(The Big Disrupt) Are Airports Handing Out Your Information?

“Step aside please and take off your shoes.”

What’s not to like about airport security? Everything? That’s about right. As concern about terrorism and smuggling rises around the globe, so too do the security measures at airports. It started with the request to put your shoes on the conveyor for the x-ray machine. Then it stepped up to ‘random searches’ (which some might argue are not so random). Now we have automatic body scanners. In a world where trust is limited, how far can we trust the data collected by airport security?

These days airports and the transportation commissions that run them are catching more heat with each security measure they implement. Why? Mostly due to the fact that people are impatient, but the privacy piece is also very relevant. While the things that we may have in our luggage or carry-on may not be dangerous or illegal, in some cases they may not be things we want others to see. Private notes, embarrassing medical items, that gag gift Larry gave you during the company retreat; the list is long and everyone has a different definition of ‘private’.

How are airports countering these concerns? As an example, Canada is testing automated biometric stations at some of their airports in an attempt to streamline check-in and remove the human element while maintaining a high standard of security. These kiosks will use facial recognition technology to perform a quick check of certain criminal databases to make sure travellers are not a risk. While little information has been disclosed about how the kiosks will work, it has been mentioned that they are able to scan iris’ for comparison against NEXUS databases which exist to expedite entering the US and Canada (CBC).

Questions of both ethics and privacy have been raised in scenarios where this type of biometric technology has been deployed. Australia has announced a plan to implement biometric technology across all of their airports to address a concern around an increase in international travel to and from their country. Ethically, the biggest concern is economic. By implementing a machine to do the work of a person, you lose jobs (Guardian). Another angle is how that data may be used. During the Stanley Cup Riots in 2011, an insurance company defied FIPPA [Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act] and offered to release its database of drivers license photos to Canadian authorities to help identify suspects (Canadian Underwriter). On top of that a machine needs to conform to certain security standards that are constantly changing and nebulous. It is easy for a creative hacker to find an opening nobody has thought to protect to exploit with a ‘Zero Day Attack’ that nobody will see coming.

Attacks like these prove how woefully inadequate digital security is and are a huge cause for concern when considering the sheer amount of data that would be collected at even a single airport. Tens or hundreds of thousands of people who will be forced to trust unproven systems with their personal data. ID numbers, age, address, fingerprints, the list goes on. In short, safety and privacy should not be sacrificed through unproven systems. Biometric programs should be tested through opt-in beta programs and monitored closely before being forced upon the public.

(The Big Disrupt) Mass Surveillance: Why the golden age of surveillance is set to continue no matter who wins in November

If there has ever been an election that has vindicated the concerns and criticisms of every thinker from Plato onwards about democracy, it would be this one fought by Hillary and Donald Trump. 

Both candidates are highly divisive figures in the public eye and even more so in their own parties as Clinton is seen as a figurehead of the democratic party establishment by its liberal base and Trump draws the ire of his own party's establishment as the billionaire revels in his outsider status. 

Trump eerily mirrors a character Plato describes that could turn a democracy into a tyrannical state and seems to provide a terrifyingly accurate characterization of much of his support who are largely voting for the man rather than his policies which, so far, have not been articulated at any length beyond the phrases "build a wall", "were gonna win again and win big", and last but not least "make America great again". 

While Clinton is a far cry from Plato's conception of who should rule, she is by far the most accomplished of the two as a former senator and secretary of state, a quality Plato would approve. The thought of Plato can provide insights today but his great mind unfortunately doesn't provide into a slightly more complex issue over who should lead, privacy. 

We would have look to more contemporary thinkers with minds no less gifted than Plato's but, on the whole, the thoughts of great minds so matter little in an age where our relationship to privacy is ephemeral at best, easy to deny, and ceded almost reflexively. In an age like this, is it a surprise that possibly the most hawkish proponents of mass surveillance our vying for the highest office? 

Our relationship to privacy however has been hampered severely by a spike in terrorist attacks kicked off by the harrowing 9/11 attacks which swung the balance between security and liberty firmly in the favour of the former. To this day, leaders still make fear based arguments when arguing about impinging our right privacy and with the recent spate of attacks across the globe, these arguments have intensified and have largely helped to set the poisonous tone and mood surrounding this election cycle.       

Both Clinton and Trump have been strident to say the least about their intentions to  continue mass surveillance programs should they become president especially in response to terrorist attacks. 

In response to the Brussels attacks, Clinton expressed in an CNN interview that to avoid similar attacks happening in the U.S., there would be the need to increase surveillance capabilities as well as a greater police presence  on the ground. While these may seem like common sense proposal in the face of an attack, Clinton's prescription seems glaze over the fact that mass surveillance is at an all time high and yet attacks are happening at a greater level of frequency. 

Trump, on the other hand, has taken his desire to surveill U.S citizens to a level that has drawn criticism. Back in November, Trump voiced his desire at a rally to track Muslims and surveillance on mosques  and also to build a database on members of the faith which has drawn unfavorable comparisons by opponents to what Nazis did to Jews.   

Trump also publicly stated that he lands firmly on the side of security in the classic liberty v security debate and while Clinton hasn't made statements as strong as Trump's regarding where she stands on the debate, it's quite clear where they stand. Why they favor security over privacy could be simply because the security argument is more convincing. A more complex reflection might be to consider the rather fleeting relationship both Trump and Clinton have with privacy. Both Clinton and Trump have been in the public eye for decades and have had everything from their personality, dress hairstyles, pitch, parenting skills and business and political failures scrutinized and laid bare for all to see.  

With this mind, it would seem common sense to presume that both candidates would value highly what much of their adult lives have lacked and would seek to preserve as much as they could for their fellow citizens. However, it seemed their experience has taught them that privacy is the most abstract constitutional right of them all, so abstract it may not exist at all. 

It would be hard to blame two very public figures to subscribe to the "privacy is dead argument" which  gained currency in  post 9/11 and has become a mainstream point of view since the Snowden leaks. Their complicated relationship to privacy can also explain why Donald Trump wished he could have voted for the controversial patriot act and Hiliary Clinton voted for it twice. 

In any case, Clinton's and Trump's relationship with privacy may not matter as it would prove rather difficult for any president to roll back the unprecedented level of surveillance since whether they're favour the fourth amendment or not. Any president willing to take on powerful agencies such as NSA, CIA and FBI would have to display a level of political courage that's scarce  in today's political class, never mind Clinton or Trump. 

In sum, whatever happens in November, you can expect from at least then to the next presidential election cycle that you're privacy is no less private than it was before as two very polarizing figures with a complicated relationship with privacy are look set complicate our relationship to privacy as much as decades in the public eye has theirs. 

  

(The Big Disrupt) Apple: why apple has lost it's fight with the FBI

As the Apple v FBI scrap comes to an end, the FBI's revealing that it can hack iPhone without Apple's assistance is a body blow of mass proportion for the Cupertino based tech giant.  

The FBI's announcement arguably leaves Apple in a worse position than if they complied with the court order as if Apple complied with the order they would have at least  been able to monitor the data FBI was accessing. However, with the FBI revealing it can hack into Apple's iPhone and sparing no details on how they did it, the FBI has effectively destroyed the credibility of Apple's devices.  

The FBI clearly were playing a long game with Apple by first pursuing a overreaching court order they knew Apple wouldn't comply with  creating a very public debate about a complex issue where there's no easy answers.  

The FBI in truth could have found a way to get round Apple's robust encryption practices long before this point but the FBI, who have been one step behind Apple since it started taking encryption of its products seriously back in 2014, has in one announcement undermined Apple stance on consumer privacy and the security of their devices. 

What's worse is that Apple from this point onwards won't have a clue when the FBI force entry into their devices which means they can't even keep a track on the FBI accessing their customer private information. This is bad news for Apple  as the FBI's announcement could destroy the B2B market for their devices as organizations across the board have become more security conscious than ever and are less likely to invest in devices that can be compromised by law enforcement. 

FBI's announcement will certainly affect sales of their devices in Europe as the continent in the post Snowden age have become more aware and as a result taken an aggressive stance towards Silicon Valley giants on a wide range of issues including privacy. 

However, the wider implications of the FBI's announcement is that Apple, unless the FBI reveals their new method for accessing devices,  won't be able to improve their security position. What this means in practice is that because the FBI has found a way to access their devices and  aren't going to reveal how they did it, Apple can't make security updates which seriously increases their devices vulnerability to attacks. 

Worst still, if the FBI doesn't reveal how it accessed Apple's iPhone, it's only a matter before law enforcement and intelligence agencies in other countries find and exploit the weakness in Apple's encrypted devices and end up being subject to a precedent they fought so hard against back in February till now. 

In sum, the FBI announcement demonstrated that they're good at framing public debates and even better at strategy but the real takeaway from the FBI and Apple clash is that the real losers are consumers.