Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #278 > unrolled thread

Internet of Things + Big Data - Security = ...

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Internet of Things + Big Data - Security = ... wjwlsn <ibillwilson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-11 23:14 +0000
    Re: Internet of Things + Big Data - Security = ... wjwlsn <ibillwilson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-12 00:23 +0000
      Re: Internet of Things + Big Data - Security = ... wjwlsn <ibillwilson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-12 00:34 +0000
    Re: Internet of Things + Big Data - Security = ... Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-12 09:23 -0500
      Re: Internet of Things + Big Data - Security = ... wjwlsn <ibillwilson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-12 10:22 -0800

#278 — Internet of Things + Big Data - Security = ...

So what happens when you have 'net connected sensors and controls everywhere, organizations hell-bent on capturing and mining every bit of data they can for power or profit, and shoddily implemented security measures hidden all over the place?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#283

> So what happens when you have 'net connected sensors and controls everywhere, organizations hell-bent on capturing and mining every bit of data they can for power or profit, and shoddily implemented security measures hidden all over the place?
>

Argh. I somehow posted this without any additional info.

"http://www.wired.com/opinion/2014/01/theres-no-good-way-to-patch-the-internet-of-things-and-thats-a-huge-problem/"
"We're at a crisis point now with regard to the security of embedded systems, where computing is embedded into the hardware itself - as with the Internet of Things. These embedded computers are riddled with vulnerabilities, and there's no good way to patch them."


"http://www.datamation.com/security/2014-the-year-of-big-data-leak.html"
"The emergence of Big Data will radically change the risks associated with data breaches. In the past, cyber-crooks mainly sought discrete pieces of information, such as credit card numbers or user names and passwords. It's not going to be long before cyber-crooks start breaking into databases to do their own data mining. They already do a primitive version of t
his on social networks, and it won't be long before they want to know as much about you as Google does."


"http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/02/target-hackers-broke-in-via-hvac-company/"
"It's not immediately clear why Target would have given an HVAC company external network access, or why that access would not be cordoned off from Target's payment system network. But according to a cybersecurity expert at a large retailer who asked not to be named because he did not have permission to speak on the record, it is common for large retail operation
s to have a team that routinely monitors energy consumption and temperatures in stores to save on costs..."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#284

AAAARRRGGHHH! Then I screwed up all the links somehow. This is my last attempt to get this right, I promise.

>
> "http://www.wired.com/opinion/2014/01/theres-no-good-way-to-patch-the-internet-of-things-and-thats-a-huge-problem/"
> We're at a crisis point now with regard to the security of embedded systems, where computing is embedded into the hardware itself - as with the Internet of Things. These embedded computers are riddled with vulnerabilities, and there's no good way to patch them.
>
>
> "http://www.datamation.com/security/2014-the-year-of-big-data-leak.html"
> "The emergence of Big Data will radically change the risks associated with data breaches. In the past, cyber-crooks mainly sought discrete pieces of information, such as credit card numbers or user names and passwords. It's not going to be long before cyber-crooks start breaking into databases to do their own data mining. They already do a primitive version of
 this on social networks, and it won't be long before they want to know as much about you as Google does."
>
>
> "http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/02/target-hackers-broke-in-via-hvac-company/"
> "It's not immediately clear why Target would have given an HVAC company external network access, or why that access would not be cordoned off from Target's payment system network. But according to a cybersecurity expert at a large retailer who asked not to be named because he did not have permission to speak on the record, it is common for large retail operati
ons to have a team that routinely monitors energy consumption and temperatures in stores to save on costs..."
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#301

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:14:35 -04-59 (UTC), wjwlsn
<ibillwilson@gmail.com> wrote:

>So what happens when you have 'net connected sensors and controls everywhere, organizations hell-bent on capturing and mining every bit of data they can for power or profit, and shoddily implemented security measures hidden all over the place?

I wrote else where that our society is on the cusp of a new revolution
(not that I was the first to say so). Monitoring technology (cameras,
microphones, GPS, and various other scanners) are so ubiquitous and
cheap, and processing and networking power so readily available, that
soon everyone will be able to keep track of everyone else. Government
will be watching people, people watching governments, and both will
keep a wary eye on corporations and criminals (who will return the
favor). 

This scares the shit out of those currently in power, since for a long
time total surveillance was something on which they had a monopoly.
You only have to see how the US government is reacting to Wikileaks
and Snowden to see how upset this change makes them. But these leaks,
criminal breaches of corporate and government websites, YouTube videos
of government agents (politicians, cops) acting badly, and other
similar things show, the power of the people to surveil their masters
is already out there. Things like Google Glass are only going to move
things further in that direction.

I am not afraid to admit that the direction our society is moving in
makes me quite uncomfortable; like it or not, we will all - ordinary
citizens, government, military, corporations - be losing a lot of
privacy in coming years and decades (younger generations are more
blase about the loss). But what is the alternative? As I said, the
tech is already out there, the genie is out of the bottle. Worse, we
depend on so much of this technology for less-invasive uses: the
Internet, medical prognosis, navigation, to name a few. All of it can
be - and has been - repurposed to the goal of watching one another.

Short of a radical push - legally, culturally and technologically - it
is unlikely we will be able to rebottle the djinn, and by doing so we
will also cut ourselves off from many of the advantages we've taken
for granted over the last ten years. The government might want to
restrict people to watch one another (and them) but they will have a
hard time doing so as long as these powerful technological tools
remain in our hands. I mean, my cell phone contains a camera,
microphone, GPS and transmitter; I could in a pinch use it to spy on
my ex if I really wanted to (drop it in her car so it listens to her
conversations, reports her movements, and beams all the info back to
me wirelessly). 

Furthermore, laws mean little if people are disinclined to obey them
and are given an easy way to ignore those laws (see copyright
infringement). If we really wanted to preserve our privacy, we would
as a whole have to culturally reject the technology (and this
rejection would probably bounce back and force the government to be
more cautious in the use of the technology). And while such widespread
cultural shifts are possible, I don't think it is very likely, do you?

I don't want to be like Scott McNealy, who once infamously stated that
we need to "get over it" with regard to privacy. I think the loss of
personal privacy is going to fundamentally shift our culture, our
mores, our way of life and behaving with one another. But I also fear
that we are riding a whirlwind and - much as we may dread this new
world - it is at this point impossible for us to get off. On the other
hand, I am somewhat optimistic because I feel that, radical as a
panopticon society may be, it is still is far, far better than a
surveillance society, where only one side reaps the benefits of all
this monitoring technology. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:23:49 AM UTC-5, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> I wrote else where that our society is on the cusp of a new revolution (not that I was the first to say so). Monitoring technology (cameras, microphones, GPS, and various other scanners) are so ubiquitous and cheap, and processing and networking power so readily available, that soon everyone will be able to keep track of everyone else. Government will be watching people, people watching governments, and both will keep a wary eye on corporations and criminals (who will return the favor).
> ... <snip> ...
> I don't want to be like Scott McNealy, who once infamously stated that we need to "get over it" with regard to privacy. I think the loss of personal privacy is going to fundamentally shift our culture, our mores, our way of life and behaving with one another. But I also fear that we are riding a whirlwind and - much as we may dread this new world - it is at this point impossible for us to get off. On the other hand, I am somewhat optimistic because I feel that, radical as a panopticon society may be, it is still is far, far better than a surveillance society, where only one side reaps the benefits of all this monitoring technology.

Wow, what a comprehensive and insightful reply. I agree that the potential for these technologies -- both positive and negative -- is huge, and quite possibly capable of completely transforming cultures. Ubiquitous, pervasive surveillance and control is one possibility, and I really don't care to follow that train of though much further. The other extreme, where everyone can potentially know what anyone else is doing (or has done), including where and when, is still scary though... even if done only with goodwill, understanding, and respect for the individual.

As you said, I don't think it's possible that the vast majority of people will reject the technology outright. There are too many potential advantages. I do fear, however, that we might be rushing headfirst into a situation that we're not prepared to deal with. The pace of technological advancement is far outstripping our ability to foresee potential consequences and our will to take wise precautions.

Those that truly fear the technology right now seem to be rebelling and/or withdrawing (as with the somewhat widespread contempt for, and backlash against, so-called "GlassHoles".) I only see this trend increasing as the technology begins to be deployed more widely and more quickly. For instance, the traditional Liberal/Conservative divide in the US could fully morph into something more like Technophile/Technophobe, or Futurist/Traditionalist. I guess this is already happening, to some extent. (I probably fall into the "Hopeful but Cautious Futurist/Technophile" camp.)

Anyway, it seems like the big takeaway from all this is that we really, really need to do a lot more thinking about methods and implementations for privacy and security. A friend of mine just sent me a link about a new research language being developed at MIT that has privacy considerations baked in from the get-go... kind of a trust-based input/output model. I'm not certain that it's necessarily the way to go, but it does point the way to a general concept that seems reasonable.

"http://www.technologyreview.com/aroundmit/524586/new-programming-language-removes-human-error-from-privacy-equation/"

That's all I can think of right now. Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web