The holidays tend to make one more philosophical. For most people, it becomes a time to ruminate on what is truly important: family, health, love, friendship, world peace… Then there are others like myself who wonder about some aspect of their jobs. For me, the holidays have given me the time to ponder whether, as many critics have pointed out, focusing on the use of data encryption software is the wrong approach to data security. Many point out that not having any sensitive data is the correct approach: if there's no sensitive data, there's nothing to be breached, meaning there is nothing left to encrypt.
This means there is no need for encryption, and the associated hassles of keeping track of, and making backups of, encryption keys; supporting endusers, like in resetting passwords; and keeping track of said encrypted machines via audit reports. (And, if I may point out, all of these are made infinitely easier with a centrally managed encryption product like AlertBoot).
I have to admit that not collecting sensitive data in the first place is the best practice. But is it realistic? After all, you have to collect some data. For example, if you're billing someone for monthly services, like a cell phone company or a cable TV company would, you've got to collect their names, addresses, phone numbers, and some method of payment, be it credit card or checking account numbers. Otherwise, the only option is to have customers show up with cash at an authorized payment processor, a practice that is not readily available to all.
Should a guy living in the middle of nowhere have to travel 40 miles to pay for his satellite internet? Completely forbidding the collection and retention of sensitive data--financial information, in this case--would mean serious logistical issues. Granted, he could live his life without internet access, but what about water and electricity? Sending a check when billed would constitute giving a company sensitive data (your account number and bank routing numbers are on that check).
Our original statement has to be amended: sensitive data shouldn't be collected more than necessary. That's what it means to live in the real world. But then, this means there will be sensitive data retained by companies, no matter how small, and this means data security products are necessary.
In seems to me, and I don't write this lightly, that people who argue that true security will only come from not collecting data are advocating, whether they mean it or not, a return to halcyon days. Before identity theft. Before credit cards. Before credit checks. Before governments required some form of national ID or something approaching it.
But those halcyon days are imagined. Going on a night out with your wife to celebrate? Without credit cards, it meant having to carry the right amount of cash: too little, and your celebration kind of peters out (either by holding back on your celebration or by washing dishes in your nice clothes after having dinner. You gotta make that difference somehow). Carry too much and you've go to worry about misplacing your wallet or being mugged. And unlike credit cards, there is no protection in place. Once that money is gone, it's gone.
In theory, one could pay by check, but they required identification back then to track you down in case the check bounced (if they didn't, it's because they already knew who you are). Plus, the check has account information on it, as I've already pointed out. So, even back then, sensitive data was being collected, passed, routed, etc.
Need a mortgage to buy a home? Without credit checks (and a central repository of credit history), how is a bank supposed to know whether to loan you the money? Well, back in the old days you had to establish a presence and a history with the bank and the community.
But then, it puts the loan officer in charge of your life, doesn't it? Maybe you have an excellent history with the bank, but you're denied a mortgage because the loan officer doesn't approve of your race, sex, marital status, religion, etc. You hope you get a fair-minded person, but there is no guarantee. And what then? Passing legislation not to consider such factors just tends to make better liars out of biased people. Do you change banks? Can you wait another ten years or so to build your history with this new bank? What if you're met with the same resistance after another ten years?
But if you have credit histories that can be tracked, it's just a matter of finding the one bank that doesn't care about your race, sex, religion, etc. The bank that doesn't care will get your business, the ones that do will not…and you won't have to grovel--one of those few instances where "not caring" can be construed in a positive light. (I realize it's illegal to consider such things when deciding on approving mortgages, as well as a variety of other things…but if everyone followed law, I wouldn't even need to be ruminating all of this in the first place).
I recall a particular scene in American Wedding (i.e., America Pie 3) where a marvelous wedding cake is ruined. (For those who haven't watched the movie, I'm not going to elaborate further. Let's just leave it at, I've never seen writers more dedicated to the sophomoric spirit of the series). To me, in many aspects, society is like that cake.
In the movie, the cake is ultimately trashed. Unfortunately for us, we can't do the same with society; it would mean razing everything and starting over, from scratch. And we can't go back either. That is, keeping with the wedding cake analogy, we can't, uhm, de-follicle-ize the cake: it would take too long; we'd never be sure whether the job is complete; and even if the job is completed, no one wants the cake. (Of all the days in the year, I had to bring this up on Christmas. Tsk.)
My point is, before the analogy begins to take a seriously twisted turn, this is the world we live in. Like it or not, the submission, collection, and retention of sensitive data will continue, and in certain cases, is necessary. Some will hate it, some will love it, most won't care…until something untoward happens. Those who argue against collecting any sensitive data are crazy. The world as we know it wouldn't exist if this came to be. And if you've been to Colonial Williamsburg, you know the world as we know it is pretty sweet.
Those who claim encryption will solve all ills are crazy as well. Encryption doesn't protect the CIA and NSA from moles and double-agents. 'Nuff said. The point is not to waste time debating (or ruminating) on what should be done, and what is the best solution, but admitting that there are different yet equally important ways of approaching the task at hand and taking action: Encrypt your stuff and engage in good data retention practices.
What? Can't chew and walk at the same time? If so, that should be part of your New Year's resolution....