse by authorities, well, that is another thing. Practically zero regulations and authority. The US has OK counterintelligence, but nothing remotely like that for investigating and enforcing compliance across federal, state, and local. That is where the FBI should be taking the lead. They are not.

You saw this same attitude with Robert Hanssen, the mole. The FBI refused to believe 'one of their own' could be doing that. Often books and shows depict him as a mastermind, a stealth monster. Bzzt. Wrong. Read from the desk of a counterintelligence analyst. The guy was clearly criminal. Coworkers knew it, no one could do anything.

Criminals hate "rats". That is not the sort of attitude cops should take.

Kind of fits in with the contrast of intel outperforming law. CIA calls "CIs" "agents". They respect and value them.


Blatrog SeriousnessFebruary 12, 2016 12:20 PM

@Keiner

No advice from this side of the lake, make your own choice ;-) Obama was the Messiah for Europe (peace Nobel price and jokes like that), but is drone-killing people all around the world week by week. Misusing Ramstein for these war crimes.

Keiner, Obama has and did do a lot of good. Frankly, it was even very important just that he is african american. But, the bad he has done has been significant on many areas far beyond "just" drone strikes.

Other free nations should be lobbying here. Not just Euro nations, certainly not just West Euro nations. Also, Asian, African, N and S American. Middle Eastern free nations already do.

[Obviously, I mean more lobbying.]

The Obama stance, I am sorry, was simply very unrealistic. It was unrealistic domestically, where there were similar popular showings. It was unrealistic there.

America is not an island. We do have an extremely high first and second generation population count, however. So not as backwards as we can seem.

One thing I would like to see here is adopting more postures other free nations take, which are proven to work.

No lie, nobody should forget, in the privacy and general tech sec sector, America has it better then some of the rules and regulations out there. Britain, Germany, Australia, for instance, just to name some, have some awful rules. France has some awful rules. Even Canada, in some ways, has some real liberty crushing rules.

The main changes I think need to happen in the US is towards our atrocious criminal justice system. That is tied to our domestic and foreign intelligence services. The more battered and destabilized we are because of medieval approaches to criminal justice, the more likely we are to only get worse in those ways.

Why? Because it creates an intense division in the populace and destabilizes the nation. The reaction is to react with an even harder fist and more ruthlessness. Blunt instrument the fuck out of it until everything is a bunch of broken watermelons. Instead of surgery.

Finesse.


keinerFebruary 12, 2016 3:08 PM

@Blatrog Seriousness

"America has it better then some of the rules and regulations out there."

Maybe that is (part of) the problem? The US is aggressively trying to protect a "way of life" that is not sustainable, not for 300 mio people.

Don't blame Germany for it's bad legislation, it is for more than 50 years only a US colony. They can't do better there, no way.

But I'm not here to tell you what to do and what not.

lolFebruary 12, 2016 5:06 PM

@Dr. I. Needtob Athe

As long as the "Data Protection" case for my phone comes with a tin foil lining, it will be completely worth it!!! :)

PeteRepeatFebruary 16, 2016 5:50 PM

"Frankly, it was even very important just that he is african american."

WTF does the colour of a mans skin, or eyes, have to do with ANYTHING ??
O'bomber is just a "house-negro", like all other occupants of The Big White House.
Only possible exception is Daddy-Bush, there's a real chance that he actually owns it .

Anyway, the only issue that rerally matters is : Will the Yanks elect the neo-fascist clown Trump or will they elect the neo-con prostitute Hitlary ?

Leave a comment

Allowed HTML: <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre>

Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.

Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of IBM Resilient.