The July/August 2020 issue of acmqueue is out now



Subscribers and ACM Professional members login here



PDF

March 17, 2016

Volume 14, issue 1

More Encryption Means Less Privacy

Retaining electronic privacy requires more political engagement.

Poul-Henning Kamp

When Edward Snowden made it known to the world that pretty much all traffic on the Internet was collected and searched by the NSA, GCHQ (the UK Government Communications Headquarters) and various other countries' secret services as well, the IT and networking communities were furious and felt betrayed.

A wave of activism followed to get traffic encrypted so as to make it impossible for NSA to indiscriminately snoop on the entire world population. When all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails, and the available hammer was the SSL/TLS encryption protocol, so the battle cry was "SSL/TLS/HTTPS everywhere." And a lot of nails have been hit with that!

After an animated plenary session in Vancouver, the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) published "Best Current Practice 188" (https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp188), which declared that pervasive monitoring is a technical attack that should be mitigated in the design of IETF protocols where possible. Now, with this manifesto in hand, SSL/TLS and encryption are being hammered into and bolted onto protocols and standards throughout the IETF working groups.

Victory—privacy—seemed certain. Or maybe not.

Just this past week Kazakhstan announced that a "state root certificate" would have to be installed on all computers wanting to use SSL/TLS/HTTPS out of the country.

France's ministry of the interior is working on banning free WiFi connections and the use of the Tor protocol and networks.

President Obama urged high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.

Other countries, notably the United Kingdom, are also working to clamp down on encryption. The Great Firewall of China has been in operation for a number of years, and for all we know, the NSA's total monitoring of the Internet continues unabated two and a half years after Snowden revealed it to the world. The things worth noting here are that:

Kazakhstan didn't just require criminals to install the "state root certificate" so their communications could be scrutinized, it required everybody in Kazakhstan to do so.

France will not just ban criminals from using free WiFi and Tor, it will ban anybody and everybody from using them.

While Obama wants to make it "harder for terrorists," I don't think he contemplates Apple offering an "OS/X terrorist edition" or that terrorists will take an FBI-sponsored "Are you a terrorist?" quiz to find out if they should be using it.

Whatever the high-tech and law enforcement leaders decide, it will apply to everybody.

How Did More Encryption Cause Less Privacy?

In Terry Pratchett's book Going Postal, the hero postmaster, Moist von Lipwig, has a knack for noticing what is not in a text, He would have had a field day with BCP188, because none of the following words are anywhere to be found:

law

court

crime

human

secret

warrant

espionage

constitution

jurisdiction

It was not by accident, mind you, that the authors of the document deliberately stayed clear of anything that could even faintly smell of "politics." Unfortunately, that is not the way politics works. Politics springs into action the moment somebody disagrees with you because of their political point of view, even if you think you don't have a political point of view.

In spite of leaving out all those "hot" words, the substance of BCP188 is still a manifesto declaring a universal human right to absolute privacy in electronic communications—no matter what.

That last bit is half the trouble—no matter what.

Even against law enforcement.

Even if law enforcement has a court order.

Even if....

No matter what.

To be totally fair, BCP188 nowhere states "no matter what." The real reason the result ends up being "no matter what" is that the SSL/TLS protocol, when properly configured, works as advertised: there is no way to break it.

The other half of the trouble is that the hallmark of a civilized society is a judicial system that can right wrongs, and therefore human rights are always footnoted. The UN's Human Rights Charter has §29.2, which explains:

"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

Politicians, whose jobs are to maintain "public order" and improve "the general welfare," follow the general principle that if criminals can use X to commit crimes, the legal system should be able to use X to solve crimes, with only two universally recognized exemptions: when "X = your brain" and when "X = your spouse."

For instance, kids in the USA learn in school that the Fourth Amendment affords a right to privacy, but that is only the first half of it. The second half details precisely how and why you may lose that privacy:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

As this example also shows, wise lawmakers are wary of making it too easy for the legal system, so they add checks and balances.

Political strategies regarding cryptography are all horrible: Kazakhstan brutally inserts state monitors into the middle of all encrypted traffic. France forbids all online anonymity. The USA wants backdoors built into all crypto. These ideas are all based on the same principle: If we cannot break the crypto for a specific criminal on demand, we will preemptively break it for everybody. And whatever you may feel about politicians, they do have the legitimacy and power to do so. They have the constitutions, legislative powers, courts of law, and police forces to make this happen.

The IT and networking communities overlooked a wise saying from soldiers and police officers: "Make sure the other side has an easier way out than destroying you."

But we didn't, and they are.

Slapping unbreakable crypto onto more and more packets is just going to make matters worse. The only way to retain any amount of electronic privacy is through political engagement.

Poul-Henning Kamp ([email protected]) is one of the primary developers of the FreeBSD operating system, which he has worked on from the very beginning. He is widely unknown for his MD5-based password scrambler, which protects the passwords on Cisco routers, Juniper routers, and Linux and BSD systems. Some people have noticed that he wrote a memory allocator, a device file system, and a disk-encryption method that is actually usable. Kamp lives in Denmark with his wife, son, daughter, about a dozen FreeBSD computers, and one of the world's most precise NTP (Network Time Protocol) clocks. He makes a living as an independent contractor doing all sorts of stuff with computers and networks.

Copyright © 2016 held by owner/author. Publication rights licensed to ACM.





Originally published in Queue vol. 14, no. 1—

see this item in the ACM Digital Library

Related:

Ariana Mirian - Hack for Hire

Hack-for-hire services charging $100-$400 per contract were found to produce sophisticated, persistent, and personalized attacks that were able to bypass 2FA via phishing. The demand for these services, however, appears to be limited to a niche market, as evidenced by the small number of discoverable services, an even smaller number of successful services, and the fact that these attackers target only about one in a million Google users.

Meng-Day (Mandel) Yu, Srinivas Devadas - Pervasive, Dynamic Authentication of Physical Items

Authentication of physical items is an age-old problem. Common approaches include the use of bar codes, QR codes, holograms, and RFID (radio-frequency identification) tags. Traditional RFID tags and bar codes use a public identifier as a means of authenticating. A public identifier, however, is static: it is the same each time when queried and can be easily copied by an adversary. Holograms can also be viewed as public identifiers: a knowledgeable verifier knows all the attributes to inspect visually. It is difficult to make hologram-based authentication pervasive; a casual verifier does not know all the attributes to look for.

Nicholas Diakopoulos - Accountability in Algorithmic Decision-making

Every fiscal quarter automated writing algorithms churn out thousands of corporate earnings articles for the AP (Associated Press) based on little more than structured data. Companies such as Automated Insights, which produces the articles for AP, and Narrative Science can now write straight news articles in almost any domain that has clean and well-structured data: finance, sure, but also sports, weather, and education, among others. The articles aren’t cardboard either; they have variability, tone, and style, and in some cases readers even have difficulty distinguishing the machine-produced articles from human-written ones.

Olivia Angiuli, Joe Blitzstein, Jim Waldo - How to De-identify Your Data

Big data is all the rage; using large data sets promises to give us new insights into questions that have been difficult or impossible to answer in the past. This is especially true in fields such as medicine and the social sciences, where large amounts of data can be gathered and mined to find insightful relationships among variables. Data in such fields involves humans, however, and thus raises issues of privacy that are not faced by fields such as physics or astronomy.



© 2020 ACM, Inc. All Rights Reserved.