--- a/hws/hw06.tex	Sat Sep 23 19:39:53 2017 +0100
+++ b/hws/hw06.tex	Sat Sep 23 19:52:27 2017 +0100
@@ -1,21 +1,65 @@
 \documentclass{article}
 \usepackage{../style}
 
-
 \begin{document}
 
 \section*{Homework 6}
 
-\HEADER
+\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}?
 
-\begin{enumerate}
+\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.
 
-\item \POSTSCRIPT
-\end{enumerate}
+      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: