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.
New versions of windows used to be like an international holiday. PC users around the world celebrated by sharing what they liked -- much of Windows 7 --- and hated -- all of Windows 8 and Vista -- about the latest version of the world's most popular operating system. In this way, Windows 10 is the end of an era. This is the "final version" of the OS. After you step up to this version, there will be continual updates but no new version to upgrade to. It's the birth of "Windows as a service," according to Verge. So if you're taking free upgrade to the new version, here are 5 things you need to know as you get used to the Windows that could be with you for the rest of your life. 1.Our Chief Research Office Mikko Hypponen noted Windows 10 still hides double extensions by default. “Consider a file named doubleclick.pdf.bat. If ‘hide extensions’ is enabled, then this will be shown in File Explorer as ‘doubleclick.pdf’. You, the user, might go ahead and double-click on it, because it’s just a PDF, right?” F-Secure Security Advisor Tom Gaffney told Infosecurity Magazine. “In truth, it’s a batch file, and whatever commands it contains will run when you double-click on it.” Keep this in mind when you do -- or DON'T -- click on unknown files. 2. You could end up sharing your Wi-Fi connection with all your contacts. There's some debate about whether or not Windows 10's Wi-Fi Sense shares your Wi-Fi connection with social media contacts by default, as Windows Phone has for a while now. ZDNet's Ed Bott says no, noting that "you have to very consciously enable sharing for a network. It's not something you'll do by accident." Security expert Brian Krebs is more skeptical, given how we're "conditioned to click 'yes' to these prompts." "In theory, someone who wanted access to your small biz network could befriend an employee or two, and drive into the office car park to be in range, and then gain access to the wireless network," The Register's Simon Rockman wrote. "Some basic protections, specifically ones that safeguard against people sharing their passwords, should prevent this." Gaffney notes that Wi-Fi Sense is “open to accidental and deliberate misuse.” So what to do? Krebs recommends the following: Prior to upgrade to Windows 10, change your Wi-Fi network name/SSID to something that includes the terms “_nomap_optout”. [This is Windows opt-out for Wi-Fi Sense]. After the upgrade is complete, change the privacy settings in Windows to disable Wi-Fi Sense sharing. 3. There are some privacy issues you should know about. Basically "whatever happens, Microsoft knows what you're doing," The Next Web's Mic Wright noted. Microsoft, according to its terms and conditions, can gather data “from you and your devices, including for example ‘app use data for apps that run on Windows’ and ‘data about the networks you connect to.'” And they can also disclose it to third parties as they feel like it. You should check your privacy settings and you can stop advertisers from know exactly who you are. Want a deep dive into the privacy issues? Visit Extreme Tech. 4. The new Action Center could be useful but it could get annoying. This notification center makes Windows feel more like an iPhone -- because isn't the point of everything digital to eventually merge into the same thing? BGR's Zach Epstein wrote "one location for all of your notifications is a welcome change." But it can get overwhelming. "In Windows 10, you can adjust notifications settings by clicking the notifications icon in the system tray," he wrote. "The click All settings, followed by System and then Notifications & actions." 5. Yes, F-Secure SAFE, Internet Security and Anti-Virus are all Windows 10 ready. [Image by Brett Morrison | Flickr]
You have all heard the classic mantra of computer security: use common sense, patch your system and install antivirus. That is still excellent advice, but the world is changing. We used to repeat that mantra over and over to the end users. Now we are entering a new era where we have to stress the importance of updates to manufacturers. We did recently write about how Chrysler reacted fairly quickly to stop Jeeps from being controlled remotely. They made a new firmware version for the vehicles, but didn’t have a good channel to distribute the update. Stagefright on Android demonstrates a similar problem, but potentially far more widespread. Let’s first take a look at Stagefright. What is it really? Stagefright is the name of a module deep inside the Android system. This module is responsible for interpreting video files and playing them on the device. The Stagefright bug is a vulnerability that allows and attacker to take over the system with specially crafted video content. Stagefright is used to automatically create previews of content received through many channels. This is what makes the Stagefright bug really bad. Anyone who can send you a message containing video can potentially break into your Android device without any actions from you. You can use common sense and not open fishy mail attachments, but that doesn’t work here. Stagefright takes a look at inbound content automatically in many cases so common sense won't help. Even worse. There’s not much we can do about it, except wait for a patch from the operator or phone vendor. And many users will be waiting in vain. This is because of how the Android system is developed and licensed. Google is maintaining the core Linux-based system and releasing it under an open license. Phone vendors are using Android, but often not as it comes straight from Google. They try to differentiate and modifies Android to their liking. Google reacted quickly and made a fix for the Stagefright bug. This fix will be distributed to their own Nexus-smartphones soon. But it may not be that simple for the other vendors. They need to verify that the patch is compatible with their customizations, and releasing it to their customers may be a lengthy process. If they even want to patch handsets. Some vendors seems to see products in the cheap smartphone segment as disposable goods. They are not supposed to be long-lived and post-sale maintenance is just a cost. Providing updates and patches would just postpone replacement of the phone, and that’s not in the vendor’s interest. This attitude explains why several Android vendors have very poor processes and systems for sending out updates. Many phones will never be patched. Let’s put this into perspective. Android is the most widespread operating system on this planet. 48 % of the devices shipped in 2014 were Androids (Gartner). And that includes both phones, tablets, laptops and desktop computers. There’s over 1 billion active Android devices (Google’s device activation data). Most of them are vulnerable to Stagefright and many of them will never receive a patch. This is big! Let’s however keep in mind that there is no widespread malware utilizing this vulnerability at the time of writing. But all the ingredients needed to make a massive and harmful worm outbreak are there. Also remember that the bug has existed in Android for over five years, but not been publically known until now. It is perfectly possible that intelligence agencies are utilizing it silently for their own purposes. But can we do anything to protect us? That’s the hard question. This is not intended to be a comprehensive guide, but it is however possible to give some simple advice. You can stop worrying if you have a really old device with an Android version lower than 2.2. It’s not vulnerable. Google Nexus devices will be patched soon. A patch has also been released for devices with the CyanogenMod system. The privacy-optimized BlackPhone is naturally a fast-mover in cases like this. Other devices? It’s probably best to just google for “Stagefright” and the model or vendor name of your device. Look for two things. Information about if and when your device will receive an update and for instructions about how to tweak settings to mitigate the threat. Here’s an example. Safe surfing, Micke Image by Rob Bulmahn under CC BY 2.0
This is the fourth in a series of posts about Cyber Defense that happened to real people in real life, costing very real money. It was only just past 1 pm, but Magda was already exhausted. She had recently fired her assistant, so she was now having to personally handle all of the work at her law office. With the aching pain in her head and monstrous hunger mounting in her stomach, Magda thought it was time for a break. She sat at her desk with a salad she had bought earlier that morning and decided she’d watch a short online video her friends had recently told her about. She typed the title in the browser and clicked on a link that took her to the site. A message popped up that the recording couldn’t be played because of a missing plugin. Magda didn’t have much of an idea what the “plugin” was, which wasn’t surprising considering that her computer knowledge was basic at best – she knew enough to use one at work, but that was pretty much all. It was the recently sacked assistant, supported by an outsourced IT firm, who took care of all things related to computers and software. A post-it stuck to Magda’s desk had been unsuccessfully begging her to install an antivirus program. “What was this about?”, Magda tried to remember. At moments like this, she regretted letting the girl go. After some time, she recalled that her assistant had mentioned something about a monthly subscription plan for some antivirus software to protect the computers, tablets and mobile phones. This solution, flexible and affordable for small businesses like Magda’s firm, had also been also recommended by the outsourced IT provider. Despite a nagging feeling that something wasn’t right, she clicked “install”. After a few seconds, the video actually played. Magda was very proud of herself: she had made the plugin thing work! A few days later, she logged into her internet banking system to pay her firm’s bills. As she looked at the balance of the account, she couldn’t believe her eyes. The money was gone! The transaction history showed transfers to accounts that were completely unknown to her. She couldn’t understand how somebody was able to break in and steal her money. The bank login page was encrypted, and besides that, she was the only person who knew the login credentials... At the bank she learnt that they had recorded a user login and transfer orders. Everything had been according to protocol, so the bank had no reason to be suspicious. The bank’s security manager suggested to Magda that she may have been the victim of a hacker’s attack. The IT firm confirmed this suspicion after inspecting Magda’s computer. Experts discovered that the plugin Magda had downloaded to watch the video online was actually malware that stole the login credentials of email accounts, social networking sites and online banking services. Magda immediately changed her passwords and decided to secure them better. She finally had good antivirus software installed, which is now protecting all of the data stored on her computer. She recalled that her bank had long been advising to do that, but she had disregarded their advice. If only she hadn’t... Her omission cost her a lot of money. She was happy, though, that money was all she lost. She didn’t even want to imagine what might have happened if any of her case or clients information had been compromised. That would have been the end of her legal career. "If you have to use dangerous plugins like Java to do banking, you can enable those in one browser and use it only for the banking stuff," F-Secure Director of Security Response Antti Tikkanen explains. To get an inside look at business security, be sure to follow our Business Insider blog.