\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?

\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: