The Internet is a surveillance state

[John Young]

That the Internet is a gigantic spying machine has been known since
its invention, the security industry has made billions pretending to
protect against its surveillance.

Schneier has also written recently that security does not work,
cannot work, that attackers are always going to excell over defenders,
due to the economic incentives to attack being greater than those
to defend.

Long a top expert selling security services, what is Schneier up to
with gloom and doom that is usually associated with selling
snake oil -- his favorite target. Has his amply promoted 24x7 services
been defeated by attackers? Is he keeping that quiet? Is he about to
be doxed, has been hit with a blackmail demand, or worse, his
defenses compromised? Who else among the experts are colluding
with this initiative to admit Internet deception from the git go?

Recall that beloved Peter Neumann and others advocate chucking
the current Internet and starting over with better security and privacy
basic requirements. Uh huh, and what will take its place, will it be
better or more snake oil? And what to do with all that stored data
of the world's greatest spying machine promoted with the complicity
of Internet advocates and the security industry?

Pardon, monsieur, foxes in the hen house, comes to mind.

Schneier says in his security-is-doomed-to-fail piece a public discussion
is needed on what to do, the experts don't have answers. That's a good
start after years of experts promising to do better next time, meanwhile
trust open source, trust us.

Where does snake oil end and "something better" begin?
Is something better ever not snake oil? Is a public discussion
of an issue never not rigged in favor of the organizers? Is
tumultous public discussion never not preamble to a coup
justified as needed to control the mob who has gotten out
of hand, who voted the wrong way, who attacked the
leaders? Who hacked the experts?

Coups are always justified as needed for security, and who
Machiavelli's the coup masters other than security and
propaganda experts yearning to maintain privilege and
reputation.

Coups are not always obvious, the most effective are hardly
noticed.




At 06:09 AM 3/18/2013, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/16/opinion/schneier-internet-surveillance/index.html
>
>The Internet is a surveillance state
>
>By Bruce Schneier, Special to CNN
>
>March 16, 2013 -- Updated 1804 GMT (0204 HKT)
>
>STORY HIGHLIGHTS
>
>     Bruce Schneier: Whether we like it or not, we're being tracked all the
>time on the Internet
>
>     Schneier: Our surveillance state is efficient beyond the wildest dreams
>of George Orwell
>
>     He says governments and corporations are working together to keep things
>that way
>
>     Schneier: Slap-on-the-wrist fines notwithstanding, no one is agitating
>for better privacy laws
>
>Editor's note: Bruce Schneier is a security technologist and author of "Liars
>and Outliers: Enabling the Trust Society Needs to Survive."
>
>(CNN) -- I'm going to start with three data points.
>
>One: Some of the Chinese military hackers who were implicated in a broad set
>of attacks against the U.S. government and corporations were identified
>because they accessed Facebook from the same network infrastructure they used
>to carry out their attacks.
>
>Two: Hector Monsegur, one of the leaders of the LulzSac hacker movement, was
>identified and arrested last year by the FBI. Although he practiced good
>computer security and used an anonymous relay service to protect his
>identity, he slipped up.
>
>Bruce Schneier
>
>And three: Paula Broadwell,who had an affair with CIA director David
>Petraeus, similarly took extensive precautions to hide her identity. She
>never logged in to her anonymous e-mail service from her home network.
>Instead, she used hotel and other public networks when she e-mailed him. The
>FBI correlated hotel registration data from several different hotels -- and
>hers was the common name.
>
>The Internet is a surveillance state. Whether we admit it to ourselves or
>not, and whether we like it or not, we're being tracked all the time. Google
>tracks us, both on its pages and on other pages it has access to. Facebook
>does the same; it even tracks non-Facebook users. Apple tracks us on our
>iPhones and iPads. One reporter used a tool called Collusion to track who was
>tracking him; 105 companies tracked his Internet use during one 36-hour
>period.
>
>Increasingly, what we do on the Internet is being combined with other data
>about us. Unmasking Broadwell's identity involved correlating her Internet
>activity with her hotel stays. Everything we do now involves computers, and
>computers produce data as a natural by-product. Everything is now being saved
>and correlated, and many big-data companies make money by building up
>intimate profiles of our lives from a variety of sources.
>
>News: Cyberthreats getting worse, House intelligence officials warn
>
>Facebook, for example, correlates your online behavior with your purchasing
>habits offline. And there's more. There's location data from your cell phone,
>there's a record of your movements from closed-circuit TVs.
>
>This is ubiquitous surveillance: All of us being watched, all the time, and
>that data being stored forever. This is what a surveillance state looks like,
>and it's efficient beyond the wildest dreams of George Orwell.
>
>Sure, we can take measures to prevent this. We can limit what we search on
>Google from our iPhones, and instead use computer web browsers that allow us
>to delete cookies. We can use an alias on Facebook. We can turn our cell
>phones off and spend cash. But increasingly, none of it matters.
>
>There are simply too many ways to be tracked. The Internet, e-mail, cell
>phones, web browsers, social networking sites, search engines: these have
>become necessities, and it's fanciful to expect people to simply refuse to
>use them just because they don't like the spying, especially since the full
>extent of such spying is deliberately hidden from us and there are few
>alternatives being marketed by companies that don't spy.
>
>This isn't something the free market can fix. We consumers have no choice in
>the matter. All the major companies that provide us with Internet services
>are interested in tracking us. Visit a website and it will almost certainly
>know who you are; there are lots of ways to be tracked without cookies.
>Cellphone companies routinely undo the web's privacy protection. One
>experiment at Carnegie Mellon took real-time videos of students on campus and
>was able to identify one-third of them by comparing their photos with
>publicly available tagged Facebook photos.
>
>Maintaining privacy on the Internet is nearly impossible. If you forget even
>once to enable your protections, or click on the wrong link, or type the
>wrong thing, and you've permanently attached your name to whatever anonymous
>service you're using. Monsegur slipped up once, and the FBI got him. If the
>director of the CIA can't maintain his privacy on the Internet, we've got no
>hope.
>
>In today's world, governments and corporations are working together to keep
>things that way. Governments are happy to use the data corporations collect
>-- occasionally demanding that they collect more and save it longer -- to spy
>on us. And corporations are happy to buy data from governments. Together the
>powerful spy on the powerless, and they're not going to give up their
>positions of power, despite what the people want.
>
>Fixing this requires strong government will, but they're just as punch-drunk
>on data as the corporations. Slap-on-the-wrist fines notwithstanding, no one
>is agitating for better privacy laws.
>
>So, we're done. Welcome to a world where Google knows exactly what sort of
>porn you all like, and more about your interests than your spouse does.
>Welcome to a world where your cell phone company knows exactly where you are
>all the time. Welcome to the end of private conversations, because
>increasingly your conversations are conducted by e-mail, text, or social
>networking sites.
>
>And welcome to a world where all of this, and everything else that you do or
>is done on a computer, is saved, correlated, studied, passed around from
>company to company without your knowledge or consent; and where the
>government accesses it at will without a warrant.
>
>Welcome to an Internet without privacy, and we've ended up here with hardly a
>fight.