ethics for the information age n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Ethics for the Information Age PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Ethics for the Information Age

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 51

Ethics for the Information Age - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 127 Views
  • Uploaded on

Ethics for the Information Age. Chapter 5 – Privacy II. Topics. US Legislation Authorizing Wiretapping Electronic Communications Privacy Act Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act USA PATRIOT ACT Responses to PATRIOT ACT Follow-On Legislation. Topics (cont). Data Mining

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Ethics for the Information Age


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Ethics for theInformation Age Chapter 5 – Privacy II William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    2. Topics • US Legislation Authorizing Wiretapping • Electronic Communications Privacy Act • Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act • USA PATRIOT ACT • Responses to PATRIOT ACT • Follow-On Legislation William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    3. Topics (cont) • Data Mining • Marketplace: Households • IRS Audits • Syndromic Surveillance System • Total Information Awareness • Who Owns Transaction Information? William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    4. Topics (cont) • Identity Theft • History and Role of SSAN • Debate over a National ID Card • Encryption • Digital Cash William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    5. US Legislation Authorizing Wiretapping • Title III Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 • Enacted during height of Vietnam war • Concern over violent anti-war demonstrations • Allows phone tap for up to 30 days with a court order William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    6. Electronic Communications Privacy Act • http://www.usiia.org/legis/ecpa.html • Enacted in 1986 • Pen register – displays number for each outgoing call • Trap and trace – displays phone number of each incoming call • Requires court order William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    7. Electronic Communications Privacy Act • Does not require probable cause • Court approval is virtually automatic • Allows roving wiretaps William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    8. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act • http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_119.html • 1994 – also known as Digital Telephony Act • Addresses digital phone networks • Requires phone company equipment to allow tracing, listening to phone calls William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    9. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act • Provides for email interception • Leaves details about type of information undefined • FBI requested ability to intercept digits entered after connection was made • Credit card, bank numbers • ID numbers • PIN codes William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    10. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act • 1999 FCC issues guidelines (http://www.askcalea.net/docs/fcc99230.pdf) • http://www.askcalea.net • Requires carriers to provide: • Content of subject initiated call William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    11. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act • Requires carriers to provide: • Content of subject initiated call • Party hold, drop or join on conference calls • Subject initiated dialing and signaling information • In-band and out of band signaling • Timing information William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    12. USA PATRIOT ACT • Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 • http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:4:./temp/~c107fEmBJW:: • Enacted in response to 11 September 2001 attacks • Amended more than 15 existing laws William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    13. USA PATRIOT ACT • Four principal categories • Greater communication monitoring authority for federal LEO and intelligence • Increased authority for Secretary of the Treasury to regulate banks to prevent money laundering William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    14. USA PATRIOT ACT • Four principal categories • Making it more difficult for terrorists to enter the US • Defining new crimes and penalties for terrorist activity William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    15. Increased Monitoring • Allows for using internet to track email addresses and URLs • Does not require probable cause • Requires warrant • Extends jurisdiction of court approval • Allows for national search warrants William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    16. Increased Monitoring • Broadens roving surveillance • Previously required law enforcement purpose and demonstration that the subject used the device to be monitored • Now allowed for intelligence • Does not require reporting back to the court William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    17. Increased Monitoring • Allows for intercepting computer based communication without warrant if • Access to computer was illegal • Computer owner gives permission • Allows search without warrant if there is “reasonable” belief that providing notice of warrant may have an “adverse affect” William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    18. Increased Monitoring • Allows seizure of property if it “constitutes evidence of a criminal offense” even if not terror related • Makes it easier for FBI to obtain warrant for medical, educational, library, religious organization records • No need to show probable cause • Only requires statement of support of ongoing investigation William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    19. Increased Monitoring • Illegal for record provider to • Reveal existence of warrant • Tell anyone that they provided information • Prohibits FBI from investigating citizens solely on basis of First Amendment activities William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    20. Responses to PATRIOT ACT • Concern over unrestricted power • Concerns over circumvention of First and Fourth Amendments • FBI and NSA previously used illegal wiretaps to investigate unpopular political organizations • May inhibit exercise of First Amendment rights William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    21. Responses to PATRIOT ACT • LEO’s can monitor internet surfing without warrant • Roving surveillance warrants do not require description of place to be searched • Allows for limited search and seizure without warrants William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    22. Follow-On Legislation • Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 • http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/downloads/Story_01_020703_Doc_1.pdf • Allows expatriation of citizens convicted of giving material support to terrorist organization • Require names on suspected terrorist lists to be kept secret William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    23. Follow-On Legislation • Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 • Allow wide use of administrative subpoenas • Makes it easier for police to access credit records • Allows collection of DNA samples from suspected terrorists William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    24. Follow-On Legislation • Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 • Creation of national DNA database • Wiretaps and email interception allowed for 15 days without warrant William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    25. Data Mining • Searching one or more databases for patterns or relationships • Can combine facts from multiple transactions • Secondary use of primary data • Primary use of Amazon customer information is process an order • Secondary use is to promote relationship William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    26. Data Mining • Information about customers is becoming a product in itself • Allows more narrow focusing of marketing efforts • Suppose EZPass sells individual records without ID information • Records can be purchased by credit card company William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    27. Data Mining • Transactions can be matched between toll record and credit card charge based on time, date, location and amount • Credit card company can now identify card holders who drive many miles • Now that list can be sold to car dealers William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    28. Marketplace: Households • Developed by Lotus • Produced on CD • Cost of $8 million • Information on 120 million people • Contained personal information such as household income • Dropped after over 30,000 consumer complaints William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    29. IRS Audits • Matches individual reported income with employer provided information • Generates discriminant function (DIF) score based on number of irregularities on tax return William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    30. Syndromic Surveillance System • New York City • Analyzes more than 50,000 pieces of information per day • 911 calls, ER visits, prescription drug purchases • Purpose is to identify onset of epidemics William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    31. Total Information Awareness • Proposed by DARPA Information Awareness Office • Would capture individual’s “information signature” • Financial • Medical • Communication • Travel • Video images William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    32. Criticism of the TIA Program • ACM protested that it will generate more harm than benefits • Huge privacy and security risks of maintaining such a database • Database would become target of criminals and terrorists William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    33. Criticism of the TIA Program • Access by tens of thousands of administrators, LEO, intelligence personnel poses great security risk • Increased risk of identity theft • Citizens could not challenge or correct secret databases • May hurt US corporate competitiveness William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    34. Criticism of the TIA Program • Potential for false positive ID • May alter innocent individual behavior William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    35. Who Owns Transaction Information? • Purchaser • Seller • Opt-In (preferred by privacy advocates) • Opt-Out (preferred by direct marketing organizations) • World Wide Web Consortium Platform for Privacy Preferences http://www.w3.org/P3P William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    36. Identity Theft • Misuse of another person’s identifying information • Largest problem in US is credit card theft • Exacerbated by ease of opening new accounts • About 86,000 US victims in 2001 William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    37. Identity Theft • Individual loss limited to $50 if reported promptly • Real cost is in time to clean up records • Defined as crime in relatively few states • ID theft usually leads to other criminal activities William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    38. Identity Theft • Dumpster diving • Shoulder surfing • Skimmers • Online phishing William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    39. History and Role of SSAN • Social Security Act of 1935 • Prohibited use of SSAN outside of the Social Security Administration • Prohibited for use as national ID number • 1943 FDR ordered use of SSAN in federal databases • 1961 began use by IRS William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    40. History and Role of SSAN • Collected by banks and credit card companies for interest payment reporting • Approved for use by state agencies in 1976 • Required to list children 1 year and older as dependent on tax return William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    41. Problems with SSANs • Rarely checked by organizations • No error detecting capabilities such as CRC William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    42. Debate over a National ID Card • Proponents • More controllable than multiple state driver’s licenses, employee / student ID, etc • Make it more difficult for illegal entry to US • Makes it easier for police to positively identify people • Used by many other countries William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    43. Debate over a National ID Card • Opponents • Does not guarantee accuracy • Biometric systems not infallible • No evidence it would reduce crime • Makes government tracking of individuals easier • Inaccurate national records harder to correct William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    44. Encryption • Protects communications even if intercepted • Symmetric encryption • Sender and user use the same key • Requires secure key transmission • Requires too many keys to be useful William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    45. Encryption • Asymmetric encryption • Developed by Diffie and Hellman in 1976 • Public / Private Key • Security is directly related to key length • Keys are mathematically related • Not able to compute one from the other in a useful period of time William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    46. Encryption • Pretty Good Privacy • 1991 – Senate Bill 266 required back door for government decryption of personal communications • Illegal to export encryption programs • PGP originally distributed as source code William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    47. Encryption • Clipper Chip • 1992 AT&T wanted to market telephone encryption device • FBI and NSA suggested NSA’s technology instead • US government would maintain Clipper keys • March 1993 – Approved by President Clinton William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    48. Encryption • Clipper Chip • Two federal agencies would maintain keys • Law enforcement • Intelligence • No penalty for improper key release • 80% of public disapproved • Administration changed course in February 1994 and suggested use rather than mandating it William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    49. Encryption Export Restrictions • Forced software vendors to have two versions, internal and export • Or just have one with weak encryption • Reduced international competitiveness • 1999, 2000 two federal appeals courts ruled ban was violation of free speech • Export restrictions dropped William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

    50. Digital Cash • Relies on public/private keys • Signed by bank’s public key on issuance • Done without identifying purchaser • Must prevent copying • Can be used as easily as MAC cards without privacy concerns William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu