\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: