Session:Information security theater vs. Investigative journalism
| Banning strong cryptography or rolling out pervasive network surveillance are just some of many policy ideas proposed or instituted not only in oppressive regimes, but also in stable democracies. Tools developed by three-letter-agencies end up in the hands of oppressive regimes, and 0-day hoarding creates a market for exploits, which puts journalists and their sources in danger.
Arguing against these very often proves difficult, as it is usually anchored in democratic principles and philosophical arguments -- something we all understand, but which is also much less concrete and easy to grasp than the terrorist threat du jour, so vividly exemplifying the purported need for the proposed measures.
Having been involved in such policy discussions for many years, and having been working daily with journalists around the globe, I'd like to talk about very concrete examples of *why* the democratic principles are in place, and offer concrete arguments to all policy hackers out there who need them to fend off the current flavor of information security theater measures.
|social, political, software, network, web, security, safety
|journalism, privacy, openness, censorship
|en - English
|Information security theater vs. Investigative journalism (Rysiek, OCCRP)
|Room:CCL Hall 3