Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Risk

6/10/2020
05:40 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

When Your Biggest Security and Privacy Threats Come From the Ones You Love

Research examines the risks and design challenges of accounting for privacy threats in intimate relationships.

As technology has become more ubiquitous in people's everyday lives, a new class of privacy threats has emerged in family, romantic, friendship, and caregiving relationships. Dubbed "intimate threats" by a recent academic paper in the Journal of Cybersecurity, these are the thorny risks that are intertwined with issues around location tracking, always-on monitoring or recording, online surveillance, and the control over technology accounts or devices.

Written by Karen Levy, a lawyer and sociologist, and information security luminary Bruce Schneier, the paper examines how the dynamics of different intimate relationships break the security model in a lot of systems. It examines real-world examples of this in action and also provides some recommendations for technology designers and security professionals to start rethinking how they build products and think about threat models and security use cases. 

The use of technology in intimate relationships can quickly turn dark with very little recourse from the victim because the product was never designed to account for abuse cases. 

"Facebook had a system for a while where you'd get your account back because they'd show you pictures and you'd click on the ones that are your friends, assuming that you know who they are but other people don't," Schneier says. "But your partner and your parents all know that stuff too. So it's a great system, but it fails in the intimate context. It fails when your boyfriend takes over your account." 

While writing the paper, the authors quickly collected many illustrative examples of the abuse of technology not only having to do with covert monitoring, but also control over financial accounts or technology. For example, they pointed to the use of household-shared smart devices and thermostats increasingly being used by abusers and vengeful exes to wreak havoc on intimate partners' daily lives. 

The difficulty is that there are a lot of complicated dynamics - both ethical and technical - to account for when mitigating intimate threats, says Levy, who explains that she and Schneier spent a long time debating whether to even call them "threats." They eventually chose to use that language because it is a common and useful way for the tech community to conceptualize these problems.  

"It's complicated because the motivations in the intimate context are often pretty complicated and not necessarily nefarious," she says.

For example, a teenager might be told by his or her parents that they can have a later curfew only if the parent can track where their phone is. Or a parent may set up a webcam with full knowledge from their nanny to be able to get a happy glimpse of their little one during a break in an otherwise hectic workday.  

"There's lots of ways in which we use this in perfectly beneficent and socially negotiated ways to take care of one another," she says. "And so that means that the line between this is okay and this isn't okay is going to be very variable, both within and across relationships."

To account for these complicated dynamics, the duo worked to break down some of the sociological dimensions to the issue, such as different motivations between both the user and the other affected parties, copresence, dynamic power-differential, and also the disparities in technical abilities between different people in a given relationship. They then cross-referenced these with some design recommendations across a number of different design implications.

"It's certainly not a roadmap or a checklist or anything quite so definitive, but it's a list of things to consider," Levy explains. "So one of them is, when you're designing, assume that the person that is buying the product is not necessarily your only user and that you should think of the people who are subject to being monitored as potentially your users too."

The idea is to get the technology-design community thinking critically and remembering that these relationship dynamics are always going to be at play within the user base.

"When you're designing systems, we really have to take these relationships into account," Schneier says. "They are not the exceptions, they are normal. It's not something we can ignore."

Related Content:

 
 
 
 
 
 
Learn from industry experts in a setting that is conducive to interaction and conversation about how to prepare for that "really   bad day" in cybersecurity. Click for more information and to register
Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/17/2020
Cybersecurity Bounces Back, but Talent Still Absent
Simone Petrella, Chief Executive Officer, CyberVista,  9/16/2020
Meet the Computer Scientist Who Helped Push for Paper Ballots
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/16/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-5421
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-19
In Spring Framework versions 5.2.0 - 5.2.8, 5.1.0 - 5.1.17, 5.0.0 - 5.0.18, 4.3.0 - 4.3.28, and older unsupported versions, the protections against RFD attacks from CVE-2015-5211 may be bypassed depending on the browser used through the use of a jsessionid path parameter.
CVE-2020-8225
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-18
A cleartext storage of sensitive information in Nextcloud Desktop Client 2.6.4 gave away information about used proxies and their authentication credentials.
CVE-2020-8237
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-18
Prototype pollution in json-bigint npm package < 1.0.0 may lead to a denial-of-service (DoS) attack.
CVE-2020-8245
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-18
Improper Input Validation on Citrix ADC and Citrix Gateway 13.0 before 13.0-64.35, Citrix ADC and NetScaler Gateway 12.1 before 12.1-58.15, Citrix ADC 12.1-FIPS before 12.1-55.187, Citrix ADC and NetScaler Gateway 12.0, Citrix ADC and NetScaler Gateway 11.1 before 11.1-65.12, Citrix SD-WAN WANOP 11....
CVE-2020-8246
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-18
Citrix ADC and Citrix Gateway 13.0 before 13.0-64.35, Citrix ADC and NetScaler Gateway 12.1 before 12.1-58.15, Citrix ADC 12.1-FIPS before 12.1-55.187, Citrix ADC and NetScaler Gateway 12.0, Citrix ADC and NetScaler Gateway 11.1 before 11.1-65.12, Citrix SD-WAN WANOP 11.2 before 11.2.1a, Citrix SD-W...