# HG changeset patch # User Christian Urban # Date 1439960513 -28800 # Node ID 94988aa97974008cf1dff02b3cc9b3ec6b26a473 # Parent fed7ce62b6d63486561258ee026e0e6450723002 updated diff -r fed7ce62b6d6 -r 94988aa97974 hws/hw07.pdf Binary file hws/hw07.pdf has changed diff -r fed7ce62b6d6 -r 94988aa97974 hws/hw07.tex --- a/hws/hw07.tex Wed Aug 05 09:52:50 2015 +0200 +++ b/hws/hw07.tex Wed Aug 19 13:01:53 2015 +0800 @@ -10,10 +10,34 @@ \item What is meant by the notion \emph{forward privacy}? -\item Imagine you have an 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? +\item Imagine you have an 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? + +\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}