Post Syndicated from Matthew Garrett original http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/44363.html
I read this tweet a couple of weeks ago:
to me, an inclusive security community would focus as much (or at all) on surveillance of women by abusive partners as it does the state
— kelsey ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ (@_K_E_L_S_E_Y) August 2, 2016
and it got me thinking. Security research is often derided as unnecessary stunt hacking, proving insecurity in things that are sufficiently niche or in ways that involve sufficient effort that the realistic probability of any individual being targeted is near zero. Fixing these issues is basically defending you against nation states (who (a) probably don’t care, and (b) will probably just find some other way) and, uh, security researchers (who (a) probably don’t care, and (b) see (a)).
Unfortunately, this may be insufficient. As basically anyone who’s spent any time anywhere near the security industry will testify, many security researchers are not the nicest people. Some of them will end up as abusive partners, and they’ll have both the ability and desire to keep track of their partners and ex-partners. As designers and implementers, we owe it to these people to make software as secure as we can rather than assuming that a certain level of adversary is unstoppable. “Can a state-level actor break this” may be something we can legitimately write off. “Can a security expert continue reading their ex-partner’s email” shouldn’t be.
comments