Balance between Freedom, Security and Convenience

[PraiseBacon]

Interested in your thoughts from a debate we had at work around internet security - specifically, the balance between Security, Freedom and Convenience. (i.e. what should the balance be, and what are the appropriate controls)

My contention is that it not possible to provide complete Freedom, Security and Convenience – only 2 of the 3 are possible, so need a compromise of the third.

For today’s debate – let’s flip it to security in the physical world.

For example, airlines – to allow you the freedom to travel anywhere in relative security – the inconvenience comes from having to go through security and provide details in advance if flying overseas

To allow freedom of movement with convenience - comes from compromising security (HiJacks, etc)

So the two questions:

1. Do you agree or disagree with my contention that when it comes to Freedom, Security and Convenience – you can only really pick 2 (or do you think I’m wrong?, and why?)
2. Secondly, which two would you pick, and why?

View attachment 13799

 

[Witty_Banter]

There is a missing caveat in your logic - it should be freedom, security and convience within legal requirements (if you don't include this, then 'freedom' becomes the ability to do whatever, whenever, wherever, to or with whoever - and 99% of that is probably illegal!)

I don't think that it's a choice of 2 of the 3, but I agree that we will never completely achieve all three (unless we bring back the death penalty for even the pettiest crimes). However, I think 70% to 80% of all three at the same time is achievable, and probably the best we can hope for.

For example, it's possible to lower security requirements which in turn boosts convenience and freedom to move, and I think that's where we are now with airline security - security could be a lot tighter! For example, you may be required to provide a DNA sample to the governments of the country you reside in / want to visit, and this could be checked at each airport via a fresh DNA sample before departure and on arrival. But all we do is show passports, maybe some basic biometrics (depending on where you go), and make sure that we follow the LAWS regarding what can and can't be taken abroad / on a plane. The more we violate the laws, the further we are inconvenienced and our freedoms reduced.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

Define - convenience.

Because I think it means different things to different people. There is a lot of impatience these days and many people expect systems to bend to their needs and sense of urgency and throw their bottom lip out at the merest of holdups. Others simply chill and go with the flow and don't regard things like airport security checks as a real inconvenience. I guess its a question of perspective and we are all different in that respect.

 

[justintime129]

Define - convenience.

Because I think it means different things to different people. There is a lot of impatience these days and many people expect systems to bend to their needs and sense of urgency and throw their bottom lip out at the merest of holdups. Others simply chill and go with the flow and don't regard things like airport security checks as a real inconvenience. I guess its a question of perspective and we are all different in that respect.

With regards to airport security it's a necessary hassle now, but the security staff can make the difference. Flew out from Manchester last Monday and the staff where miserable, wanted to talk to each other and generally disinterested. Came back last night from dalaman and the staff were polite courtious and helpful and it didn't seem like a chore to them.

 

[Witty_Banter]

The Spaniards have upped their game in recent years - they used to just wave people through passport control en masse (particularly during the tourist season, and especially on the balaerics), but these days they at least look at your passport photo and wince before waving you on regardless.

The Americans went all biometric years ago - even the smaller airports were using fingerprint scanners back in early 2000s.

I'd have no issue walking through body scanners, giving DNA or fingerprints - hell, the airports can have a stool sample if it means that the flying metal tube-of-death won't prematurely fall out of the sky while I'm in it (tubular framework, large quantities of highly flammable propellant, propelled through the air from one country to another - planes are basically a cruise missile with seats and a cheap meal)

Truth is, technology has made our lives far too easy and comfortable. We (as a general population) can pretty much get what we need whenever we want it, with a few clicks of a button. We don't even have to go out to the shops, the shops will bring our stuff to us (cheers Tesco!). Trouble is, when we stop being able to get things immediately at the click of our fingers, we get frustrated and 'inconvenienced'.

 

[Witty_Banter]

But to answer the questions (because I haven't yet!) -

1 - as I said I think a compromise is possible with all three, so long as you can accept that you will never hit 100% in all areas.

2 - If I had to pick 2, I would choose freedom and security - convenience is a state of mind. I like the thought that I could choose to travel wherever I want in total security, but the process would be 'inconvenient'; compared to the other options, anyway (having no freedoms, but a totally secure, convenient life; having totally convenient freedom, but with zero security!)

 

[PraiseBacon]

Thanks for the responses so far – interesting perspectives..

Yes, I meant freedom to do legal things (I wouldn’t want to live in society where “The Purge” became normalised..

Inconvenience – Agree peoples tolerance to their perception of inconvenience has gone down – the immediacy people want things with is frightening at times (and willingness to compromise security to get it is, at times, shocking.

Airports: I spent 6 months this year doing Edinburgh to Bristol (return) twice a week. Average time to clear security at EDI was 25 minutes, while it was about 5 mins at BRS. Bristol has as many open lanes as Edi most of the time – for far less passengers, and the staff were polite and efficient. Conversely, Edi has become a hell hole to travel through - and case study in mismanagement by the airfields new management

In the cyber sec space , I have had numerous requests come to me saying things like – “Customers like banking via mobile, but want the login automated – like it is Facebook…. Can we do that” (answer is, can you- yes, it’s easy. Should you? No – dumbest thing in the world to do, anyone with access to your phone (stolen, or accessed while left unattended for a moment) can see, and extract money, from your account. Entering a simple PIN is seen as an “inconvenience”!

At times there is the perception of balance – and if you can get people to believe it is balanced then that is the sweet spot for security geek like me. In reality, to achieve the acceptable security, either freedom of convenience has been compromised. (eg mobile banking by phone is tied to the specific device (freedom to access from any device compromised), and some need the annoying calculator to do certain things – of certain functions avail on line are not on mobile (convenience compromise).

To bring it to an closer to home – following airstrikes in Syria – I would wager the freedom of access / movement V’s Security V’s Convenience profile at Waddo has altered in some way (at least mentally) – I recall there was a shift in the Lee Rigby aftermath, and in RAFG in the 80’s (and to an extent the RAF as a whole) the situation could change rapidly with car checks etc (inconvenience for security?)

 

[Gord]

I agree with all the security systems currently in place although I think perhaps they could be beefed up when it comes to giving airside access to certain personnel who work at airports who logically don't need it but whose security card gives them access.

I thought it was a wee bit strange though when passing through Atlanta Georgia, I noticed that a bunch of US soldiers in uniform, transiting through that airport following a tour in Iraq and heading home, were forced to remove their boots just like any other schmuck boarding an aircraft. FFS these lads and lasses had just come back from putting their on the line in the name of their country. I spent some time with these lads in the lounge, supping a few beers whilst waiting for my connecting flight, good lads the lot of 'em and some of them were quite familiar with Canada as they lived in states bordering God's country.:wink::wink: