\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: