\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.)
\end{enumerate}
\end{document}
%%% Local Variables:
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: t
%%% End: