--- a/handouts/ho05.tex	Tue Oct 04 22:56:04 2016 +0100
+++ b/handouts/ho05.tex	Wed Oct 05 08:50:44 2016 +0100
@@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
 %http://www.hackingarticles.in/hack-password-using-rogue-wi-fi-access-point-attack-wifi-pumpkin/
 %https://github.com/P0cL4bs/WiFi-Pumpkin
 
+%http://routersecurity.org/index.php
+
 \section*{Handout 5 (Protocols)}
 
 Protocols are the computer science equivalent to fractals and

Binary file hws/hw07.pdf has changed

--- a/hws/hw07.tex	Tue Oct 04 22:56:04 2016 +0100
+++ b/hws/hw07.tex	Wed Oct 05 08:50:44 2016 +0100
@@ -23,42 +23,42 @@
       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
+\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.)
+      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.
+\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}
 

Binary file slides/slides02.pdf has changed

--- a/slides/slides02.tex	Tue Oct 04 22:56:04 2016 +0100
+++ b/slides/slides02.tex	Wed Oct 05 08:50:44 2016 +0100
@@ -587,7 +587,7 @@
 
 \begin{itemize}
 \item acquired a machine from an anonymous source\medskip
-\item they try to keep secret the source code running on the machine\medskip\pause
+\item they tried to keep secret the source code running on the machine\medskip\pause
 
 \item first reversed-engineered the machine (extremely tedious)
 \item could completely reboot the machine and even install a virus that infects other Diebold machines