It might seem overly tongue-in-cheek at first glance, but the Register’s ongoing coverage of Google satellite imagery has some interesting implications for privacy and information control. In general I think it good that we have better navigational aids, but clearly there will be some issues for anyone who is trying to fly below radar, so to speak. It actually reminds me of sand dunes in Baja that do a poor job of hiding Mexican military equipment from ground view, yet from the sky…

On a slightly-related note, the flashearth site has a nice view of what future interfaces couold look like. I wonder if anyone at Google is working on (or cares about) flat map distortion characteristics?

Weak algorithms (e.g. your name and and a shared secret) used to “seed” new systems are another area where two-factor authentication (TFA) can really help improve security.

Here’s a story from the San Francisco Chronicle that illustrates how things might happen now if unique and random passwords, let alone TFA, are not planned for the system launch:

“The personal information of tens of thousands of California children — including their names, state achievement test scores, identification numbers and status in gifted or special-needs programs — is open to public view through a security loophole in dozens of school districts statewide that use a popular education software system.

Teacher names and employee identification numbers are also visible to anyone logging onto the system, which is used locally by school districts including San Francisco, San Jose and Hayward.

The problem occurs when the districts issue a generic password to teachers using the system. Until the teacher changes to a unique password, anyone can type in a teacher’s user name and generic password and gain access to information about students that is supposed to be guarded as closely as the gold in Fort Knox.”

Bruce Schneier picked up the ATM story today on his blog, with an interesting perspective. He says “how lucky everyone was”…I posted something in his comments section about the liability issues raised in the article, which is where I felt I would have been headed anyway.

Bruce also has added an excellent link to Ross Anderson’s page regarding phantom withdrawls.

Time to give this trackback thingy a try…

The British Crown Prosecution Service announced on the 19th that they have created a “110 strong network of high tech crime specialists”. I noticed this today, ironically around the same time as the Register article on ATMs and phantom withdrawls.