“Quantum physics enables perfectly secure cloud computing: Researchers have succeeded in combining the power of quantum computing with the security of quantum cryptography and have shown that perfectly secure cloud computing can be achieved using the principles of quantum mechanics. They have performed an experimental demonstration of quantum computation in which the input, the data processing, and the output remain unknown to the quantum computer.
[...] current trend of cloud computing: central remote servers are used to store and process data – everything is done in the “cloud.” The obvious challenge is to make globalized computing safe and ensure that users’ data stays private.
The latest research, to appear in Science, reveals that quantum computers can provide an answer to that challenge. “Quantum physics solves one of the key challenges in distributed computing. It can preserve data privacy when users interact with remote computing centers [...]
The scientists in the Vienna research group have demonstrated the concept of “blind quantum computing” in an experiment: they performed the first known quantum computation during which the user’s data stayed perfectly encrypted. The experimental demonstration uses photons, or “light particles” to encode the data. Photonic systems are well-suited to the task because quantum computation operations can be performed on them, and they can be transmitted over long distances.
The process works in the following manner. The user prepares qubits – the fundamental units of quantum computers – in a state known only to himself and sends these qubits to the quantum computer. The quantum computer entangles the qubits according to a standard scheme. The actual computation is measurement-based: the processing of quantum information is implemented by simple measurements on qubits. The user tailors measurement instructions to the particular state of each qubit and sends them to the quantum server. Finally, the results of the computation are sent back to the user who can interpret and utilize the results of the computation. Even if the quantum computer or an eavesdropper tries to read the qubits, they gain no useful information, without knowing the initial state; they are “blind.”" http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/uov-qpe011612.php

Publication: “Demonstration of Blind Quantum Computing” Stefanie Barz, Elham Kashefi, Anne Broadbent, Joseph Fitzsimons, Anton Zeilinger, Philip Walther. DOI: 10.1126/science.1214707

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1381

Share/Bookmark

Europe versus Facebook’s 22 complaints:

1. Pokes.
Pokes are kept even after the user “removes” them.

2. Shadow Profiles.
Facebook is collecting data about people without their knowledge. This information is used to substitute existing profiles and to create profiles of non-users.

3. Tagging.
Tags are used without the specific consent of the user. Users have to “untag” themselves (opt-out).
Info: Facebook announced changes.

4. Synchronizing.
Facebook is gathering personal data e.g. via its iPhone-App or the “friend finder”. This data is used by Facebook without the consent of the data subjects.

5. Deleted Postings.
Postings that have been deleted showed up in the set of data that was received from Facebook.

6. Postings on other Users’ Pages.
Users cannot see the settings under which content is distributed that they post on other’s pages.

7. Messages.
Messages (incl. Chat-Messages) are stored by Facebook even after the user “deleted” them. This means that all direct communication on Facebook can never be deleted.

8. Privacy Policy and Consent.
The privacy policy is vague, unclear and contradictory. If European and Irish standards are applied, the consent to the privacy policy is not valid.

9. Face Recognition.
The new face recognition feature is an inproportionate violation of the users right to privacy. Proper information and an unambiguous consent of the users is missing.

10. Access Request.
Access Requests have not been answered fully. Many categories of information are missing.

11. Deleted Tags.
Tags that were “removed” by the user, are only deactivated but saved by Facebook.
Filed with the Irish DPC

12. Data Security.
In its terms, Facebook says that it does not guarantee any level of data security.
Filed with the Irish DPC

13. Applications.
Applications of “friends” can access data of the user. There is no guarantee that these applications are following European privacy standards.

14. Deleted Friends.
All removed friends are stored by Facebook.

15. Excessive processing of Data.
Facebook is hosting enormous amounts of personal data and it is processing all data for its own purposes.
It seems Facebook is a prime example of illegal “excessive processing”.

16. Opt-Out.
Facebook is running an opt-out system instead of an opt-in system, which is required by European law.

17. Like Button.
The Like Button is creating extended user data that can be used to track users all over the internet. There is no legitimate purpose for the creation of the data. Users have not consented to the use.

18. Obligations as Processor.
Facebook has certain obligations as a provider of a “cloud service” (e.g. not using third party data for its own purposes or only processing data when instructed to do so by the user).

19. Picture Privacy Settings.
The privacy settings only regulate who can see the link to a picture. The picture itself is “public” on the internet. This makes it easy to circumvent the settings.

20. Deleted Pictures.
Facebook is only deleting the link to pictures. The pictures are still public on the internet for a certain period of time (more than 32 hours).

21. Groups.
Users can be added to groups without their consent. Users may end up in groups that lead other to false impressions about a person.

22. New Policies.
The policies are changed very frequently, users do not get properly informed, they are not asked to consent to new policies.

http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Complaints/complaints.html

Share/Bookmark

EUDataProtectionSupervisor: No privacy without net neutrality “78. Inspection techniques based on traffic data and inspection of IP payloads, i.e. the content of communications, may reveal users’ Internet activity: websites visited and activities on those sites, use of P2P applications, files downloaded, emails sent and received, from whom, on what subject and in which terms, etc. ISPs may want to use this information to prioritise some communications, such as video on demand, over others. They may want to use it to identify viruses, or to build profiles in order to serve behavioural advertising. These actions interfere with the right to the confidentiality of communications.” http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2011/11-10-07_Net_neutrality_EN.pdf

[Via http://www.laquadrature.net/en/no-privacy-without-net-neutrality ]

Share/Bookmark

Policing the Police: Apps That Let You Spy on the Cops http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/06/policing-the-police-the-apps-that-let-you-spy-on-the-cops/240916/

Share/Bookmark

Eavesdropper that illustrates a loophole in quantum cryptography http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-06/cfqt-mqc061011.php

Share/Bookmark

Richard Stallman

Share/Bookmark

GPU Password Cracking – Bruteforceing a Windows Password Using a Graphic Card https://mytechencounters.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/gpu-password-cracking-crack-a-windows-password-using-a-graphic-card/

Cf.

A brief Sony password analysis http://www.troyhunt.com/2011/06/brief-sony-password-analysis.html

Share/Bookmark

“[...] Data Retention Directive does not meet the requirements set out by the rights to privacy and data protection, for the following reasons:

• the necessity of data retention as provided for in the Data Retention Directive has not been sufficiently demonstrated;
• data retention could have been regulated in a less privacy-intrusive way;
• the Data Retention Directive lacks foreseeability.

86. The EDPS calls upon the Commission to consider seriously all options in the impact assessment including the possibility of repealing the Directive, either per se or combined with a proposal for an alternative, more targeted EU measure.

87. A future Data Retention Directive could be considered only if there were agreement on the need for EU rules from the perspective of the internal market and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and if, during the impact assessment, the necessity of data retention, supported and regulated by the EU, could be sufficiently demonstrated, which includes a careful consideration of alternative measures. Such an instrument should fulfil the following basic requirements:

• It should be comprehensive and genuinely harmonise rules on the obligation to retain data, as well as on the access and further use of the data by competent authorities.
• It should be exhaustive, which means that it has a clear and precise purpose and the legal loophole which exists with Article 15(1) of the ePrivacy Directive is closed.
• It should be proportionate and not go beyond what is necessary.” http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2011/11-05-30_Evaluation_Report_DRD_EN.pdf

Share/Bookmark

“[...] The upshot? If the government wants to track your cell phone or seize your email or read your private IMs or social network messages, the bill would require that it first go to court and get a search warrant based on probable cause. [...]

The bill isn’t absolutely free of problems: although it clearly would require a warrant for ongoing tracking of your cell phone, it would also and unfortunately preserve the current statutory rule allowing the government to get historical records of your location without probable cause. It also expands the government’s authority to use National Security Letters https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters to obtain rich transactional data about who you communicate with online and when, without probable cause or court oversight. You can count on EFF to press for these problems to be fixed, and for all of the DDP principles to be addressed, as the bill proceeds through Congress.

However, as the start of the process of updating ECPA for the always-on, location-enabled technology of the 21st century, Senator Leahy’s bill represents an incredibly important step in the right direction, and we at EFF look forward to working with Senator Leahy and others in Congress as they work to create new laws to better protect your online and mobile privacy. [...]” https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/05/eff-applauds-new-electronic-privacy-bill-tells

Share/Bookmark

Help The Wall Street Journal uncover fraud, abuse and other wrongdoing. Send documents to us using a special system built to be secure. Keep your identity anonymous or confidential, if needed. https://www.wsjsafehouse.com/

Cf. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/the-wall-street-journal-launches-a-wikileaks-competitor-safehouse/238421/

Update: http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/05/05/researchers-say-wsjs-wikileaks-copycat-is-full-of-holes/

Share/Bookmark

Surveillance Self-Defense: “The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has created this Surveillance Self-Defense site to educate the American public about the law and technology of government surveillance in the United States, providing the information and tools necessary to evaluate the threat of surveillance and take appropriate steps to defend against it.
Surveillance Self-Defense (SSD) exists to answer two main questions: What can the government legally do to spy on your computer data and communications? And what can you legally do to protect yourself against such spying?” https://ssd.eff.org/

Share/Bookmark

iPhone keeps record of everywhere you go http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tracking-prompts-privacy-fears

iPad’s privacy sucks http://privacysucks.com/blog/2011/04/ipads-privacy-sucks/

Your privacy sucks: http://privacysucks.com/

Share/Bookmark

Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp

Cf. https://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-products/ufed-physical-pro.html

Share/Bookmark

New apps hijack the microphone in your cell phone to listen in on your life https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9215853/Snooping_It_s_not_a_crime_it_s_a_feature

Share/Bookmark

White House releases new trusted Internet ID plan http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/383473/white_house_releases_trusted_internet_id_plan/

http://www.nist.gov/nstic/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/NSTICstrategy_041511.pdf

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/04/17/1747215/White-House-Releases-Trusted-Internet-ID-Plan

Share/Bookmark