Linked by David Adams on Fri 11th Dec 2009 01:25 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption I was reminded of Sun Microsystems' Scott McNealy's infamous sound byte (used as the title of this article) when I read about Google CEO Eric Schmidt's foot-in-mouth moment during a recent CNBC interview (YouTube Link). Here's what Schmidt said: "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines -- including Google -- do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."
Permalink for comment 399033
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

First of all, I just want to say that was am excellent article.
I may not agree with all points (like "security by obscurity") but it was an well written, informative and objective point of view on a very relevant topic.

Now, going back to "security by obscurity" point:- that term to me is more about making your data public and hoping you're not singled out rather than keeping a low profile from the off.
While I agree that obscurity does have it's merits, I for one would never recommend a complacent security model over a proactive one.

What I'd recommend people instead would be to make as little data public in the first place.

This doesn't mean all your data has to be encrypted, but more so about not publishing your details on sites like facebook (or, at the very least, having a private profile) and so on and so forth.


Another problem I see with "security by obscurity" is that, while it might ward off government curiosity, it opens yourself up to abuse from other avenues (eg identity theft).

Sure, as article rightfully points out, there is already tones of information out there and much of it is easily bought - however my school of thought is why make it even easier for savoury characters to obtain your information than it already is?


I often see an example explaining the dangers of portals like social networking sites that reads something like this:
"You wouldn't bin your bank details without shredding them first.
You wouldn't knock on a random house in a neighbouring street to give them your address and the hours you're at home.

So why do you post this information online for strangers to read?
"

Reply Score: 3