Recent high-profile incidents have reignited public debate about how our data is protected and how much access government bodies should have. Some cybersecurity specialists suggest that certain alleged attacks—such as the vandalism of the CENTCOM Twitter account—might even be “inside jobs” used to justify expanded surveillance powers.
New legislation will require cars to include a black box that records movement and fault data
In the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron has called for an end to fully secure communication apps that could be used to plan or facilitate terrorist attacks, following the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France. In the United States, the controversial CISPA bill is poised for revival; if passed, it would compel technology companies to hand over user data to government agencies.
David Cameron has proposed that, if re-elected, his party will require software developers to include backdoors in encrypted applications to permit government access. The issue with intentional backdoors is simple: once a vulnerability exists, it is only a matter of time before criminals exploit it and access everything users send and receive on their devices.
For many people, the erosion of digital privacy has become increasingly acceptable. Many users have grown accustomed to companies such as Google and Facebook controlling vast amounts of our personal data and communications in exchange for free services, which leads some to conclude that similar access for governments is a logical step if it supposedly improves public safety. But how much of that acceptance is manufactured by an atmosphere of fear?
Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, a proponent of bringing CISPA back, told The Hill: “The reason I’m putting this bill in now is I want to keep the momentum going on what’s happening out there in the world,” referring to the alleged Sony Pictures breach attributed to North Korea.
In the UK, websites are increasingly filtered and laws have been introduced that restrict content the government deems unsuitable
The internet community mobilized strongly against CISPA the last time it was proposed, and public backlash led to the bill’s withdrawal. This time, however, there are signs the White House might be supportive. In his upcoming State of the Union address, President Obama planned to outline legislative proposals and cybersecurity measures intended to guard against cyberattacks and identity theft.
Referencing the Sony Pictures incident during a speech at the Federal Trade Commission, Obama said: “Internet insecurity creates enormous vulnerabilities for us as a nation, and for our economy and for individual families.”
Some observers note suspicious timing when incidents that highlight cybersecurity gaps occur alongside renewed legislative pushes. Voices on social media raised questions about whether events are being used to build momentum for bills like CISPA.
We must decide where to draw the line between preserving personal privacy and allowing governments to operate in an increasingly digital world. In the UK, filtering of websites and newly introduced laws have already limited access to content deemed unsuitable by authorities. How long before techniques such as deep-packet inspection are used more widely, similar to China’s “Great Firewall,” to block or monitor specific applications and communications?
Monitoring extends beyond the internet. New EU regulations require many new vehicles to include an event data recorder—a so-called “black box”—that logs movement and fault data. Additionally, an “eCall” system will automatically contact emergency services and provide GPS coordinates to locate a vehicle after a crash.
Now is the time to consider your position and to take an active role in determining what information you are willing to share and under what circumstances. Digital privacy is at stake, and public engagement will shape how it evolves.
Where do you stand on the digital privacy debate? Let us know in the comments.
To discover other telecoms events, visit Telecoms Events.