
diff -r 6334bb9143bc -r d817bb2f80e5 slides09.tex
--- a/slides09.tex	Tue Nov 27 08:58:55 2012 +0000
+++ b/slides09.tex	Tue Nov 27 13:41:31 2012 +0000
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@
 \begin{minipage}{1.1\textwidth}
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tabular}{@{\hspace{-2mm}}r@ {\hspace{1mm}}l@{}}
-\bl{$S \rightarrow A :$} & \bl{$\{N_A, B, K_{\!AB}, T_S, \!\{K_{\!AB}, A, T_S\}_{K_{BS}} \}_{K_{AS}}$}\\
+\bl{$S \rightarrow A :$} & \bl{$\{B, K_{\!AB}, T_S, \!\{K_{\!AB}, A, T_S\}_{K_{BS}} \}_{K_{AS}}$}\\
 \bl{$A \rightarrow B :$} & \bl{$\{K_{AB}, A, T_S\}_{K_{BS}} $}\\
 \end{tabular}
 \end{center}
@@ -160,15 +160,15 @@
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \mode<presentation>{
 \begin{frame}[t]
-\frametitle{Denning-Sacco Protocol}
+\frametitle{Denning-Sacco Fix}
 
 Denning-Sacco (1981) suggested to add the timestamp, but omit the handshake:\bigskip
 
 \begin{minipage}{1.1\textwidth}
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tabular}{@{\hspace{-2mm}}r@ {\hspace{1mm}}l@{}}
-\bl{$A \rightarrow S :$} & \bl{$A, B, N_A$}\\
-\bl{$S \rightarrow A :$} & \bl{$\{N_A, B, K_{\!AB}, T_S, \!\{K_{\!AB}, A, T_S\}_{K_{BS}} \}_{K_{AS}}$}\\
+\bl{$A \rightarrow S :$} & \bl{$A, B$}\\
+\bl{$S \rightarrow A :$} & \bl{$\{B, K_{\!AB}, T_S, \!\{K_{\!AB}, A, T_S\}_{K_{BS}} \}_{K_{AS}}$}\\
 \bl{$A \rightarrow B :$} & \bl{$\{K_{AB}, A, T_S\}_{K_{BS}} $}\\
 \textcolor{lightgray}{$B \rightarrow A :$} & \textcolor{lightgray}{$\{N_B\}_{K_{AB}}$}\\
 \textcolor{lightgray}{$A \rightarrow B :$} & \textcolor{lightgray}{$\{N_B-1\}_{K_{AB}}$}\\
@@ -177,14 +177,14 @@
 \end{minipage}\bigskip
 
 they argue \bl{$A$} and \bl{$B$} can check that the messages are not replays of earlier 
-runs, by checking the time difference when the protocol is last used
+runs, by checking the time difference with when the protocol is last used
 \end{frame}}
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%   
 
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \mode<presentation>{
 \begin{frame}[t]
-\frametitle{Denning-Sacco-Lowe Protocol}
+\frametitle{\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}}Denning-Sacco-Lowe Fix of Fix\end{tabular}}
 
 Lowe (1997) disagreed and said the handshake should be kept, 
 otherwise:\bigskip 
@@ -192,8 +192,8 @@
 \begin{minipage}{1.1\textwidth}
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tabular}{@{\hspace{-7mm}}r@ {\hspace{1mm}}l@{}}
-\bl{$A \rightarrow S :$} & \bl{$A, B, N_A$}\\
-\bl{$S \rightarrow A :$} & \bl{$\{N_A, B, K_{\!AB}, T_S, \!\{K_{\!AB}, A, T_S\}_{K_{BS}} \}_{K_{AS}}$}\\
+\bl{$A \rightarrow S :$} & \bl{$A, B$}\\
+\bl{$S \rightarrow A :$} & \bl{$\{B, K_{\!AB}, T_S, \!\{K_{\!AB}, A, T_S\}_{K_{BS}} \}_{K_{AS}}$}\\
 \bl{$A \rightarrow B :$} & \bl{$\{K_{AB}, A, T_S\}_{K_{BS}} $}\\
 \bl{$I(A) \rightarrow B :$} & \bl{$\{K_{AB}, A, T_S\}_{K_{BS}} $}\hspace{5mm}\textcolor{black}{replay}\\
 \end{tabular}
@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@
 (no names, but postcodes and details such as gender, age and ethnic origin)
 \end{itemize}}
 \only<3>{\begin{itemize}
-\item also in June Sony got hacked: over 1M users' personal information, including passwords, email addresses, home addresses, dates of birth, and all Sony opt-in data associated with their accounts.
+\item also in June Sony, got hacked: over 1M users' personal information, including passwords, email addresses, home addresses, dates of birth, and all Sony opt-in data associated with their accounts.
 \end{itemize}}
 \end{minipage}
 
@@ -240,7 +240,7 @@
 \begin{frame}[c]
 \frametitle{Privacy and Big Data}
 
-Selected sources of ``Big Data'':
+Selected sources of ``Big Data'':\smallskip{}
 
 \begin{itemize}
 \item Facebook 
@@ -274,7 +274,7 @@
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \mode<presentation>{
 \begin{frame}[c]
-\frametitle{Cookies}
+\frametitle{Cookies\ldots}
 
 ``We have published a new cookie policy. It explains what cookies are 
 and how we use them on our site. To learn more about cookies and 
@@ -297,6 +297,8 @@
 \begin{frame}[c]
 \frametitle{Scare Tactics}
 
+The actual policy reads:\bigskip
+
 ``As we explain in our Cookie Policy, cookies help you to get the most 
 out of our websites.\medskip
 
@@ -321,7 +323,6 @@
 \item Netflix offered in 2006 (and every year until 2010) a 1 Mio \$ prize for improving their movie rating algorithm
 \item dataset contained 10\% of all Netflix users (appr.~500K)
 \item names were removed, but included numerical ratings as well as times of rating
-\item average user rated 200 movies
 \item some information was \alert{perturbed} (i.e., slightly modified)
 \end{itemize}
 
@@ -338,7 +339,7 @@
 Two researchers analysed the data: 
 
 \begin{itemize}
-\item with 8 ratings (2 of them can be wrong) and dates that have a 14-day error, 98\% of the
+\item with 8 ratings (2 of them can be wrong) and corresponding dates that can have a margin 14-day error, 98\% of the
 records can be identified
 \item for 68\% only two ratings and dates are sufficient (for movie ratings outside the top 500)\bigskip\pause
 \item they took 50 samples from IMDb (where people can reveal their identity)
@@ -359,10 +360,10 @@
 \item Preferences in movies (99\% of 500K for 8 ratings)
 \end{itemize}\bigskip
 
-Therefore best practices / or even law: 
+Therefore best practices / or even law (HIPAA, EU): 
 
 \begin{itemize}
-\item only year dates (age: 90 years or over), 
+\item only year dates (age group for 90 years or over), 
 \item no postcodes (sector data is OK, similarly in the US)\\
 \textcolor{gray}{no names, addresses, account numbers, licence plates}
 \item disclosure information needs to be retained for 5 years
@@ -379,7 +380,7 @@
 \only<1>{
 \begin{itemize}
 \item Assume you make a survey of 100 randomly chosen people.
-\item Say 99\% of the people in the 10 - 40 age group have seen the
+\item Say 99\% of the surveyed people in the 10 - 40 age group have seen the
 Gangnam video on youtube.\bigskip
 
 \item What can you infer about the rest of the population? 
@@ -390,7 +391,7 @@
 
 \item Not even releasing only  aggregate information prevents re-identification attacks.
 (GWAS was a public database of gene-frequency studies linked to diseases;
-you only needed enough data about phenotype (hair, eyes, skin colour...) in order
+you only needed partial DNA information  in order
 to identify whether an individual was part of the study --- DB closed in 2008) 
 \end{itemize}}
 




