Slashdot Mirror
RSA Boss Angers Privacy Advocates
judgecorp writes "RSA boss Art Covielo trod on the toes of privacy proponents' toes at London's RSA 2012 show, by accusing them of faulty reasoning and over-stating their fears of Big Brother. By trying to limit what legitimate companies can do with our data, privacy groups are tying the hands of people who might protect us, he says. 'Where is it written that cyber criminals can steal our identities but any industry action to protect us invites cries of Big Brother.' Ever-outspoken, he also complained that governments and cyber-crooks are collaborating to breach organisations with sophisticated techniques. In that world, it is just as well vendors are whiter than white, eh?"
It's hard to criticize his opening remarks, as he was so vague and rambling (even if you RTFA, it's difficult to tell who exactly he's criticizing or what's he's proposing as an alternative). I would say this though: any company or entity that HAS information is always at risk of abusing it. Some entities are more likely than others to abuse it, but even the most conscientious of companies/agencies is made of up individuals. And individuals have been shown time and time again to be inconsistent and unreliable when entrusted with power and information (I believe Penn & Teller once did a delightful demonstration of that on Bullshit). The best solution is always to keep other parties from getting your information in the first place, as much as it is feasible (not to the point of paranoia, but enough to make reasonably sure that you're not just opening your zipper to someone else either).
But I do certainly agree with him that "governments and cyber-crooks are collaborating." That's almost a "no shit" assertion. China, the U.S., Russia, and Israel are almost certainly doing this (likely Iran, Turkey, the UK, etc. as well). But this is hardly anything new. Intelligence agencies have been cooperating with and utilizing criminals and lowlife types since the beginning of civilization. It's hardly breaking news that they would be doing this on the cyber-front as well.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
"But mooooom! The other kids are stealing information too!"
"If the other kids all jumped off the Tappan Zee, would you?"
"No, but mooom, it's not faaaaaaaaaaair!"
--
BMO
I read this summary three times and I'm still struggling to figure it out.
---don't make me break out my red pen.
Summary from the Great White North
Where is it written that cyber criminals can steal our identities...
It isn't..... that's illegal. If we catch you doing that you go to jail. But it's kinda hard to catch people doing that. It's called criminal enterprise. We will not allow corporations to openly be criminal enterprises. The rule of law persists, and if you break the law we will break you.
""RSA boss Art Covielo trod on the toes of privacy proponents' toes at London's RSA 2012 show, by accusing them of faulty reasoning and over-stating their fears of Big Brother."
The toes of their toes... makes perfect sense!
"Art Covielo trod on the toes of privacy proponents' toes"
Really? I know the editors here don't actually edit, but even this one seems silly. Unless privacy advocates have toes growing on their toes.
Ok internet, sounds like we've been challenged to dig up everything about Art Coviello. ...and so forth.
physical address
family members
list of friends
salary
personal history
political leanings
sexual orientation
juicy pictures (plz warn if NSFW. Dat guy looks ugly)
Everything seems fair game. If you've got something you don't want anyone to know,
then you shouldn't have done it in the first place. eh
> Covielo trod on the toes of privacy proponents' toes
Toes with toes. It is right to stamp out mutants.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
You mean the ones that have raped our environment and loaded our food with HFCS?
Listen Art. I don't know you, but I probably trust you. I trust you as an individual. There's a good chance if our paths cross you wouldn't harm me, physically or otherwise. Like any person you have your ideas and opinions which you're entitled to express. Again, in this I trust you. You can be right or wrong but ultimately I can choose to disregard what you say and protect myself in the event that you're dangerously ignorant. Ultimately, you're neutral. You're not a threat so some base level of trust is implicit.
However, if you team up with a bunch of other fellow human beings to accomplish a goal that goes right the fuck out the window. The group now has significantly more resources than me and an agenda. History has shown that even altruistically minded groups can cause chaos and danger for the individual and I can't trust that you have the influence to protect against that.
Governments and corporations and unions OH MY!
The funny thing about discourse these days is that everyone wants to point a finger at some group which is corrupt or out of control. Conservatives say government and unions are the problem. Liberals say corporations are the problem, Tinfoil hats say they're all a problem because they are collaborating with the greys. Regardless, the common theme here is that when people group together to accomplish a goal they are subject to human forces of corruption, greed and a lust for power.
I have an interest in living a peaceful life. I'm of the belief that an essential part of ensuring I have a peaceful life is controlling what information about me is out there publically or privately in some database. Today's 'leadership', whether it government or corporate, may be benign but that's no garuntee that tomorrows will be. The last thing I need is a knock on the door because Michelle Bachmann's thought police reviewed the Facebook database they siezed and saw I made some plucky comments about Jesus (and failed to notice I was talking of my gardener, not the carpenter).
Now, you want me to believe private enterprise can help protect my privacy? That's going to be a tough sell. Private enterprise has given us a lot of really cool stuff. We've also payed a pretty heavy price for it. That's because the goal is rarely "Let's design product/service X to benefit people" but "What product/service can we design to pull maximum profit".
Your first goal is to convince me that private enterprise can do something altruistic.
Your second goal is to convince me that Government isn't the answer to my privacy concerns. The cool thing about government is I can vote for representatives. They also have a pretty big stick. My goal is to influence them to use that stick to prevent your enterprise buddies from doing things I disagree with or perhaps to coerce enterprise to do things which are in my interest.
What motivation does Facebook or Google have to purge my data other than regulation?
(of course things are going the wrong way today but that's a different rant for a different time)
Companies and/or corporations that want my private information ARE cybercriminals! They are trying to collect information that I do not want them to have, so that they can try to show me ads that I do not want to see, for products that I neither want or need. They are doing this (or trying to) using the computer and internet bandwidth that I, NOT THEM have paid for. That makes them no better than spammers to me.
Maybe if the ads were not so obnoxious, trying so hard to distract people from the content that they want to see, less people would use ad blockers. It is also very annoying that many web pages split the content across several pages to be able to display more ads. To me, advertising has become evil, trying to influence people to buy junk that they do not want or need. Trying to make them want junk enough to waste money on it, money most people don't have these days.
Where is it written that cyber criminals can steal our identities but any industry action to protect us invites cries of Big Brother?
The real paradox here is that as Executive Chairman of RSA, Covielo has a responsibility to know where it's written that if company X has access to your data it will be exploited. However, as Chairman of a company, he has a responsibility to deny that companies cannot be trusted. This conflict of interest means that his public statements will always be somewhat... ah, what's the word? Oh, yeah, cryptic.
toes have toes?
People should opt IN if they want to be tracked. All browsers should have DNT enabled as default, as its in the best interest of the end user. Those that want to give their information, which is far less than those who don't, should have a prompt at installation to disable the DNT.
Of COURSE advertising companies will object. Consumers are just sheep/cattle to these companies. They want to milk consumers for everything they have, and don't want consumers to have to choose to ACCEPT it.
As for ignoring the DNT header, I really hope government gets involved with that one and makes it ILLEGAL to ignore it. Its against the law to tap someone's conversation without their knowledge, it should also be against the law to ignore the DNT header.
Where is it written that cyber criminals can steal our identities...
The actual wording is that if you steal someone's identity you're a criminal. But don't despair! You can choose to do the exact same thing and that would make you a criminal just like the ones you so envy and admire!
Unfortunately, Fast Food has designed itself to Maximize People to maximize profits.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
or am I toast?
I mean, seriously, it's pretty sick.
I'll upload the video if you want, but it's fairly twisted. ... oh, you meant the privacy of Serfs, not YOUR privacy, Art?
Next time be clearer.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
And as trustworthy?