| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
Privacy World’s July 2014 Newsletter Issue
Sunday, July 20, 2014 14:35
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 2:00 AM
Subject: Privacy World’s July 2014 Newsletter Issue 3July
> Privacy World – The WORLD’S SHREWDEST PRIVACY NEWSLETTER
>
> Is What You Do Online Ever Really Safe From Prying Eyes?
>
> A new messaging service promises to provide confidential online
> communications. Can we trust it will keep our information safe?
>
> Every day in our online lives, we share hundreds of intimate details:
> PIN numbers, political beliefs, photos of significant others,
> addresses, work history. But can we ever truly trust any Internet
> service to protect our information? This was the central question at
> a panel discussion on Internet privacy held last night at SubCulture,
> a subterranean venue on Manhattan’s Bleecker Street. The panel was
> organized to celebrate the launch of Tunnel X, a secure messaging
> service meant to ensure that people can have confidential online
> communications with friends, family and colleagues. As guests in
> the packed room nibbled on perfectly cut radishes and sipped on
> complimentary Blue Point ales, the conversation kept circling back
> to the same question: why should we believe your service is safer
> than any other?
>
> Tunnel X, a Brooklyn-based startup, is the brainchild of web designer
> Eric Liftin, who moderated the panel. Joining him on the blue-lit
> stage were Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe,
> attorney Ian Samuel, Salon CEO Cindy Jeffers and Daniel Menaker, the
> former fiction editor of the New Yorker. Given the diversity of the
> panelists’ backgrounds, the conversation ranged from the abstract
> (what defines a private conversation) to the technical (how the
> government uses SSL keys to decode encrypted communications). The
> one thing all of the participants agreed on, however, was that
> digital privacy should be considered a basic human right.
>
> Liftin designed Tunnel X with this exact concern in mind. After
> Edward Snowden’s revelations of mass government surveillance
> launched digital privacy into the public consciousness last summer,
> ordinary people became worried about who could access their online
> communications. Liftin wanted to make it easier for people-not
> just journalists, whistleblowers or others in possession of highly
> confidential information-to feel that their conversations with lovers
> and friends were safe from prying eyes. Though there are a number of
> existing email encryption services, like Proofpoint and Hushmail,
> Liftin designed Tunnel X with a user-friendly interface so that
> those unversed in the language of cryptology could have an easy,
> reliable way to keep their online exchanges private.
>
> Yet skeptics, including several panelists, argue that these
> tech services are always only one step ahead of government
> regulation. Sophisticated encryption algorithms are all well and
> good, but what happens when the government asks for the encryption
> keys? As Ian Samuel, the attorney, put it, “If one wishes to have a
> private conversation, online or in person, there are no real reliable
> legal guarantees.” Given the Supreme Court’s willingness to defer
> to other government branches when it comes to matters of national
> security (that catchall term), it seems reasonable to expect that
> Tunnel X may eventually come under the same level of scrutiny other
> encryption services have.
>
> There is a precedent for this sort of legal interference. In
> August 2013, Lavabit, an encrypted email service founded by tech
> entrepreneur Ladar Levison, suspended operations after a protracted
> legal battle in which the US government ordered Levison to turn over
> the master encryption keys for the site. The reason the FBI was
> so interested in gaining access to the service? One of Lavabit’s
> 410,000 users just so happened to be Edward Snowden. But this
> blanket request meant putting the private communications of all
> other Lavabit users in the hands of federal officials. Given the
> centrality of privacy to his company’s mission, Levison opted to
> shut down Lavabit, but still had to comply with the court’s order.
>
> Ian Samuel, who represented Levison in court, recounted his
> client’s last stab at subversion: Levison printed the encryption
> code-an extraordinarily long string of numbers-in 4-point font on
> 8×11 computer paper, earning himself a $10,000 contempt of court
> fine. Still, Samuel remains in favor of a technological solution
> to the online privacy issue. Citing his former client, he said,
> “You can count on algorithms in a way you can’t count on judges.”
>
> Other panelists, like Harvard professor Larry Tribe, had a more
> optimistic take on the protections the law can offer. Referring to
> the recent Riley v. California ruling, which held that the police
> cannot search the cell phone of an arrested individual without a
> warrant, Tribe pointed out that we are in uncharted legal territory
> and that the Supreme Court is only beginning to grapple with the
> intersection of technology and legislation. According to Tribe,
> the 9-0 ruling “inaugurated a new era in the digitalization of
> constitutional law.”
>
> The Snowden disclosures were also a legal watershed. While the courts
> used to claim that organizations had no standing and could not prove
> that they were the victims of government surveillance (this happened
> to the ACLU just six years ago), the revelation of widespread NSA
> surveillance radically undermined this argument. For Tribe, the
> distinction between individual cases and dragnet surveillance is
> critical. “The difference is between looking as specific individuals
> versus a preventative posture, like Snowden revealing this huge
> program…once that is made public, the instinct to be deferential
> to government is much less strong.”
>
> Despite these positive developments, it’s clear that Tunnel X is
> entering a murky and rapidly shifting legal landscape. The audience
> pressed Liftin on this point over and over, asking how he would
> respond if the feds came knocking and why he expects his story will
> end any differently than that of Lavabit’s founder. Liftin pointed
> to several features of the site aimed at ensuring privacy, like
> the fact that Tunnel X will not have the encryption keys or be able
> to access peoples’ messages (users log in and authenticate using a
> self-selected image rather than alphanumeric passwords). He promised
> that the code would be audited by an independent organization. But
> he kept hedging when it came to the specifics. “It’s all in motion
> right now,” Liftin said. “The software and security features are
> constantly improving.”
>
> As audience members kept pushing the question, the atmosphere in the
> room grew tense. Tribe, Samuel and Liftin all resorted to the easy
> answer: we put our faith in technology in innumerable ways every
> day without any absolute guarantee of security. As Liftin said,
> “Ultimately there has to be some degree of trust if you’re using
> something that someone else built. It’s your decision whether
> you trust them or not. We’re trying to be as straightforward as
> possible.”
>
> Intentions aside, it remains to be seen if Tunnel X can live up to
> its slogan of offering online users “secure, private conversation.”
>
> The above by Allegra Kirkland
>
> Until our next issue stay cool and remain low profile!
>
> Privacy World
>
> PS – Need a highly anonymous cell phone and anonymous offshore
> sim card (mobile number?) Email and place “Freedom Phone” in your
> subject heading for details.
>
> YES, we accept BitCoins for payment!
Source: http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/07/privacy-worlds-july-2014-newsletter.html
