150 likes | 286 Views
Personal Privacy. Ross Anderson Professor of Security Engineering Cambridge University. Privacy Engineering. Engineering for privacy, as for security or dependability, involves computer science – for matters like scalability
E N D
Personal Privacy Ross Anderson Professor of Security Engineering Cambridge University
Privacy Engineering • Engineering for privacy, as for security or dependability, involves • computer science – for matters like scalability • economics – systems often fail when the people who maintain them have the wrong incentives • psychology – the feeling and the reality are often different • Privacy is particularly hard because all three of these factors are often pushing the wrong way
Privacy and Business • It’s economically efficient to charge different prices to different customers • The falling costs of collecting and processing data make this easier • The move if businesses online makes them more like the software business (with low marginal costs, network effects and lock-in) which makes price discrimination more profitable • However price discrimination annoys people – especially those who end up paying more
Example – Facebook • A newsworthy conflict of interest • Facebook wants to sell user data • Users want feeling of intimacy, small group, social control • Complex access controls – 60+ settings on 7 pages • Privacy almost never salient (deliberately!) • Over 90% of users never change defaults • This lets Facebook blame the customer when things go wrong
How Privacy Scales • Main privacy threat is usually insiders • Traditional GP: 12 staff have access to 10,000 records. Can cope with that! • What happens if we let 45,000 GPs plus 40,000 staff see 50,000,000 records? • Lesson from Scotland • Effect of pervasive malware • What’s done in intelligence agencies
‘Database State’ • The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust sponsored a systematic study of all government systems that hold information on at least a substantial minority of us • Authors: me, Ian Brown, Terri Dowty, Philip Ingelsant, William Heath, Angela Sasse • Are these databases legal, and effective? • Which systems should the next Government, scrap, keep or fix?
Database State (2) • Of 46 systems, we found that 11 were almost certainly illegal • Health: SUS, DCR – fall foul of I v Finland judgement • Kids: eCAF, ONSET, ContactPoint • Home Office: NDNAD, NIR, IMP • DWP data sharing, National Fraud Initiative • The EU Prüm framework
Database State (3) • We also found 29 ‘amber’ databases with significant problems including • National Childhood Obesity Database (why?) • NHS Summary Care record (almost useless) • National Pupil Database (mission creep) • Police National Database (federating much stuff that used to be local, like the NHS) • Only 6 of 46 databases got a green light (and one of those was an error)!
Where Are We Now? • Three ‘red’ systems were closed down (NIR, ContactPoint, NAO) • Other red systems being spun/renamed (IMP) • Two new ‘red’ systems – SCR and YJCMS • A number of ‘amber’ systems that harm privacy while providing no benefit are spared (NCOD, NPD, Learner Records Service) • In short: no real change, despite Coalition Agreement and the parties’ pre-election pitches
Statistical Security • The Department of Health wants to keep its databases but protect privacy by stripping out patients’ names and addresses • But this doesn’t in general work! • Example: find the salary of the female professor in the computer lab as (average salary professors) - (average salary male professors) x (number of professors) • With health it’s even harder – especially as researchers want longitudonal records that link up care episodes
Economics of Privacy • Economics of security has been a rapidly growing field since 2001 • The economics of privacy are perplexing! • People say they value privacy, but usually act otherwise • Is this due to ignorance, externalities, social effects, …? • Will people suddenly become militant?
Conclusion • Privacy online is hard! • The economics, psychology and computer science often push in the wrong direction • The private sector is motivated by price discrimination • The public sector is somewhat similar with a drive to ‘personalised service’ or ‘transformation government’ • What sets the boundary? European law? A public reaction against ‘creepy’ organisations? Rational rejection of surveillance by richer citizens?
Europe to the Rescue? • The I v Finland case, 2008 • Ms “I” was a nurse in Helsinki, HIV+ • Her hospital systems let everyone see everything • Her colleagues found out about her HIV and hounded her out of her job • ECHR: she had a right to restrict her health records to clinicians involved directly in her care • Now, so do we all!