IT technology is infiltrating almost every area in our society, but there is one front where the progress is notably slow. Democracy. Why?
We still use representative democracy and elect politicians for several years at a time. This is largely done using pen and paper and the votes are counted manually. Processing the votes seems like a task well suited for computers. And why do we even need to elect representatives when we could vote directly over the net in the big and important questions? Representative democracy was after all invented thousands of years ago when people had to gather physically to hold a meeting. Then it made sense to send someone to represent a group of people, but now we could involve a whole nation directly using the net. So what’s stopping us from doing that?
Let’s first look at IT as an aid in representative democracy. First, voting machines have already been used for a long time in some countries, including the US. But there have been many controversies and elections have even been declared invalid by court (link in Finnish) due to problems in electronic handling of votes.
Handling an election seems like a straightforward IT problem, but it really isn’t. Let’s keep in mind the fundamental requirements for an election: 1. The identity of voters and their right to vote must be verified. 2. It must be ensured that no one votes more than once. 3. It shall not be possible to determine how a person has voted. 4. The integrity of the result must be verifiable. The big problem is that these requirements conflicts with each other. You must know the person who votes but still store the data in a way that makes it possible to verify the result but not identify the voter. This leads to complex designs involving cryptography. It’s no doubt possible to develop systems that fulfill these needs. The hard part is to verify the systems thoroughly enough to make sure they really work.
And here psychology enters the scene. We all know pens and paper well and we have learned to trust the traditional election system. There is a fairly large number of unclear votes in every election and we have accepted that as a fact. But people are a lot more suspicious against computerized systems. Most of us lack the ability to understand how electronic voting works. And the requirements described above causes complexity that makes it hard even for many professionals. Only crypto experts have the true ability to audit it. This makes it hard to build a chain of trust between ordinary people and the voting system.
Is our suspicious attitude justified? Yes and no. We should be suspicious against complex electronic systems and put them through thorough scrutiny before using them in elections. We must demand that their design is open and audited by independent experts. But we are at the same time forgetting the fact that traditional security measures are far from perfect. Written signatures is a very weak method to prove identity and a photo ID is not much better. A nice example is a friend of mine who keeps using an expired ID card just to test the system. The card is his own and he still looks like the picture. The only problem is that the card expired 11 years ago. During these years the card has only been rejected once! It has been used several times when voting in elections. Needless to say, an electronic signature would not pass even once. Despite this, people typically trust written signatures and ID cards a lot more than computerized security measures. The same attitude is visible when discussing electronic voting.
Another real reason to be suspicious against electronic voting is the computers’ ability to process massive amounts of data very quickly. There are always minor errors in the traditional voting systems, but massive manipulation of the result is hard. In a computerized system, on the other hand, even a fairly small glitch may enable someone to make a big impact on the result.
The other side of the coin is the question if we need representative democracy at all anymore. Should we have net polls about the important questions instead? Well, representative democracy has an important benefit, continuity. The same people are given at least some time to achieve results before people can decide if they should continue. But a four to six year term is really too short to change the big things and our politicians tend to focus on smaller and easier issues. Imagine how it would be if the people had a more direct say in decision making? That could lead to an even bigger lack of focus and strategic direction. Probably not a good idea after all.
But representative democracy can be complemented instead of replaced. Crowd sourcing is one area that is taking off. A lot of things can be crowd sourced and legislative proposals is one of them. Many countries already have a Constitution that allows ordinary citizens to prepare proposals and force the parliament to vote on them, if enough people support the proposal. Here in Finland a crowd sourced copyright act proposal made headlines globally when it recently passed the 50 000 supporter threshold (1,2 % of the voting population). This is an excellent example of how modern Internet-based schemes can complement the representative democracy. Finland’s current copyright legislation is almost 10 years old and is heavily influenced by entertainment industry lobbyists. It was written during a time when most ordinary people had no clue about copyright issues, and the politicians knew even less. For example, most ordinary people probably thinks that downloading a song illegally from the net is less severe than selling a truckload of false CDs. Our current copyright law disagrees.
Issues like this can easily become a politically hot potato that no one want to touch. Here the crowd sourced initiatives comes in really handy. Other examples of popular initiatives in Finland are a demand for equal rights for same-sex couples and making a minority language optional in the schools. Even Edward Snowden has inspired a proposal: It should be possible to apply for political asylum remotely, without visiting the target country. Another issue is however that these initiatives need to pass the parliament to become laws. The representative democracy will still get the final word. Even popular crowd sourced initiatives may be dismissed, but they are still not in vain. Every method to bring in more feedback to the decision makers during their term in office is good and helps mitigate the problems with indirect democracy.
So what will our democracy look like in ten or twenty years? Here’s my guess. We still have representative democracy. Electronic voting machines takes care of most of the load, but we may still have traditional voting on paper available as an alternative. Well, some countries rely heavily on voting machines already today. The electronic machines are accepted as the norm even if some failures do occur. Voting over Internet will certainly be available in many countries, and is actually already in use in Estonia. Direct ways to affect the political system, like legislative proposals, will be developed and play a more important role. And last but not least. Internet has already become a very powerful tool for improving the transparency of our legislative institutions and to provide feedback from voters. This trend will continue and actually make the representative democracy blend into some kind of hybrid democracy. The representatives do in theory have carte blance to rule, but they also need to constantly mind their public reputation. This means that you get some extra power to affect the legislative institutions if you participate in the monitoring and express your opinion constantly, rather than just cast a vote every 4th year.
If you use the internet like a normal person, password management is a pain. It doesn't have to be that way. Over the last two months through Triberr, we invited a group of bloggers we enjoy to work as brand ambassadors on behalf of our password manager KEY, which we built to make securing your accounts simple. They tried KEY out and shared their experience with their readers. By watching them explain what they learned we were reminded that there are some password truths we take for granted. Here are five important points about passwords they made that everyone needs to know. 1. No one changes their passwords when there's a hack. It's constant headline, "Passwords breached. Change all your passwords!" Not only do we have to put up with our trust being breached, as Breakthrough Radio's Michele Price pointed out, we have to take the time to change all our passwords ourselves. If you're a regular reader of Safe and Savvy, you know that experts aren't being sincere when they tell you to change all your passwords. “The dirty little secret of security experts is that when there’s a data breach and they recommend to ‘change all your passwords,’ even they don’t follow their own advice, because they don’t need to,” our Security Advisor Sean Sullivan told us. The only reason you'd need to change all your passwords is if you made a few basic mistakes. 2. Our password choices can make us vulnerable. "You should have diversified your usernames and passwords in the first place," Harri Hiljander, our Product Director or Personal Identity Protection, told LeadersWest's Jim Dougherty. If you reuse passwords, every hack or breach is exponentially worse. But still people reuse passwords over and over for a pretty obvious reason. 3. It's too hard to come up with and remember strong, unique passwords for all our important accounts. Our bloggers presented the suggestions for generating strong unique passwords our Labs offered -- and to be honest, the advice can overwhelming. But if you're going to come up something that protects your financial details, it's essential. That's why the bloggers liked KEY's ability to generate strong passwords for them. "I think this is the best feature of all," World of My Imagination's Nicole Michelle wrote. Forget all the rules. Now you don't have to worry if your password is going to end up on a list of ones you should never use. 4. Password security is especially important to people who work online -- and who doesn't? If you spend your time building up an online publication your readers trust, the integrity of your site is priceless, as we learned from WhyNotMom.com. Sean advised our bloggers to sure that their WordPress -- or any blogging platform -- password isn't being reused anywhere else. In addition to the three things everyone needs to do -- back up everything, patch all your software and use updated security software -- he also advised them to make sure they keep a watchful eye on all their blog plug-ins. Keep them updates AND keep an eye out for plug-ins that are no longer being updated. Get rid of those. 5. You should have at least one email account you don't share with anyone. Identity management gets harder and harder as our usernames become more public. Everyone gets by now -- we hope -- that you should never reuse pairings of logins and passwords for your crucial accounts. But there are extra steps you can take, as our bloggers learned from our KEY experts. "Create a new email address for online accounts, don’t share it with ANYONE." Chelsea from Me and My Handful wrote about our Labs' advice to keep your login names secret. "So smart, and yet, we don’t do it." But all this knowledge is useless if you don't have a system to keep your passwords secure. Set up a system then pick a password manager -- we suggest you try KEY for free, of course --and stick with it. Cheers, Jason [Image via kris krüg via Flickr ]
The whole world is waking up to a new reality. Privacy used to be a fundamental human right that we took for granted. Technically it still is, but the global Internet has made it easy to violate this right. Too easy as there is proof that many states and companies violate it extensively and blatantly. There’s many motives for this. Technical feasibility, commercial benefits, diplomatic and political advantages, fear of terrorism and last but not least, peoples’ lack of awareness. The incentives to violate our privacy will not go away, but peoples’ awareness is certainly increasing. This is obvious now in the post-Snowden era. Customers start to ask how their service- and software providers guard their privacy, and make purchase decisions based on that. Protecting our customers’ data has been F-Secure’s mission for more than 25 years. That’s why we are very worried about the current situation, and eager to raise awareness about it. But raising awareness is not enough. We also need to get our act together and make sure our own offering isn’t violating your privacy. It’s by the way a surprisingly complex task that affect all functions in a company. That’s why we have published nine privacy principles that guide our work to guard your privacy. Let’s walk through the first 3 in this post. Stay tuned, the rest will be covered soon. WE RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY This is really the fundament of it all. Our goal is to provide you with products and services that create some value for you, but this is never done by violating your privacy. Quite the opposite, guarding your privacy is a central goal in many products. Many companies market “free” services, where the customer in reality pay by letting the provider utilize personal information. F-Secure is NOT one of them. YOUR CONTENT BELONGS TO YOU We handle your data in many ways, either by apps on your own device or uploaded to our services. But no matter how we get in touch with it, it is still YOUR data. We have no right to utilize it for our own purposes and we do not reserve such rights in legal-jargon user agreements that nobody reads or understands. YOU DECIDE HOW MUCH YOU SHARE WITH US Your data, or data about you, may become accessible to us in several ways. You may upload it to our servers yourself. In this case it’s obvious that you are in full control of what data you transfer. Our products may also collect data to improve the service we offer, but you can opt out from much of this. Only a small part of the collected data is mandatory and not controlled by you. In short, we apply a strict minimalistic policy to automatic data uploads. We only fetch data if it’s needed to improve the service, we anonymize data when possible and we let you opt out if the data isn’t absolutely necessary. That’s 3 fundamental privacy principles in our set of totally nine. Stay tuned, we will present the rest shortly. Safe surfing, Micke
The recent statements from FBI director James Comey is yet another example of the authorities’ opportunistic approach to surveillance. He dislikes the fact that mobile operating systems from Google and Apple now come with strong encryption for data stored on the device. This security feature is naturally essential when you lose your device or if you are a potential espionage target. But the authorities do not like it as it makes investigations harder. What he said was basically that there should be a method for authorities to access data in mobile devices with a proper warrant. This would be needed to effectively fight crime. Going on to list some hated crime types, murder, child abuse, terrorism and so on. And yes, this might at first sound OK. Until you start thinking about it. Let’s translate Comey’s statement into ordinary non-obfuscated English. This is what he really said: “I, James Comey, director of FBI, want every person world-wide to carry a tracking device at all times. This device shall collect the owner’s electronic communications and be able to open cloud services where data is stored. The content of these tracking devices shall on request be made available to the US authorities. We don’t care if this weakens your security, and you shouldn’t care because our goals are more important than your privacy.” Yes, that’s what we are talking about here. The “tracking devices” are of course our mobile phones and other digital gadgets. Our digital lives are already accurate mirrors of our actual lives. Our gadgets do not only contain actual data, they are also a gate to the cloud services because they store passwords. Granting FBI access to mobile devices does not only reveal data on the device. It also opens up all the user’s cloud services, regardless of if they are within US jurisdiction or not. In short. Comey want to put a black box in the pocket of every citizen world-wide. Black boxes that record flight data and communications are justified in cockpits, not in ordinary peoples’ private lives. But wait. What if they really could solve crimes this way? Yes, there would probably be a handful of cases where data gathered this way is crucial. At least enough to make fancy PR and publically show how important it is for the authorities to have access to private data. But even proposing weakening the security of commonly and globally used operating systems is a sign of gross negligence against peoples’ right to security and privacy. The risk is magnitudes bigger than the upside. Comey was diffuse when talking about examples of cases solved using device data. But the history is full of cases solved *without* data from smart devices. Well, just a decade ago we didn’t even have this kind of tracking devices. And the police did succeed in catching murderers and other criminals despite that. You can also today select to not use a smartphone, and thus drop the FBI-tracker. That is your right and you do not break any laws by doing so. Many security-aware criminals are probably operating this way, and many more would if Comey gets what he wants. So it’s very obvious that the FBI must have capability to investigate crime even without turning every phone into a black box. Comey’s proposal is just purely opportunistic, he wants this data because it exists. Not because he really needs it. Safe surfing, Micke