FC: Peter Wayner replies on Poindexter-proofing databases

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

---

To: declan () well com
From: Peter Wayner <pcw () flyzone com>
Subject: letter to politech or news or whomever
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:27:11 -0500

Declan--

Thanks for writing about _Translucent Databases_ in your column.
It's a honor to be discussed in one of best places where politics
and technology meet at an equal level. I've already gotten several
nice letters filled with ideas so thanks to your readers.

I think your piece was spot on, but it was only half the story. Technology
_can_ help curb big brother surveillance by cloaking our movements
with mathematics. Businesses that want to protect their customers
privacy will want to look at solutions like you described. The field
of cryptography is big and filled with mathematical puzzle boxes
to fit many needs. I hope proactive businesses will follow your lead
and start looking at the possibilities.

Unfortunately, I think that many won't because defending privacy
is often portrayed as protecting shifty-eyed strangers who are just
one step away from terrorism. This is really the wrong approach.
Privacy and security go hand in hand. Protecting people's data helps
protect them.

Consider my favorite example from a book: a website that helps parents
find babysitters by keeping a central schedule. Parents looking for
a sitter can go to a website and find out who is free on Friday with
one click and no phone tag. This sounds like a very useful service,
but it's fraught with danger because this database contains the
schedule of babysitters _and_ parents who won't be home. It would
be terrible if a database was abused by hackers, insiders, or both.
In this case, a translucent database can help the parents without
keeping personal information.

There are many examples like this when privacy and security go hand
in hand. I've always felt that the book, _Translucent Databases_,
will find more of an audience in the intelligence community than
the world of privacy defenders and cypherpunks. The intelligence
community just has more sensitive data to guard from prying eyes
both within and without the fold. If the FBI was infiltrated by a
Russian spy and the Pentagon was penetrated by a Cuban spy, perhaps
we have to worry about a terrorist sneaking into the TIA databases.
The cypherpunks always get these things first, but I'm hoping that
their enthusiasm won't scare away the people who cleave to the aegis
of government.

There are also practical reasons why businesses may want to choose
such a solution. Subpoenas are also a tax on people who keep good
records. The shipping companies like FedEx have entire divisions
devoted to answering calls from law enforcement and the courts. It's
not just spies defending the realm either-- divorce lawyers love
to poke around for evidence. A business that keeps the records must
also spend the costs to answer questions.

Thanks again for writing about the topic. I wanted to highlight these
aspects of the debate in case anyone was actually thinking about
making technology like this illegal. The math is always neutral and,
in this case, it can serve both the interests of the radical libertarians
and the folks who want to build good, secure government systems.


--Peter

For info about the book:

http://www.wayner.org/books/td/




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------