Ian C posted this interesting question, which does come up regularly in conversation with people who don’t deal with security on a daily basis, and seems to be highlighted in the media for (probably) political reasons. The argument is “surely as long as you aren’t breaking the law, you shouldn’t need to prevent us having access – just to check, you understand”
This can be a very emotive subject, and it is one that has been used and abused by various incumbent authorities to impose intrusions on the liberty of citizens, but how can we argue the case against it in a way the average citizen can understand?
Here are some viewpoints already noted – what is your take on this topic?
M’vy made this point from the perspective of a business owner:
Security is not about doing something illegal, it’s about someone else doing something illegal (that will impact you).
If you don’t encrypt your phone calls, someone could know about what all your salesman are doing and can try to steal your clients. If you don’t shred your documents, someone could use all this information to mount a social engineering attack against your firm, to steal R&D data, prototype, designs…Graham Lee supported this with a simple example:
Commercial confidential data…could provide competitors with an advantage in the marketplace if the confidentiality is compromised. If that’s still too abstract, then consider the personal impact of being fired for being the person who leaked the trade secrets.So we can easily see a need for security in a commercial scenario, but why should a non-technical individual worry? From a more personal perspective, Robert David Graham pointed this out
As the Miranda Rights say: “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law”. Right after the police finish giving you the Miranda rights, they then say “but if you are innocent, why don’t you talk to us?”. This leads to many people getting convicted of crimes because it is indeed used against them in a court of law. This is a great video on YouTube that explains in detail why you should never talk to cops, especially if you are innocent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Tate Hansen‘s thought is to ask,
“Do you have anything valuable that you don’t want someone else to have?”
If the answer is Yes then follow up with “Are you doing anything to protect it?”
From there you can suggest ways to protect what is valuable (do threat modeling, attack modeling, etc.).
But the most popular answer by far was from Justice:
You buy a lock and lock your front door if you live in a city, in close proximity to hundreds of thousands of others. There is a reason for that. And it’s the same reason why you lock your Internet front door.
Iszi asked a very closely linked question “Why does one need a high level of privacy/anonymity for legal activities”, which also inspired a range of answers:
From Andrew Russell, these 4 thoughts go a long way to explaining the need for security and privacy:
If we don’t encrypt communication and lock systems then it would be like:
Sending letters with transparent envelopes. Living with transparent clothes, buildings and cars. Having a webcam for your bed and in your bathroom. Leaving unlocked cars, homes and bikes.
And finally, from the EFF’s privacy page:
Privacy rights are enshrined in our Constitution for a reason — a thriving democracy requires respect for individuals’ autonomy as well as anonymous speech and association. These rights must be balanced against legitimate concerns like law enforcement, but checks must be put in place to prevent abuse of government powers.
A lot of food for thought…