Security quotes of the week
[Posted March 6, 2019 by jake]
One of the only definitive takeaways, besides "steer clear of free VPNs,"
is that your choice of VPN should depend on what you're using it for. If
you're just trying to stay safe online, it may make sense to steer toward a
larger, U.S.-based company that's clear about both who owns it and how it
treats your data. If your goal is to torrent pirated files, view blocked
content, assassinate an ambassador, or otherwise evade the long arm of your
government (or the governments it shares intelligence with), one based
offshore might be a better bet—provided you're quite sure it doesn't have
secret ties to the government you're trying to evade.
— Will
Oremus at Slate (Thanks to Paul Wise.)
The Crypto Wars have been waging off-and-on for a quarter-century. On one
side is law enforcement, which wants to be able to break encryption, to
access devices and communications of terrorists and criminals. On the other
are almost every cryptographer and computer security expert, repeatedly
explaining that there's no way to provide this capability without also
weakening the security of every user of those devices and communications
systems.
It's an impassioned debate, acrimonious at times, but there are real
technologies that can be brought to bear on the problem: key-escrow
technologies, code obfuscation technologies, and backdoors with different
properties. Pervasive surveillance capitalism -- as practiced by the
Internet companies that are already spying on everyone -- matters. So does
society's underlying security needs. There is a security benefit to giving
access to law enforcement, even though it would inevitably and invariably
also give that access to others. However, there is also a security benefit
of having these systems protected from all attackers, including law
enforcement. These benefits are mutually exclusive. Which is more
important, and to what degree?
The problem is that almost no policymakers are discussing this policy issue
from a technologically informed perspective, and very few technologists
truly understand the policy contours of the debate. The result is both
sides consistently talking past each other, and policy proposals -- that
occasionally become law -- that are technological disasters.
— Bruce Schneier