Apparently, the government of Puerto Rico has stolen the identities of something between 1.7 and 4.1 million people
Native Puerto Ricans living outside the island territory are reacting with surprise and confusion after learning their birth certificates will become no good this summer.
A law enacted by Puerto Rico in December mainly to combat identity theft invalidates as of July 1 all previously issued Puerto Rican birth certificates. That means more than a third of the 4.1 million people of Puerto Rican descent living in the 50 states must arrange to get new certificates. (“Shock over voided Puerto Rican birth certificates,” Suzanne Gamboa, AP)
If I’m parsing that right, all 4.1 million identities were stolen from their legitimate holders, and 1/3 of those are outside Puerto Rico, leading to an unclear level of actual effort to get the documents replaced.
Now, some people may take umbrage at my claim that this is identity theft. You might reasonably think that fraud by impersonation requires impersonation. But the reason that it’s called identity theft is that the victim loses control of their identity. False claims are tired to their name, ssn, birth certificate, etc. Those claims show up at random. Their sense that they have “a good name” is diminished and assaulted.
You might also claim that I’m exaggerating, but I’m not the one who titled the article “shock.” People are feeling shocked, confused and assaulted by this action.
So despite the not for profit nature of the crime, this is identity theft on the largest scale I’ve heard about in years.
Image from the Oritz family showcase.
That’s the key message of Ethan Zuckerman’s post “Internet Freedom: Beyond Circumvention.” I’ll repeat it: “We can’t circumvent our way around internet censorship.”
It’s a long, complex post, and very much worth reading. It starts from the economics of running an ISP that can provide circumvention to all of China, goes to the side effects of such a thing (like spammers using it), and then continues to ask why we want circumvention anyway.
Take some time and go read “Internet Freedom: Beyond Circumvention.”
Nasty psychiatrissstss! Hates them, my precious! They locks uss up in padded cell! They makes uss look at inkblotsss! Tricksy, sly inkblotsss! Nasty Elvish pills burnsss our throat!
Yesss We Hatesss themsss Evil oness yess my preciousss we hatess themsss
But They Helpsss us!
No they hurtsss usss, hurtsss usss sore!
NCBI ROFL: Did Gollum have schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder? via Diagnosing Gollum.
Or, Security and Privacy are Complimentary, Part MCVII:
Later, I met one executive who told me that at the same time of my incident at another restaurant owned by the corporation, a server was using stolen credit card numbers by wearing a small camera on him. He would always check ID’s and would quickly flash the ID and credit card in front of the camera. That way, he could sell the credit card number and address of someone who had no reason to report their card as stolen. Presumably they could then use it on the internet as many sites require the billing address when using a credit card. The corporation decided that there was too much liability in a restaurant employee having access to someone’s drivers license and began specifically requesting servers to not do so except to verify that the person was of legal drinking age. (“How I Learned To Start Worrying And Hate Showing My ID“, Consumerist)
I hadn’t thought about this particular aspect of stealing credit cards. It seems pretty helpful to have address and date of birth. When I think about this, the chaotic nature of how those around us accumulate and use information is hard to predict or track. There’s a value of minimal disclosure here. It’s yet another example of how protecting privacy protects security as well. Asking people to be aware of what emerges from the chaotic swirl of information is expensive.
Historically, the card brands have demanded that their cards be honored based only on the card system. They used to back you if a store asked for ID. As the system has come under attack, they’ve backed away from that, but the current state is hard to discern.
Consistency is an important part of how people form mental models. The whole world is making different demands about what’s secret (is your address a security string? Your frequent flyer number? The first street you lived on?) The demands banks and merchants are changing rapidly from a consumer perspective. (Quick, do you know what the CARD act changes?) When the rules for consumers are chaotic, what emerges is misconceptions, superstition and best practices.
In the world of security, we’re going to have to work hard to provide a comprehensible set of workable and effective advice for people to follow.
The language of Facebook’s iPhone app is fascinating:
If you enable this feature, all contacts from your device will be sent to Facebook…Please make sure your friends are comfortable with any use you make of their information.
So first off, I don’t consent to you using that feature and providing my mobile phone number to Facebook. Not giving my cell phone to random web sites (including but not limited to Facebook) was implicit when that number was provided to you. Your continued compliance is appreciated.
What’s really interesting is the way in which this dialog deflects the moral culpability for Facebook’s choices to you. They didn’t have to create a feature that sucked in all the information in your phone book. They could have offered an option to exclude numbers. And why does Facebook even need phone numbers? Their language also implies that such transfers of third party data are not constrained by any law they have to worry about. Perhaps that’s correct in the United States.
But none of that is considered in the brief notice.
I don’t agree.
Screenshot by Dan Biddle.
When this blog was new, I did a series of posts on “The Security Principles of Saltzer and Schroeder,” illustrated with scenes from Star Wars.
When I migrated the blog, the archive page was re-ordered, and I’ve just taken a few minutes to clean that up. The easiest to read version is “Security Principles of Saltzer and Schroeder, illustrated with scenes from Star Wars.”
So if you’re not familiar with Saltzer and Schroeder:
Let me start by explaining who Saltzer and Schroeder are, and why I keep referring to them. Back when I was a baby in diapers, Jerome Saltzer and Michael Schoeder wrote a paper “The Protection of Information in Computer Systems.” That paper has been referred to as one of the most cited, least read works in computer security history. And look! I’m citing it, never having read it.
If you want to read it, the PDF version (484k) may be a good choice for printing. The bit that everyone knows about is the eight principles of design that they put forth. And it is these that I’ll illustrate using Star Wars. Because lets face it, illustrating statements like “This kind of arrangement is accomplished by providing, at the higher level, a list-oriented guard whose only purpose is to hand out temporary tickets which the lower level (ticket-oriented) guards will honor” using Star Wars is a tricky proposition. (I’d use the escape from the Millennium Falcon with Storm Trooper uniforms as tickets as a starting point, but its a bit of a stretch.)
Twenty years ago today, Nelson Mandela was released from prison on Robben Island, where he was imprisoned for 27 years for considering violence after his rights to free speech and free association were revoked by the government.
I learned a lot about the stories when I visited South Africa, and then more when my mom sent me “The World that was Ours” by Hilda Bernstein. She was an activist and the wife of one of the “Rivonia Trial.” Her book is a highly readable account of what life was like, and how people who started out as reformers were radicalized by increasingly bizarre and ineffectual attempts by the government to exert control.
It also gives a good sense of how absurd the actions of the apartheid system became as time went on. I could make snarky comparisons to the TSA, and believe me, I’m tempted. But the simple truth is that as bad as things have gotten in the US, they generally don’t even approach the dysfunction which existed in South Africa.
Looking at South Africa today, it’s easy to forget that twenty years ago, the country was engaged in an active race war with government forces shooting into funeral crowds every weekend. The work that Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and F.W. De Klerk and others did to stop the violence and build the society which exists in South Africa today is one of the success stories of our time. Yes, it has deep imperfections, but so does the world.
Photo from the Apartheid Museum. On the left is a ballot box.
There’s an elephant of a story over at the New York Times, “Musician Apologizes for Advertising Track That Upset the White Stripes.” It’s all about this guy who wrote a song that ended up sounding an awful lot like a song that this other guy had written. And how this other guy (that being Mr. White) took offense to the work of Mr. Kraft, a subcontractor to the folks who were producing a soundtrack for an ad being made for the US Air Force.
The whole thing’s a bomb, but the fact pattern keeps irritating something in my brain. It must be something subconscious.
We’re honored to be nominated for “Most Entertaining Security Blog” at this years “2010 Social Security Blogger Awards.” Now, in a fair fight, we have no hope against Hoff’s BJJ, Mike Rothman’s incitefulness, Jack Daniel’s cynicism, or Erin’s sociability.
But, really, there’s no reason for this to be a fair fight.
So we’re asking our readers to help us cheat. For the next month, whenever you see any of the judges (Mike Fratton, Bill Brenner, Kelly Jackson-Higgins and Larry Walsh) buy them a drink, mention how entertaining our story of the day was, and send us the bill.
We thank you. And remember, as you drink to our success, you’re making America stronger, strengthening your community, reducing taxes and fighting terrorism. Future generations will thank you.