Strange Loop: "Security for Humans: Privacy and Coercion Resistant Design" by Morgan Marquis-Boir.

Second in my series of favourites from Strange Loop 2015:  "Security for Humans: Privacy and Coercion Resistant Design" by Morgan Marquis-Boir. Marquis-Boir is head of security for The Intercept, the online news source founded by Glen Greenwald and Laura Poitras, the journalists who Edward Snowden chose to be his conduit to the world. Morgan surveys computing and security as of 2015. Time to encrypt your phone!

Petraeus won't serve a day in jail for his leaks. Edward Snowden shouldn't either.

Trevor Timm in the Guardian argues that David Petraeus' crimes, inspired by adultery, are more serious than Edward Snowden's, inspired by liberty.

The sweetheart deal the Justice Department gave to former CIA director David Petraeus for leaking top secret information compared to the stiff jail sentences other low-level leakers have received under the Obama administration has led to renewed calls for leniency for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. And no one makes the case better than famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg.

Ellsberg, the first person ever charged under the Espionage Act or any other statute for leaking the Pentagon Papers to Congress and seventeen newspapers, told me on Thursday: “The factual charges against [Edward Snowden] are not more serious, as violations of the classification regulations and non-disclosure agreements, than those Petraeus has admitted to, which are actually quite spectacular.”

It’s hard to overstate the shocking nature of the government’s case against Petraeus. The information that he gave Paula Broadwell, his friendly biographer with whom he was then having an extramarital affair, was among the most sensitive in the US government. According to the indictment, Petraeus gave Broadwell eight black books containing “classified information regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings … and [his personal] discussions with the president of the United States.”

An Open Letter to John Swinney

Dear John Swinney,

I sat in the gallery yesterday to watch the debate on Privacy and the State. As a member of the Open Rights Group, I have a keen interest in the subject.

The Identity Management and Privacy Principles, published in October 2014 with your name on the foreword, states in Section 4.6:

If a public service organisation needs to link personal information from different systems and databases (internally or between organisations), it should avoid sharing persistent identifiers; other mechanisms, such as matching, should be considered.

Willie Rennie and Patrick Harvie drew attention to the proposal that stakeholders should share the Unique Citizen Reference Number (UCRN). Using the UCRN as a key would link multiple databases, in effect forming a super-database, which is what concerns those who object to the plan. In your closing speech, Harvie intervened to ask you to acknowledge that the proposal breaches the Scottish Government's own guidelines. You responded:

I do not believe that the proposal breaches the data privacy principles that we set out.

Time was short, so you said no more, but I invite you now to elaborate on your bald denial. The proposal certainly appears to contravene the principle  advocated by your own document---how can you claim it does not?

It is not only your own guidelines which question your plan. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners have raised concerns about sharing information collected by the NHS with HMRC, and the UK Information Commissioner has warned that the proposal may breach European and British data protection laws. Both these criticism were raised during the debate, but ignored by you---I invite you to answer them as well.

There are ways forward that meet the needs of government and citizens that are far less problematic. I welcome your offer to review the proposals, and I hope that in light of these criticisms the Scottish Government will rethink its plans.

Yours,

Philip Wadler
Professor of Theoretical Computer Science
School of Informatics
University of Edinburgh

Related:

Minutes of the debate on Privacy and the State

Identity Management and Privacy Principles

Report of the debate from BBC News

Watchdog says plan for super-database could create national ID number for every Scot

The Herald Scotland  has got the message. Let's hope Holyrood does as well.

Watchdog: SNP plan for super-database could create national ID number for every Scot.

Say no to a Scottish national ID system

The Scottish government has opened for consultation plans of that would lead to database sharing among a vast range of organisations, and could lead to the introduction of de facto ID cards via the back door. Responses to the consultation are due by 25 February 2015. ORG Scotland writes:

A minor, barely noticed consultation is not the way to make a major change to Scottish citizens’ privacy and their relationship with the state. Creating a national ID register was rejected by the SNP and the UK, and the bare minimum should be for the Scottish Executive to introduce primary legislation whereby the public and MSPs can debate the nature of these changes and whether they are acceptable.

Respond to the consultation quickly, courtesy of ORG.

ORG is planning meetings to discuss how we can stop the Scottish Government's plans in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, and is tracking developments in their blog.

Here is the original consultation,  and a detailed response by ORG.