Privacy World's July 2014 Newsletter Issue

Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 2:00 AM

Subject: Privacy World's July 2014 Newsletter Issue 3July

> Privacy World - The WORLD'S SHREWDEST PRIVACY NEWSLETTER

> 

> Is What You Do Online Ever Really Safe From Prying Eyes?

> 

> A new messaging service promises to provide confidential online

> communications. Can we trust it will keep our information safe?

> 

> Every day in our online lives, we share hundreds of intimate details:

> PIN numbers, political beliefs, photos of significant others,

> addresses, work history. But can we ever truly trust any Internet

> service to protect our information? This was the central question at

> a panel discussion on Internet privacy held last night at SubCulture,

> a subterranean venue on Manhattan's Bleecker Street. The panel was

> organized to celebrate the launch of Tunnel X, a secure messaging

> service meant to ensure that people can have confidential online

> communications with friends, family and colleagues. As guests in

> the packed room nibbled on perfectly cut radishes and sipped on

> complimentary Blue Point ales, the conversation kept circling back

> to the same question: why should we believe your service is safer

> than any other?

> 

> Tunnel X, a Brooklyn-based startup, is the brainchild of web designer

> Eric Liftin, who moderated the panel. Joining him on the blue-lit

> stage were Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe,

> attorney Ian Samuel, Salon CEO Cindy Jeffers and Daniel Menaker, the

> former fiction editor of the New Yorker. Given the diversity of the

> panelists' backgrounds, the conversation ranged from the abstract

> (what defines a private conversation) to the technical (how the

> government uses SSL keys to decode encrypted communications). The

> one thing all of the participants agreed on, however, was that

> digital privacy should be considered a basic human right.

> 

> Liftin designed Tunnel X with this exact concern in mind. After

> Edward Snowden's revelations of mass government surveillance

> launched digital privacy into the public consciousness last summer,

> ordinary people became worried about who could access their online

> communications. Liftin wanted to make it easier for people-not

> just journalists, whistleblowers or others in possession of highly

> confidential information-to feel that their conversations with lovers

> and friends were safe from prying eyes. Though there are a number of

> existing email encryption services, like Proofpoint and Hushmail,

> Liftin designed Tunnel X with a user-friendly interface so that

> those unversed in the language of cryptology could have an easy,

> reliable way to keep their online exchanges private.

> 

> Yet skeptics, including several panelists, argue that these

> tech services are always only one step ahead of government

> regulation. Sophisticated encryption algorithms are all well and

> good, but what happens when the government asks for the encryption

> keys? As Ian Samuel, the attorney, put it, "If one wishes to have a

> private conversation, online or in person, there are no real reliable

> legal guarantees." Given the Supreme Court's willingness to defer

> to other government branches when it comes to matters of national

> security (that catchall term), it seems reasonable to expect that

> Tunnel X may eventually come under the same level of scrutiny other

> encryption services have.

> 

> There is a precedent for this sort of legal interference. In

> August 2013, Lavabit, an encrypted email service founded by tech

> entrepreneur Ladar Levison, suspended operations after a protracted

> legal battle in which the US government ordered Levison to turn over

> the master encryption keys for the site. The reason the FBI was

> so interested in gaining access to the service? One of Lavabit's

> 410,000 users just so happened to be Edward Snowden. But this

> blanket request meant putting the private communications of all

> other Lavabit users in the hands of federal officials. Given the

> centrality of privacy to his company's mission, Levison opted to

> shut down Lavabit, but still had to comply with the court's order.

> 

> Ian Samuel, who represented Levison in court, recounted his

> client's last stab at subversion: Levison printed the encryption

> code-an extraordinarily long string of numbers-in 4-point font on

> 8x11 computer paper, earning himself a $10,000 contempt of court

> fine. Still, Samuel remains in favor of a technological solution

> to the online privacy issue. Citing his former client, he said,

> "You can count on algorithms in a way you can't count on judges."

> 

> Other panelists, like Harvard professor Larry Tribe, had a more

> optimistic take on the protections the law can offer. Referring to

> the recent Riley v. California ruling, which held that the police

> cannot search the cell phone of an arrested individual without a

> warrant, Tribe pointed out that we are in uncharted legal territory

> and that the Supreme Court is only beginning to grapple with the

> intersection of technology and legislation. According to Tribe,

> the 9-0 ruling "inaugurated a new era in the digitalization of

> constitutional law."

> 

> The Snowden disclosures were also a legal watershed. While the courts

> used to claim that organizations had no standing and could not prove

> that they were the victims of government surveillance (this happened

> to the ACLU just six years ago), the revelation of widespread NSA

> surveillance radically undermined this argument. For Tribe, the

> distinction between individual cases and dragnet surveillance is

> critical. "The difference is between looking as specific individuals

> versus a preventative posture, like Snowden revealing this huge

> program…once that is made public, the instinct to be deferential

> to government is much less strong."

> 

> Despite these positive developments, it's clear that Tunnel X is

> entering a murky and rapidly shifting legal landscape. The audience

> pressed Liftin on this point over and over, asking how he would

> respond if the feds came knocking and why he expects his story will

> end any differently than that of Lavabit's founder. Liftin pointed

> to several features of the site aimed at ensuring privacy, like

> the fact that Tunnel X will not have the encryption keys or be able

> to access peoples' messages (users log in and authenticate using a

> self-selected image rather than alphanumeric passwords). He promised

> that the code would be audited by an independent organization. But

> he kept hedging when it came to the specifics. "It's all in motion

> right now," Liftin said. "The software and security features are

> constantly improving."

> 

> As audience members kept pushing the question, the atmosphere in the

> room grew tense. Tribe, Samuel and Liftin all resorted to the easy

> answer: we put our faith in technology in innumerable ways every

> day without any absolute guarantee of security. As Liftin said,

> "Ultimately there has to be some degree of trust if you're using

> something that someone else built. It's your decision whether

> you trust them or not. We're trying to be as straightforward as

> possible."

> 

> Intentions aside, it remains to be seen if Tunnel X can live up to

> its slogan of offering online users "secure, private conversation."

> 

> The above by Allegra Kirkland

> 

> Until our next issue stay cool and remain low profile!

> 

> Privacy World

> 

> PS - Need a highly anonymous cell phone and anonymous offshore

> sim card (mobile number?) Email and place "Freedom Phone" in your

> subject heading for details.

> 

> YES, we accept BitCoins for payment!