\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{../style}

\begin{document}

\section*{Homework 6}

\begin{enumerate}

\item What are good uses of anonymity services like Tor?

\item What is meant by the notion \emph{forward privacy}?

\item What is a \emph{re-identification attack}?

\item Imagine you have a completely `innocent' email message,

      like birthday wishes to your grandmother. Why should you

      still encrypt this message and your grandmother take the

      effort to decrypt it? 

      (Hint: The answer has nothing to do with preserving the

      privacy of your grandmother and nothing to do with

      keeping her birthday wishes supersecret. Also nothing to

      do with you and grandmother testing the latest

      encryption technology, nor just for the sake of it.)

\item One part of achieving privacy (but not the only one) is to

  properly encrypt your conversations on the Internet.  But this is

  fiercely resisted by some spy agencies.  These agencies (and some

  politicians for that matter) argue that, for example, ISIL's

  recruiters broadcast messages on, say, Twitter, and get people to

  follow them. Then they move potential recruits to Twitter Direct

  Messaging to evaluate if they are a legitimate recruit. If yes, they

  move them to an encrypted mobile-messaging app. The spy agencies

  argue that although they can follow the conversations on Twitter,

  they ``go dark'' on the encrypted message app. To counter this

  ``going-dark problem'', the spy agencies push for the implementation

  of back-doors in iMessage and Facebook and Skype and everything else

  UK or US-made, which they can use eavesdrop on conversations without

  the conversants' knowledge or consent.\medskip

      What is the fallacy in the spy agencies going-dark argument?

      (Hint: Think what would happen if the spy agencies and certain

      politicians get their wish.)

\item DNA data is very sensitive and can easily violate the privacy of

  (living) people. To get around this, two scientists from Denmark

  proposed to create a \emph{necrogenomic database} which would record

  the DNA data of all Danish citizens and residents at the time of

  their \emph{death}. By matching these to information about illnesses

  and ailments in life, helpful evidence could be gathered about the

  genetic origins of diseases.  The idea is that the privacy of dead

  people cannot be violated.

      What is the fallacy behind this reasoning?

\item A few years ago a Google executive tried to allay worries about

  Google pooring over all your emails on Gmail. He said something

  along the lines: you are watched by an algorithm; this is like being

  naked in front of your dog. What is wrong with this argument?

\item \POSTSCRIPT  

\end{enumerate} 

\end{document}

%%% Local Variables: 

%%% mode: latex

%%% TeX-master: t

%%% End: