Group items tagged

Interesting that ~35% of 1000 surveyed have upped the strength of their passwords, but only 6% turned on two-factor ID, which was a major cause of the iCloud hacks going undetected for so long.

It seems that two-factor authentication would not have prevented those iCloud hacks (according to this piece: http://www.tuaw.com/2014/09/02/think-iclouds-two-factor-authentication-protects-your-privacy/), but since Apple has now changed the triggers for two-factor to include things like iCloud access, two-factor will be more helpful going forward. So it is a little surprising that more people haven't enabled it.

I'm also reminded of the ACLU's Chris Soghoian's point (https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/lessons-celebrity-icloud-photo-breach) that one reason people have crappy Apple passwords is that Apple makes you use your password so darn often. I know I get frustrated when I have to enter my (crazy long) Apple password on my iPhone just to download a free app.

"The remains of a World War Two carrier pigeon which was lost in action 70 years ago while delivering a top secret message over enemy lines has been found in a chimney in Bletchingley, Surrey. The skeleton of the bird has a small red cylinder attached to its foot which contains a mysterious cigarette paper sized coded message. The message is deemed so sensitive, that Codebreakers at GCHQ in Cheltenham are now frantically trying to decipher it."

Interesting article describing the people who worked at Bletchley Park (UK) during WWII and the secrecy act that kept them silent. The article makes compelling comparisons to people today like Edward Snowden, who are legally bound to secrecy but ignore it. What are the ethical implications of being asked to keep military secrets? Of sharing military secrets? How do the differences between today's generation and the WWII generation affect how these ethics are viewed?

An interesting account of how technology can now help "crack" codes which were once thought to be impervious.

This article is interesting because the author makes an unusual comparison (between a controversial art piece and the far reaches of space) in order to make his point. Despite the differences between these two topics he melds them together in order to show the reader a new way of thinking about the concept of nothing.

Here's a recent piece by security expert Bruce Schneier on quantum computing, which is different than quantum cryptography. (I conflated the two during class today.) Quantum computing is very fast computing that could be used to quickly break modern encryption schemes. Quantum cryptography involves sending messages that can't be read, since "looking" at them changes the message. Schneier offers some conjectures about where the NSA is with regard to both technologies.

What is Visual Cryptography Visual Cryptography is a special encryption technique to hide information in images in such a way that it can be decrypted by the human vision if the correct key image is used. The technique was proposed by Naor and Shamir in 1994. Visual Cryptography uses two transparent images.

Although it doesn't directly deal with online privacy, I thought this was really cool. It is a new form of encryption involving sending a beam of two photons with only one of them acting as a "key." It could very well be the new method of securing privacy.

Ladar Levison and William Binney each paid the price for a moral stand against the U.S. government. And your digital privacy is slightly better for it.

Discusses some of the points we brought up in class and provides statistics, but data is from 2013 and could potentially show the effects of events in the past two years when combined with Abbey's post

PBS interview showing two sides of the security vs. privacy debate as it applies to the recent attacks in Paris, and all current issues of terrorism and a lack of information even with warrants. Gives a lot of good quotes from reputable sources that can be used to strengthen and support arguments.

This article goes over America's security and privacy trade-off, especially after 9/11. The author argues that we have done an excellent job keeping a balance between these two approaches and, while actions such as the Paris attack may make us question if we should add more security, there is no reason to take away the privacy we have as since 9/11 we have been doing a good job of valuing both of these aspects.

Posting two due to this being a student. Provides interesting insight nonetheless