U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars

Re:U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars by woodman on Monday January 26, 2015 @09:02PM (#8950885)

Security through obscurity? No doubt a great deal would need to change, but we've tried the method of giving a select group of individuals an immense amount of power and hoping for the best. It hasn't worked out that well. So I'd recommend that you consider the present situation, because the prospect of you knowing my tax information, by comparison, doesn't seem so bad.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars by joliv on Monday January 26, 2015 @10:32PM (#8951112)

Interesting—I haven't seen that term used that way before. If I encrpyt my customers' private data using a well-publicized encryption method, is it still security through obscurity, simply because they are secrets?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars by woodman on Monday January 26, 2015 @11:05PM (#8951178)

No. That would be like saying a locked door is security through obscurity, because the cuts of the key unlock the door - not the physical key. The concept requires a great deal of torturing to get there :)

Anyway, the whole idea that the state needs to operate in secret to perform its duties is ridiculous and only serves bad actors. Who would seriously wish for a secret police force anyway? Maybe we should be focusing on preventing and deescalating, through systemic and scalable solutions, instead of masked weekend warriors kicking down doors and shooting people. Also, if you want a laugh - here is a funny story about what happens when you allow the DEA to operate in secret: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/540/a...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars by derefr on Monday January 26, 2015 @11:47PM (#8951290)

> a locked door is security through obscurity, because the cuts of the key unlock the door - not the physical key.

I don't know, that's not such a bad analogy. To put it another way, a key is just a really funny way to write down a bunch of numbers, and a key-lock is just a really esoteric number-pad.

People have actually broken into houses by cutting working keys from pictures they took of victims unlocking their doors—so it's not even obscurity aiding the security per se (or rather, it used to be, but then we greatly standardized the way key-locks work.) Instead, it's just concealment, like the concealed face of a credit card in your wallet.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars by derefr on Monday January 26, 2015 @11:41PM (#8951277)

If you keep the key on the same machine as the data, it might be the specific kind of "security through obscurity" that is more commonly referred to as "DRM."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars by navait on Monday January 26, 2015 @09:28PM (#8950943)

If security through obscurity is having secrets at all, all security is obscurity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars by woodman on Monday January 26, 2015 @09:36PM (#8950969)

What is secret about a moat, electrified fence or a stated policy of mutual assured destruction?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars by AnthonyMouse on Tuesday January 27, 2015 @01:23AM (#8951536)

> What is secret about a moat, electrified fence or a stated policy of mutual assured destruction?

Normal people don't have a moat.

A major reason that e.g. home invasions are risky (and thus are deterred) is that the criminal doesn't know when the mark or the neighbors will be away from home, what security may be in place or whether there is anything worth stealing. If you put that information on the internet for anyone then every time you come home from work all your electronics will be missing.

Replacing that "security through obscurity" with actual physical security is not something most people can afford.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars by woodman on Tuesday January 27, 2015 @01:52AM (#8951709)

What is more likely: I was suggesting that people secure their homes with a moat; or I was demonstrating that, contrary to the post I was responding to, not all security relies upon obscurity?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars by JetSpiegel on Tuesday January 27, 2015 @05:54AM (#8952406)

Most people can't have moats, they don't live in detached houses. Apartments and high rises are much more common, moats don't work there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars by AnthonyMouse on Tuesday January 27, 2015 @03:00AM (#8951958)

And what good is physical security if you don't have it? If it doesn't exist in practice then pointing out that it exists in theory is just being pedantic.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars by woodman on Tuesday January 27, 2015 @03:59AM (#8952083)

lol, ok buddy - being described as pedantic by a person who just helpfully volunteered the revelation that normal people don't have moats is just too weird.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Spies on Millions of Cars by navait on Monday January 26, 2015 @11:33PM (#8951257)

Heh, true. I've seen too much time thinking of computer security, and neglected to think of real world security.

[ Parent | on HN ]