SoylentNews

Arthur T Knackerbracket [soylentnews.org] writes:

--- --- --- --- Entire Story Below - Must Be Edited --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story [theregister.com]:

At stake, he argued then [theregister.com], was a possibly irreversible loss of privacy, and the archiving of everything. As he wrote, science fiction author Charlie Stross described the situation as the "end of prehistory," in that every facet of our lives would be on a computer somewhere and available to anyone who knew how to find them.

Since the book was published, we've seen data harvesting continue, particularly for training AI models. The battle to keep even the most basic facts about us private seems all but lost.

We sat down with Bruce Schneier for an update on his work, and what we can expect in the future.

The Register: Data and Goliath came out nearly two years after Snowden's leaks and just months before Congress finally made a few moves on the surveillance issue with the USA Freedom Act. Ten years on, how do you feel things have changed, if at all?

At the same time, the information environment has gotten worse. More of our data is in the cloud, where companies have easier access to it. We have more Internet-of-Things devices around ourselves, which keep us under constant surveillance. And every one of us carries an incredibly sophisticated surveillance device around with us wherever we go: our smartphones. Everywhere you turn, privacy is losing.

The Register: Indeed, I know some parents who refuse to allow their kids to have a smartphone to protect their data. Will the government be the savior of privacy or, by action or inaction, kill it?

There has been some regulation in Europe; the General Data Protection Regulation protects Europeans to some degree from corporate surveillance. And in the US, a handful of states have passed privacy laws. But while these are often very good and to be applauded, they don't solve the problem head-on. Surveillance capitalism is just too entrenched as a business model, and the large tech monopolies have too much power, to change that anytime soon.

After sounding the warning on privacy everyone ignored it, Schneier told us ... Picture source: Joe MacInnis

The Register: You highlighted the difficulties of being free from data collection back in 2015, and that it was nearly impossible. Today the situation is worse, and it seems that if you don't have a digital fingerprint then that's almost seen as suspicious in itself. Can anything be done on the individual level?

I try very hard not to use cloud services, but it's increasingly difficult because everyone else does. I try to use Signal and WhatsApp for messages, but that's not always possible. And while I don't use Gmail, Google has more than half of my email because over half of my correspondents do. And - you're right - courts have taken the fact that someone left their cell phone at home as evidence that they did not want to be tracked.

The Register: Apple sells itself in its marketing as the choice for the privacy minded, although those adverts don't appear in China. While it did stand up to the FBI over the 2016 San Bernardino criminal's iPhone, how is Cupertino doing now?

So, yes, it can be the one tech monopoly that can give you privacy, even from them. As you point out, there are limits, like when their lucrative Chinese business interests are threatened. But for most of us, Apple builds its systems that limit even its own ability to spy on its users, which in turn limits its ability to turn our data over to governments when they demand it. But don't think that this is anything other than a self-serving business stance.

The Register: Do you see any signs that people are wising up to the fact that their lives are an open book to anyone with the cash to pay a data broker?

If you have realistic knowledge of the level of mass surveillance that's going on constantly, then by definition it's okay. But while people realize it, they also realize that they can't realistically opt out. This is why the notion of consumer choice doesn't make sense here, and we need a comprehensive privacy law.

The Register: Are you still long-term optimistic about privacy? The short term appears to be getting worse.

But it'll be a long time getting there. As long as both corporations and governments are punch-drunk on our data, there's no real incentive for change. AI technologies will make the problem worse.

A major privacy win since 2014 is the prevalence of end-to-end encryption for services like messaging and data archiving. But those only work for systems where the cloud doesn't have to do work on your data. One of the promises of AI is personal digital assistants. We are going to want them to train on all of our personal data.

And, at least right now, they have to run in the cloud because of the huge compute requirements. This will cause us to give all of our personal data to a few large tech monopolies. It won't matter if our WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted if we just hand the plaintext over to whatever tech company hosts our AI assistant. I fear we are about to lose one of the few wins we've had.

The Register: The NSA, through people like Rob Joyce, has been on a PR campaign over the last few years. What's your take on the agency's posture?

In Data and Goliath I recommended breaking up the NSA to remove that dual mission, so that the organization is no longer fundamentally at odds with itself. I still stand by that recommendation. And I still don't believe that it is going to happen.

The Register: We have a new administration in the White House, backed in part by the very companies you were warning us about. How does that bode for the next four years?

My guess is that there will be a lot of infighting as the various factions inside Trump's coalition fight for their particular agendas. But - honestly - given all the chaos that is likely to befall the US and the world, fighting for privacy might not be that high on our collective agendas. But we have to see; it's a fool's errand predicting this one.

The Register: If the mass privatization of the government that's looking likely happens, what are the implications of all that data being leased out to the private sector?

And by security, I mean two things. Obviously, there's the possibility that the data will be stolen and used by foreign governments and corporations. And there is the high probability that it will end up in the hands of data brokers, and then bought and sold and combined with other data.

Surveillance in the US is largely a corporate business; this will just make it worse. ®

Original Submission