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?"

Comments

"Protect us" is in the eye of the beholder

[crazyjj]

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.

Re:"Protect us" is in the eye of the beholder

[fustakrakich]

It's not merely a 'risk' that they will abuse it, it's a given, if they think they can get away with it. This applies to all forms of power/authority. I prefer total transparency, but we must strongly restrict how information is used against us. This would be the major problem.

Advice from your mom.

[bmo]

"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

Re:Edit summary, please.

[bmo]

He's upset that the government and criminals just willy-nilly ignore privacy advocates, while privacy advocates hold his company's feet to the fire on privacy rights.

Because his company should be allowed to be just as crooked as the governments and criminals.

It's all so much schoolyard whining and toddler mentality.

--
BMO

Re:Edit summary, please.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It's especially amusing if you remember back to the... entertaining... role that RSA played in the (to the best of my knowledge still unsolved) breach of a number of big name defense contractors. RSA retained copies of all the seeds used to fill RSA fobs shippped to customers, and then got cracked by parties unknown, who were subsequently able to compromise RSA's customers.

He's about the last person in the world who should be opening his mouth about how companies keeping more information on us can make us safer...

Re:Your strawman, I see it.

[jd2112]

...and when marriage is outlawed only outlaws will have in-laws.