UNDERMINING JURISDICTION OF CHOICE, PRIVACY, AND OVERSIGHT

 The Objectives of the few are clear; the Dangers to the many remain obfuscated

Part I of VI: Fear and Greed share a Common Convention – Acquisition

Catastrophic security breaches (subversion, surveillance, espionage, impersonation, and piracy) abound, impacting every network connected user class (portal, enterprise, small and medium business, and consumer). Yet, there are three things government and certain businesses don’t want anyone (e.g. constituents and clients) other than themselves to control jurisdiction of: choice (who), privacy (what), and oversight (consent).

The fact that choice, privacy, and oversight, share an overarching bond is not surprising. However, revelation of the allegiance between government and business that supplants this bond should be alarming. Government professes its principle interest to be national security. Business professes its principle interest to be compliance with the law.

For many, global communications networks represent a means to dispossess inefficiencies in knowledge and resource distribution. For a few, they represent a means of pervasive and covert surveillance. Recent disclosures indicate government has broadened its infiltration, while business continues to bolster profits. These fear and greed inspired missions require the few to resist the desires of the many to directly control choice, privacy, and oversight.

Part II of VI: Boundless Greed is a Patron of Bounded Fear – Collaboration

Whether covert government surveillance programs are constitutional and sufficiently proficient to discern nefarious intents is subject (bounded) to adjudication in accordance with democratically established conventions; if necessary, government actions may even be redirected. Understandably, business largely refrains from discussion of its evergreen (boundless) interests in access to client information used for commercial advantages. Both parties consider direct choice, privacy, and oversight to directly controvert their interests.

Neither government nor business is immune to the temptation to potentially know all. No matter the intensity of public protest and histrionics by business regarding government surveillance demands, their corporate behavior disavows the mutual identity of interests they allege with clients. Absent the restraint of direct choice, privacy, and oversight, all knowing has always given rise to attempts to realize more if not total control.

Part III of VI: Fear and Greed are supported by all Network Provider Classes – Facilitation

Service Providers, e.g. Internet Portals, often require users to authorize access to their personal information: email, voice mail, messages, text, tweets, searches, contacts, calendars, photos, and control of location, camera and video recorder functions. Device Providers, e.g. Smartphones and Tablets, and Mobile O/S Providers, are capable of covertly survieiling device resident user data, e.g. fingerprint and pass code files, no matter their protest to the contrary. Resource Providers, e.g. data centers, who store, and process multiple users information, enable broad one-stop attack opportunities. Communications Service Providers, e.g. Cable and Telecos, are meta data treasure troves for interlopers.

Part IV of VI: Fear and Greed Champion Inferior Security Technology – Equivocation

Service and Resource Providers have appointed themselves as trusted-third-parties, to protect client data from others while preserving access for themselves; such access is essentially unrelated to user security. However, access to such information is extremely valuable to Big Data and Analytics enterprises, both are new high margin network centric growth businesses. New Disintermediation services, e.g. transaction providers who require access to users personal credit card and banking information, are actually trusted-third-parties, who also evidence Big Data and Analytics enterprise potential.

Device (OEM) have limited influence regarding security. Mobile O/S Providers are actually the self-appointed trusted-third-parties, who determine with what apps and which service providers privately purchased devices may engage, and what royalty must be paid. This control is only marginally related to user security, but it is central to the gatekeeper strategy of a powerful Mobile Architecture Oligopoly.

It is alleged that Government, to include agencies charged to act as trusted-third-parties of Standards in the public’s interest, conspired to diminish the effectiveness of certain security technology and products. Further, well-known trusted-third-party Communications Service Providers substantially facilitate government’s Surveillance initiatives.

Part V of VI: How to Demystify Fear and Uncloak Greed – Disclosure and Education

While there are a number of impediments to direct control of choice (who), privacy (what), and oversight (consent), several are formidable. Resistance by government and business (inspired by fear and greed) are empowered by strategic denial and tactical silence. User indifference is sustained by lack of appreciation for potentially catastrophic but unintended consequences. Fear and greed can only be demystified and uncloaked by judicious disclosure and sober education. The fourth estate has failed unequivocally in this regard.

Part VI of VI: How to Thwart Fear and Throttle Greed – Technology and Determination

Network Centric tasks and sessions are currently supported by: a Digital Ecosystem e.g. all user classes, infrastructure, devices, apps, and data, and a Digital Monoculture comprised of integrated processes that preserve resource interoperability. Digital Jurisdiction e.g. direct control of choice, privacy, and oversight, requires a security technology breakthrough.

The rapidly advancing capabilities of friends and foe to surveil – where you’ve been and with whom, what you saw, what you said, what you did – and to impersonate you, has inspired ample determination across all user classes: portal, enterprise, small-medium business, and consumers. Insufficiently informed, resistance remains unfocused and easily rebuffed.

 Only User Controlled Jurisdiction can overcome Acquisition, Collaboration, Facilitation, and Equivocation