Slashdot Mirror
Transforming the Web Into a Transparent 'HTTPA' Database
An anonymous reader writes MIT researchers believe the solution to misuse and leakage of private data is more transparency and auditability, not adding new layers of security. Traditional approaches make it hard, if not impossible, to share data for useful purposes, such as in healthcare. Enter HTTPA, HTTP with accountability.
From the article: "With HTTPA, each item of private data would be assigned its own uniform resource identifier (URI), a component of the Semantic Web that, researchers say, would convert the Web from a collection of searchable text files into a giant database. Every time the server transmitted a piece of sensitive data, it would also send a description of the restrictions on the data’s use. And it would also log the transaction, using the URI, in a network of encrypted servers."
From the article: "With HTTPA, each item of private data would be assigned its own uniform resource identifier (URI), a component of the Semantic Web that, researchers say, would convert the Web from a collection of searchable text files into a giant database. Every time the server transmitted a piece of sensitive data, it would also send a description of the restrictions on the data’s use. And it would also log the transaction, using the URI, in a network of encrypted servers."
the key.
All of these sorts of silly ideas depend on no exploits and everyone being a 'good guy'.
If those two things were the case, there would be little to no reason to implement something in the first place.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
So we have a stateless database with built-in DRM on every record and user tracking. Brilliant.
Privacy's on the honor system now!
All I see here is a bunch of stuff that all depends on trusted third parties... and in security circles, "trusted" means "can screw you over if they act against your interests". In this case it relies on trusted identity providers, labeled 'Verification Agent' in the paper.
It all breaks down if a verification agent is compromised, and the breach of even a single identity can have severe consequences that the accountability system cannot trace once information is in the hands of bad actors.
The authors effectively admit that this entire mechanism relies on the honor system; it explicitly cannot strictly enforce any access control, because in the context of medical data access control may stand between life and death.
Finally, the deliberate gathering of all this information-flow metadata would add another layer to the panopticon the net is turning into.
...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
Web browsers with DRM built in? Terrible.
just remove all restrictions all together and get rid of censorship and copyright and trademarks and privacy rules and classification and secret law.
"don't create data that shouldn't be made available to everyone" becomes the new rules.
and don't worry about that content being made of you because it's just capturing reality as it was at one point.
make the rules so that nothing can be hidden or kept secret.
http://www.obamasweapon.com/
A few issues come to mind. Slowing down the traffic, database integrity, invasion of privacy, denial of anonymity..... To mention only a few. Security of the background "database", administration of it, and much more.
Sounds to me like something the NSA would come up with, a universal database tracking everyone's access to every little thing on the internet, and the so-called 'restrictions' are as meaningless as the 'do not track' flag in a web browser, it only works when everyone is playing by the same rules.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Part deux
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Is it a bad summary or a stupid idea?
As it is explained, it seems that system does not cover the case where someone gets the data and leaks it
Do not want
This is a dumb idea that sounds like a good concept. It like any other good thing on the internet requires that no one be malicious. SMTP didn't used to be restricted until spammers abused it. All that it takes to defeat HTTPA is a client written to ignore the A part.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
The problem is distribution of trust. This is solveable.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
BINGO!
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
More hoopla, with bandwidth and CPU intensive DRM and user activity tracking on top. What problem is this even trying to solve?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
under a different protocol?
I think you've missed the point. Quoting the beginning of the article:
> HTTPA,designed to fight the "inadvertent misuse" of data by people authorized to access it.
I've had this conversation more than once:
Bob - Why did you tell people about ___. That was supposed to be a secret.
Sally - Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was supposed to be kept confidential.
Also this thought "oops, what I just said was supposed to be kept confidential. I messed up."
Those are the situations the protocol is supposed to address, the INADVERTENT release of confidential data. It's the digital equivalent of stamping a paper "confidential, for abc use only". Any time the system accesses the data, it is also reminded of the confidentiality rules attached to that data. This so they can, through processes and software, avoid mistakes. For example, a client could be set so that an attempt to copy confidential data to clipboard instead copies the reminder "this is confidential information", so someone copying it into an email without thinking gets reminded.
no, get rid of copyright and and patents.
Trademarks are there to prevent fraud. I'm not allowed to make ice cream, sell it to you, and tell you it's Ben&Jerrys.
Copyright enables the music, movie, and videogame industries. I will not shed a single tear to see those industries collapse, but, others might.
Patents, otoh, do nothing for nobody. Trade secrets are bullshit, because patents were supposed to be the answer to trade secrets.
Privacy laws, protecting things like medical records or naked pictures of your wife, can be good.
Stallman wrote about the push by various business school types to put all of these rules together as something called "IP". By tying your rejection of copyrights to a rejection of laws against me getting a naked picture of your wife and publishing it on the Internet, you do their job for them.
From the beginning of the article:
> HTTPA, designed to fight the "inadvertent misuse" of data by people authorized to access it.
It sounds to me that it's more similar to labeling a paper file "confidential, for xyz use only". By attaching the confidentiality information directly to the data, you seek to avoid having someone absent-mindedly email the information to a vendor, without thinking about the fact that the information is supposed to be kept confidential.
...which already logs unique uris and often classifies using server- config'ed tags?
Privacy, sadly, is a losing proposition.
1) Google and advertisers track you + accumulate data.
2) The government does the same
3) Credit reporting agencies and banks selling your debt/credit card transaction data.
4) Employers
5) Insurance companies + on and on
Facebook and Google and LinkedIn are just 3 companies built on invading your privacy and there are tons more.
Short version: You are losing your privacy. "Not liking it", "Angry posts" and the like won't change this.
On the plus side: They really aren't interested in "you". Not in the slightest, they just want to monetize "you".
If you don't like it, create fake awesome information about yourself and spread it all over the internet! Control your brand with utter bullshit!!
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Maintain a physically secure, access controlled, TEMPEST hardened room in a secret protected location. Verify through periodic repeated inspection and test that all production media in the room is physically isolated from all untrusted communications networks (ideally, all networks). When you absolutely must share secret information with Alice, invite Alice to your room. Verify her identity, physically hand her the the information to read, monitor her while she reads the information, then physically retrieve the information and escort Alice out of the room when she's done. Any and all discussions regarding the information remain in the room and allowed nowhere else. Alternately and less desirably, convey the information to Alice's corresponding secure room via trusted courier. In agreement with Alice, monitor her with proven effective investigation and surveillance techniques for the duration of your trusted relationship for any behavior or conditions in mitigation to continuing a relationship of trust. This is a proven system with high, but imperfect reliability. Nothing is perfect, but anything, IMI, anything on the Internet? Not as much.
I think you've missed the point. Quoting the beginning of the article:
> HTTPA,designed to fight the "inadvertent misuse" of data by people authorized to access it.
I've had this conversation more than once:
Bob - Why did you tell people about ___. That was supposed to be a secret.
Sally - Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was supposed to be kept confidential.
Also this thought "oops, what I just said was supposed to be kept confidential. I messed up."
Those are the situations the protocol is supposed to address, the INADVERTENT release of confidential data. It's the digital equivalent of stamping a paper "confidential, for abc use only". Any time the system accesses the data, it is also reminded of the confidentiality rules attached to that data. This so they can, through processes and software, avoid mistakes. For example, a client could be set so that an attempt to copy confidential data to clipboard instead copies the reminder "this is confidential information", so someone copying it into an email without thinking gets reminded.
Why is it being proposed as a general protocol then?
I think you may see what is intended for you to see, but nothing else.
you can't fix stupid with technology
In shopping malls, guests frequently leave bags in the restroom inadvertently. In some malls, the stalls have a little spring-loaded shelf that folds down to set your bag on. The thing is, the shelf blocks the door. You CAN'T leave the stall without picking up your bag to raise the shelf out the way. Nobody has ever accidentally left a bag on one of those shelves.
Another common "oops" used to be leaving one's ATM card in the ATM. You'd insert your card, hwy the money you came for, then leave without the card. Some machines were reprogrammed so that it wouldn't give you your money until you took the card out. The money is the whole reason you're standing there, so people rarely left without their money. By requiring them to take the card back to get the money, technology fixed stupid. Later ARMs have you SWIPE the card, so it never leaves your fingers . You can't leave the card in the machine if you never put it in the machine. Another, better, technological solution for an act of stupid.
Other examples include cases where peoplewho weren't paying attention would press the wrong button. Making the wrong button look and feel completely different from the right button largely fixes that. Remember when forms on web pages used to have the "reset" button , which cleared everything you'd just entered in the form. People frequently made the stupid mistake of clicking "reset" rather than "submit". Removing the "reset" button fixed that stupid mistake..
See "The Design of Everyday Things" for more technologies that prevent or reduce stupid mistakes, as well as a good analysis of the psychology of stupid . It covers what types of stupid mistakes there are (such as doing the right thing with the wrong object ie tossing "it" in the trash, then realizing your left hand is still holding the empty can, while your right hand is no longer holding your keys).
Years ago I was working as a subcontractor to a major defense contractor. I had a conversation with IT that went something like this:
IT to all personnel: Anyone with a computer must review each file on their drive and label any that might contain confidential information. Please insert our company logo and the following text into any confidential files.
Me to IT: To clarify, I have approximately X files on my hard drive. Do I really need to review ALL of my files?
IT to me: Yes
Me to IT: Do you have any tools I can use to automate this?
IT to me: No. You need to open each file, review it and determine if it contains confidential information. Then insert the logo and message into any files that do.
Me to IT: I just want to make sure I'm understanding your instruction. The vast majority of my files are operating system files. Some files, like the Outlook PST file might contain confidential information. They're not documents, spreadsheets or anything like that. Modifying those files might affect the performance of my computer. Also, I have several Microsoft Access databases containing thousands of records of sensitive information. I can insert the confidentiality message into the database but it might be more useful to add the message to the reports.
IT to me: No, you must insert the confidentiality message into any files containing confidential information.
Forward to my supervisor: Can you take a look at this? This is going to take a lot of work.
Supervisor to me: I looked into it. You're going to have to do this.
Me to IT: Which department do we bill this to?
IT to me: Your department.
Me to IT: Procurement?
IT to me: Yes.
Forward to procurement: I ran the numbers. It's going to take me a year of working full time to get this done. Can you authorize this?
IT to me: You don't need to review your files.
Me to IT: Okay, thanks.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
You have to make security EASY for a user. Any technology can be taken down by laziness ))