\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{../style}

\begin{document}

\section*{Homework 7}

\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?

\end{enumerate} 

\end{document}

%%% Local Variables: 

%%% mode: latex

%%% TeX-master: t

%%% End: