Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Digital privacy from the economical pragmatic perspective
Transcript of Digital privacy from the economical pragmatic perspective
3 digital privacy myths
Every citizen has a right for digital privacy protection
costs of the government privacy protection are always externalized to all tax-payers
even those who do not care about their privacy and are not willing to contribute to that
if you really care about privacy-ignoring people, invest your own money or time to education of these people, but do not force other people to pay for their digital privacy protection
Stricter regulations and legislation will improve citizens' digital privacy
Stricter regulations almost always lead to better tracking and spying of innocent citizens:
Data retention law (valid in the most EU countries)
"Cash limits" valid in Slovakia and other EU countries (your payment information is always provided to 3rd party - your bank)
PRISM-related spying programs
All SWIFT payment transactions (sent to NSA)
Thanks a lot for your attention!
1. Governments can effectively fight cybercrime
2. Every citizen has a right for digital privacy protection
3. Stricter regulations and legislation improve citizen's digital privacy
IT security investments should always make economical sense (if security investments exceed potential loss, implemented security countermeasures would be useless)
In the free security market, people pay for IT security solutions only if it makes economical sense or there is a risk of their reputation loss, otherwise it is just a waste of money
have no idea about threats in the private sector
potential "reputation loss" has no real impact at all, as a monopoly institution the government does not need reputation, therefore unable to perform a valid risk analysis
have no idea if the given risk should be accepted or not:
if something does not work in the government (drug war, cybercrime war), it is because "it is underpaid" and it is "always necessary" to invest more tax-payers money
if something does not work in the private sector, the company makes an economical decision - to remove the given service/product or to change it to be more productive
If any sensitive information is leaked from the private companies, they are obligated to pay penalties and their reputation is threatened (in the worst case they will bankrupt)
If any sensitive information is leaked from the government institution (e.g. Slovak Cadaster), there is no risk of loosing reputation (because of monopoly) and if the given institution pays any penalties, these penalties are always paid by tax-payers which leads to "leaking paradox":
Despite the fact that sensitive information of citizens are misused/leaked by the government, citizens are always those ones who will pay for their government's mistake.
Cybercrime is a HYPE!
Despite the fact that loss caused by cybercrime is apparently less than government's investments, EU/US budgets for fighting cybercrimes are still increasing...
Ross Anderson, Chris Barton .. - Measuring the Cost of Cybercrime.
You don't want to provide your sensitive information to Facebook? Don't use it, there are alternatives...
You don't want to provide your sensitive information to Twitter? Don't use it, there are alternatives...
You don't want to provide your sensitive information to Google? Don't use it, there are alternatives...
But even irresponsible people need a digital privacy protection!
It is likely true, but if you always care about them, they will be always irresponsible...
Everybody can decide voluntarily if he wants to be a product of Facebook, Google, Twitter, ... and have these services "for free"
Governments are the biggest privacy threat
Anti-privacy regulations are legally enforced and directly supported by your taxes
The government is unable to estimate security investments because...
The government can effectively fight cybercrime
or to be a customer of companies that really care about digital privacy and security and pay for that
or use trusted open/source alternatives
But DO NOT force other people to pay for EU privacy regulations to regulate Facebook, Twitter or Google.
Because creating and enforcing these regulations is a really expensive and inefficient process, they can financially ruin free or low-budget alternative services, and costs are externalized to all people what is not fair.