There has been a lot of coverage in recent months over the Australian Federal Governments proposition to implement a data retention policy. The debate is polarising and highly emotive, similar to that of the shelved mandatory Internet content filtering policy.
Some Australian citizens clearly dislike governments fiddling with their internetz. Likewise there are also a considerable number of logistical and technical challenges that such a program would need to overcome before being feasible, and if implemented, there are a number of circumvention techniques readily available, such as anonymous VPN services in “unregulated” countries who would benefit immensely by the patronage of those Australian internet users who wished to not have their activities recorded for posterity.
Essentially the Government has proposed tasking an agency, or Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with the requirement to store records of all internet user activity for a period of time. The reason for this is to enable law enforcement investigators (with reasonable cause) access to those records for evidence or to piece together cases.
There are almost as many arguments against this as there are for it--I don't wish to open that can of worms here. I would, however, like to expound upon a point raised by Sir Tim Berners-Lee when he was in Melbourne recently on a speaking tour. He espoused that even if it were technically possible, and the government enacted the legislation, and service providers complied with the requirement; where and who would be responsible for the storage of this data (particularly if this data were to be aggregated) it would be a pure gold-mine of sensitive, private information over an extended period of time—on every internet user in Australia.
How does the governance and security ensure 100% privacy for each service connected to the internet and the individuals who use those services? (Once this data is lost, there is no getting it back)
Suppose criminals got hold of some or all of it in the first-instance, and sold, released publicly or otherwise disseminated the material? Suppose, for example, insurance companies could see that a household’s internet service had been used to research a medical condition over a period of time? Even though there are a number of plausible reasons why someone might research it, a slight possibility that someone in that premises actually has that condition may be sufficient for the insurance company to consider the risk unacceptable, and not offer anyone in that premises coverage.
We all know that no data is 100 percent secure. The higher the value of the target information, the more chance of a breach there will be.
Sir Tim suggested that the handling of such sensitive, highly private data was akin to that of nuclear waste. It should be taken offline, far away from any network and stored in a highly secure bunker. The access process by any legitimate organisation would need to be onerous.
So those who are ambivalent argue we already have lawful intercept of transmissions for law enforcement investigations, things such as telephone calls are recorded as a component of the telcos’ billing systems. Phone tapping is an available tool if required. So what is the difference on the Internet?
This is the point, it is the internet. The average internet user expects the internet to be relatively anonymous, yet they also insist on using Google and Facebook. Many still wonder how ads appear targeted to their history and activities online, but key here is that those individuals have an option to participate or not.
If internet users were aware that big brother may be looking over their shoulders at any time, how would this affect their usage and experience of the Internet?
Speakers: - Paul O’Connor, Engagement leader - Performance Audit Group, Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) - Nigel Phair, Managing Director, Centre for Internet Safety - Joshua Stenhouse, Technical Evangelist, Zerto - Anthony Caruana, CSO MC & Moderator
Speakers: David Lacey, Researcher and former CISO Royal Mail David Turner - Global Risk Management Expert Mark Guntrip - Group Manager, Email Protection, Proofpoint
Speakers • Ty Miller, Director, Threat Intelligence • Mark Gregory, Leader, Network Engineering Research Group, RMIT • Jeff Lanza, Retired FBI Agent (USA) • Andy Solterbeck, VP Asia Pacific, Cylance • David Braue, CSO MC/Moderator What to expect: Hear from industry experts on the local and global ransomware threat landscape. Explore a new approach to dealing with ransomware using machine-learning techniques and by thinking about the problem in a fundamentally different way. Apply techniques for gathering insight into ransomware behaviour and find out what elements must go into a truly effective ransomware defence. Get a first-hand look at how ransomware actually works in practice, and how machine-learning techniques can pick up on its activities long before your employees do.
Speakers: • Anthony Caruana – CSO MC and moderator • Ian Farquhar, Worldwide Virtual Security Team Lead, Gigamon • John Lindsay, Former CTO, iiNet • Skeeve Stevens, Futurist, Future Sumo • David Vaile - Vice chair of APF, Co-Convenor of the Cyberspace Law And Policy Community, UNSW Law Faculty This webinar covers: - A 101 on metadata - what it is and how to use it - Insight into a typical attack, what happens and what we would find when looking into the metadata - How to collect metadata, use this to detect attacks and get greater insight into how you can use this to protect your organisation - Learn how much raw data and metadata to retain and how long for - Get a reality check on how you're using your metadata and if this is enough to secure your organisation
CSO Webinar: How banking trojans work and how you can stop them Featuring: • John Baird, Director of Global Technology Production, Deutsche Bank • Samantha Macleod, GM Cyber Security, ME Bank • Sherrod DeGrippo, Director of Emerging Threats, Proofpoint (USA)