Right to be forgotten – good or bad?

Have you ever Binged or Googled for your own name, address or phone number? It’s good to do it now and then, and the result may be shocking. You don’t have to be a celebrity to be mentioned on the net. Most of us occur on the net in quite many places, often a lot more than we imagine.

You can decide how much you reveal to the public in the profiles of your own accounts. But that’s not the full picture. Every time you participate in something under your own name, it may be published on the net, with or without your consent. This kind of publicity is hard to track, and next to impossible to control.

This is what the European court of justice (ECJ) tried to control in a ruling in May 2014. In short, a man from Spain found previously published data to be embarrassing and outdated. The site refused to take down the data and Spanish authorities ruled that there was no legal ground to demand deletion of the lawfully published content. The European court did however rule in favor of him and demanded Google to hide these pages in search results. According to the court, Google has to delete “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” data from search results.

I’m an advocate of digital privacy and our rights to control our digital footprint. And this is sort of a win for privacy-fighters. But I have mixed feelings about this decision and will not open any sparkling bottles. I think the track that ECJ has entered will turn out to be a dead end.

First of all, trying to create ways to control net content is good. We are dealing with a delicate balance between freedom of speech and peoples’ right to privacy. But most of us probably agree that a net totally without content control isn’t desirable.

But trying to solve this problem with the search engine companies is like creating a giant reality distortion field. The data does not go anywhere even if it’s hidden in Google searches. As a matter of fact, all you have to do is to use a non-European version of Google. And that’s not all. Google is even planning to inform users that items have been hidden from the search result they are viewing. Convenient with a reminder that you should search again with the US version, isn’t it?

Search engines are of great importance for what pages we find and read. But many are probably overestimating this importance now when social media is getting more popular. Nowadays we do not only find our stuff by searching, a significant part is virally spreading links. These links also bypass the reality distortion field totally.

The right to be forgotten is a great principle. But I think it should be restricted to the actual content and not services that help you find it. What we need is a globally working system for content take-down requests. These requests need to be approved by some kind of authority and the system must have built-in safeguards against misuse for censorship. Yes, keep in mind the delicate balance between freedom of speech and privacy. The neutrality of search engines should at the same time be controlled and guaranteed. If something is wrong, let’s fix reality instead of creating a reality distortion field.

Congratulations anyway to Mario Costeja González who won the case against Google. That’s an achievement even if the outcome is questionable. And the funny thing is naturally that you would have no clue who Mario Costeja González is, and that his house had to be sold to pay debts, without this thing called right to be forgotten.

BTW, if your search turned up something you don’t like and you are a European citizen, then you can continue to Googles removal process. We don’t know yet how this will work when the masses start to request removals. The process will probably be an uphill battle, so don’t hold your breath. It will be interesting to see how this develops.




Image by stockimages @ freedigitalphotos.net

More posts from this topic


Is protection against self-incrimination dead in the digital era? (Poll)

How to balance between privacy and crime fighting? That’s one of the big questions now when we are entering the digitally connected era. Our western democracies have a set of well-established and widely accepted rules that control what authorities can and can’t do. One aspect of this has been in the headlines lately. That’s your right to “plead the Fifth”, as the Americans say. Laws are different in every country, but most have something similar to USA’s Fifth Amendment. The beef is that “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,…”. Or as often expressed in popular culture: “You have the right to remain silent.” With more fancy words, protection against self-incrimination. What this means in practice is that no one can force you to reveal information if authorities are suspecting you of a crime. You have the right to defend yourself, and refusal to disclose information is a legal defense tactic. But the police can search your home and vehicles for items, if they have the proper warrant, and there’s nothing you can do to stop that. In short, the Fifth Amendment protects what you know but not what you have. Sounds fair. But the problem is that there was no information technology when these fundamental principles were formed back in 1789. The makers of the Fifth Amendment, and similar laws in other countries, could not foresee that “what you know” will expand far beyond our own brains. Our mobile gadgets, social media and cloud services can in the worst case store a very comprehensive picture of how we think, whom we have communicated with, where we have been and what we have done. All this is stored in devices, and thus available to the police even if we exercise our right to remain silent. Where were you last Thursday at 10 PM? Do you know Mr John Doe? What's the nature of your relationship with Ms Jane Doe? Have you purchased any chemicals lately? Do you own a gun? Have you traveled to Boston during the last month? Have you ever communicated with mohammad@isis.org? These are all questions that an investigator could ask you. And all may still be answered by data in your devices and clouds even if you exercise your right to remain silent. So has the Fifth Amendment lost its meaning? Would the original makers of the amendment accept this situation, or would they make an amendment to the amendment? The situation is pretty clear for social media and cloud storage. This data is stored in some service provider’s data center. The police can obtain a warrant and then get your data without any help from you.(* Same thing with computers they take from your home. The common interpretation is that this isn’t covered by the Fifth Amendment. But what if you stored encrypted files on the servers? Or you use a device that encrypts its local storage (modern Androids and iPhones belong to this category). The police will in these cases need the password. This is something you know, which makes it protected. This is a problem for the police and countries have varying legislation to address the problem. UK takes an aggressive approach and makes it a crime to refuse revealing passwords. Memorized passwords are however protected in US, which was demonstrated in a recent case. Biometric authentication is yet another twist. Imagine that you use your fingerprint to unlock your mobile device. Yes, it’s convenient. But it may at the same time reduce your Fifth Amendment protection significantly. Your fingerprint is what you are, not what you know. There are cases in the US where judges have ruled that forcing a suspect to unlock a device with a fingerprint isn’t in conflict with the constitution. But we haven’t heard the Supreme Court’s ruling on this issue yet. So the Fifth Amendment, and equal laws in other countries, is usually interpreted so that it only protects information stored in your brain. But this definition is quickly becoming outdated and very limited. This is a significant ethical question. Should we let the Fifth Amendment deteriorate and give crime fighting higher priority? Or should we accept that our personal memory expands beyond what we have in our heads? Our personal gadgets do no doubt contain a lot of such information that the makers of Fifth Amendment wanted to protect. If I have the right to withhold a piece of information stored in my head, why should I not have the right to withhold the same information stored elsewhere? Is there really a fundamental difference that justifies treating these two storage types differently? These are big questions where different interests conflict, and there are no perfect solutions. So I pass the question to you. What do you think? [polldaddy poll=9102679]   Safe surfing, Micke   Image by OhLizz   (* It is this simple if the police, the suspect and the service provider all are in the same country. But it can get very complicated in other cases. Let's not go there now as that would be beside the point of this post.  

September 30, 2015
Hillary Clinton, email scandal, phishing scam

A phishing scam may hurt Hillary Clinton’s career — could it cost you yours?

This email was one of five phishing scams found in the 6,400 pages of Hillary Clinton's emails released on Wednesday. While there's no confirmation that former First Lady fell for the scam, her political opponents are using it to attack her for the security risks of the unconventional private server she used while in office -- even though a recent report found that 1 of 7 emails received on official U.S. Defense Department servers were either spam, phishing or other malware attacks. Receiving such attacks is inevitable. Cyber criminals have long known that one the best ways to hack into something is to simply ask you for the password. This technique has long relied on the fact that most of are used to entering our credentials so if a site looks trustworthy enough, we'll just type our credentials. From there, the bad guys can use these keys to unlock our digital life. As we've become more savvy in recognizing untrustworthy emails like the one above, criminals have taken advantage of our growing desire to share information about ourselves online to pioneer a more advanced technique called "spear phishing," which usually arrives in the form of a personalized email from an person or business you have a relationship with. This sort of attack was pioneered to hack high-value targets like Clinton. The Russian-backed Dukes group used this method in its 7-year campaign against western interests and others. In our Business Insider blog, Eija offers an inside look at how the CEO of a Finnish startup was the victim of an attempted spear phishing. "However, anyone can be a target..." Eija explains. And if you work in the U.S. government your chances of being hit with a very personalized attack have greatly increased as a result of the recent hack of the Office of Personnel Management. “Every bit of my personal information is in an attacker’s hands right now,"Paul Beckman, the Department of Homeland security’s chief information security officer, said at the Billington Cybersecurity Summit in September. "They could probably craft my email that even I would be susceptible to, because they know everything about me virtually.” Beckman said he regularly sends fake phishing emails to his staff to see if they fall for them, and “you’d be surprised at how often I catch these guys.”' Getting caught results in mandatory security training. But even after two or three rounds of instruction, the same people still fall for similar scams. “Someone who fails every single phishing campaign in the world should not be holding a [top secret clearance] with the federal government,” he said. “You have clearly demonstrated that you are not responsible enough to responsibly handle that information.” Beckman said he has proposed that those who prove they cannot detect a scam be stripped of their clearance, which could limit their career possibilities or even cost them a job. If you're the CEO of a startup, you recognize that security of your business is essential to your success. But if you're just an employee, your incentives for protecting intellectual property are nowhere as strong. Criminals only need one victim to make one mistake to succeed. So what are employers to do when education just isn't good enough? How about positive reinforcement for those who successfully avoid a scam? The truth is we're all only as secure as our training and focus. Organizations need to work on the best methods for developing both. Whether it's at work or at home or in the U.S. State Department, you're likely to be faced with a phishing attempt before long. Here's basic guidance from Eija on how to avoid being hooked: Be vigilant when entering your password anywhere Enable two-factor authentication Use Google’s built-in Security Checkup and Privacy Checkup tools Periodically review forwarding and mail filter settings, Connected apps & sites, Devices and Activities, shared files Disable POP and IMAP access if you don’t need them for a desktop or mobile client Cheers, Sandra

September 29, 2015
The Dukes

“The Dukes” – Ask the Experts

Last week, F-Secure Labs published a new study that provides a detailed analysis of a hacking group called “the Dukes”. The Dukes are what’s known as an advanced persistent threat (APT) – a type of hacking campaign in which a group of attackers is able to covertly infiltrate an organization’s IT network and steal data, often over a long period of time while remaining undetected. The report provides a comprehensive analysis of the Dukes’ history, and provides evidence that security researchers and analysts say proves the various attacks discussed in the report are attributable to the Duke group. Furthermore, the new information contained in the report strengthens previous claims that the group is operating with support from the Russian government. Mikko Hypponen has said that attacker attribution is important, but it’s also complex and notoriously difficult, so the findings of the report have considerable security implications. I contacted several people familiar with the report to get some additional insights into the Dukes, the research, and what this information means to policy makers responsible for issues pertaining to national cybersecurity. Artturi Lehtiö (AL) is the F-Secure Researcher who headed the investigation and authored the report. He has published previous research on attacks that are now understood to have been executed by the Dukes. Patrik Maldre (PM) is a Junior Research Fellow at the International Center for Defense and Security, and has previously written about the Dukes, and the significance of this threat for global security. Mika Aaltola (MA) is the Program Director for the Global Security research program at the Finnish Institute for International Affairs. He published an article of his own examining how groups like the Dukes fit into the geopolitical ambitions of nations that employ them.   Q: What is the one thing that people must absolutely know about the Dukes? PM: They are using their capabilities in pursuit of Russian strategic interests, including economic and political domination in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as the Caucasus region, and a return to higher status at the international level. AL: They are a long-standing key part of Russian espionage activity in the cyber domain. MA: The geopolitical intention behind the vast majority of targets. Q: We now know the Dukes are responsible for a number of high profile attacks, and seemingly target information about politics and defense. But what kind of information might they obtain with their attacks, and why would it be valuable? AL: They might obtain information like meeting notes, memos, plans, and internal reports, not to mention email conversations. In essence, the Dukes aim to be a fly on the wall behind the closed doors of cabinets, meeting rooms, and negotiating tables. PM: The targets of the Dukes include government ministries, militaries, political think tanks, and parliaments. The information that can be gained from these organizations includes, among other things, sensitive communication among high-level officials, details of future political postures, data about strategic arms procurement plans, compromising accounts of ongoing intelligence operations, positions regarding current diplomatic negotiations, future positioning of strategic military contingents, plans for future economic investments, and internal debates about policies such as sanctions. MA: The targets are high value assets. Two things are important: data concerning the plans and decisions taken by the targeted organizations. Second, who is who in the organizations, what are the key decision-making networks, what possible weaknesses can be used and exploited, and how the organization can be used to gain access to other organizations. Q: The Dukes are typically classified as an APT. What makes the Dukes different from other APTs? MA: APT is a good term to use with the Dukes. However, there are some specific characteristics. The multi-year campaigning with relatively simple tools sets Dukes apart from e.g. Stuxnet. Also, the Dukes are used in psychological warfare. The perpetrators can even benefit from they actions becoming public as long as some deniability remains. AL: The sophistication of the Dukes does not come as much from the sophistication of their own methods as it comes from their understanding of their targets’ methods, what their targets’ weaknesses are, and how those can be exploited. PM: They are among the most capable, aggressive, and determined actors that have been publicly identified to be serving Russian strategic interests. The Dukes provide a very wide array of different capabilities that can be chosen based on the targets, objectives, and constraints of a particular operation. They appear to be acting in a brazen manner that indicates complete confidence in their immunity from law enforcement or domestic oversight by democratic bodies. Q: There are 9 distinctive Duke toolsets. Why would a single group need 9 different malware toolsets instead of just 1? AL: The Dukes attempt to use their wide arsenal of tools to stay one-step ahead of the defenders by frequently switching the toolset used. MA: They are constantly developing the tools and using them for different targets. Its an evolutionary process meant to trick different “immunity” systems. Much like drug cocktails can trick the HIV virus. PM: The different Duke toolsets provide flexibility and can be used to complement each other. For example, if various members of the Dukes are used to compromise a particular target and the infection is discovered, the incident responders may be led to believe that quarantines and remediation have been successful even though another member of the Dukes is still able to extract valuable information. Q: Many people reading this aren’t involved in geopolitics. What do you think non-policy makers can take away from this whitepaper? AL: This research aims to provide a unique window into the world of the Dukes, allowing people not traditionally involved with governmental espionage or hacking to gauge for themselves how their lives may be affected by activity like the Dukes. PM: It is important for people to understand the threats that are associated with these technological developments. The understanding of cybersecurity should grow to the point where it is on par with the wider public’s understanding of other aspects of international security, such as military strategy or nuclear non-proliferation. This knowledge is relevant for the exercise of fundamental liberties that are enjoyed in democratic societies, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, as well as of basic rights such as voting in elections. MA: The geopolitical intent is clearly present in this activity. However, the developments in this realm affects other types of cyber-attacks. Same methods spread. There is cross-fertilization, as in the case of Stuxnet that was soon adapted for other purposes by other groups.   F-Secure’s Business Security Insider blog recently posted a quick breakdown on how the Dukes typically execute their attacks, and what people can do to prevent becoming a victim of the Dukes or similar threats. Check it out for some additional information about the Dukes.

September 22, 2015