Cybersecurity: the final battle


In the movie Armageddon, the final battle for human survival, we are witnessing the destruction of all humanity and the planet, due to the fact that we did not want to believe Raja – one of the two scientists behind the project “EVE” (Electromagnetic Vacuum Energy) who would like to make Europe energy independent – who warns that if one of EVE's two reactors were shut down, the planet would explode. Since Raja was kidnapped by terrorists and finds himself in very delicate conditions of credibility, he is not believed. Not only that, the fact that the reactor has to be closed because it is dangerous, is the general idea that definitively guides the choice. The event occurs: the reactor is shut down and the planet is destroyed.

A case not to be underestimated.

Apart from the 'usual' vision that emanates from certain films (Armageddon speaks of terrorists who attack the delicate system of equilibrium of modernity to achieve their delusional aim of general destruction), the 2009 American film seems to be the 'canvas' on which these years of the beginning of the century are pitted off. [and we hope there are still many… ]

L'final nightmare is the subtitle of the film, and it's all a program …

The credibility of those who go against the 'common think', latent form of indifference, has always been the weak link in the social chain … and the plot of many action films.

It seems like yesterday when in 2013, after winning the primaries, Pier Luigi Bersani was at war with Matthew Renzi for the conquest of Palazzo Chigi. A story that is still talked about and from which the narrative of our days still derives.

Well, one of Bersani's warhorses was the attack on the system of individualism and personalization of politics, the 'distance from the idea of the collective', just watch the episode of Ballarò of 16 January 2013

Today we are in the declination of the fight against the paradigm ofindividualismof 'solipsism'.

But if the extremes of this 'human expression' is evidently and rightly to be fought, because, among other things, it is a prelude to forms of intolerance and 'estrangement', against which Pierluigi Bersani pointed the finger, on the other hand it is also right that individuals maintain a 'own individual and intimate sphere' which no one should access, according to the best dictates of health psychology. The boundary remains that of social intrusion into some aspects of the intimate life of public figures. The limit should be really and clearly defined.

In short, in general, to man, of any age and gender, of any social class, and in any activity he engages in, a little privacy is very good. Indeed it is necessary to maintain 'mental and physical health. The private sphere, confidentiality (and the consequent 'right to confidentiality of mail' contained, for example, in the Italian Constitution), are fundamental for leaving mankind a field 'private' that may not be 'attacked' from the outside, within which the person can build his own defenses and cultivate his own personality, letting it vent and modifying it according to the needs of the environment in which he lives.

So we enter the field social and rights engineering. Here, society today would need 'rights engineers', more than those of the brick.

Without the right to privacy there would be no real mental health, the outbursts would be 'externalized', i.e. they would be directed towards the outside, and we would also go towards a 'robotization of being' which would become or easily 'maneuverable' from external pressures or absolutely alienated by putting up a wall of self-defense.

I believe these are the basics of psychology that everyone should know.

Another example: all children at some point in their lives dream of their parents' death, because it is the 'contention', the antagonism, which makes the personality grow and strengthens it. If that 'child / a', in that particular moment of growth, were sburgarded everywhere, we would have an extremely weak and attackable adult individual and a company in full bankruptcy. A bit like those videos that bullying children post to show personal aspects of 'weak comrades'.

This is where the 'right to privacy' mainly comes from: the safeguarding of the individual's possibility of defence. Rodotà docet!

But since when did we realize this fundamental need of the person? From industrialization onwards. From Fredu. From the birth of the 'bourgeois class'. In fact, privacy is a typically 'bourgeois' right [and perhaps for this reason a little opposed by both the right and the left ....]

Privacy is also the main tool that society 'should have' to fight indifference. I write 'should' because it doesn't actually use it.

The need to feel 'well inserted' in the social group one belongs to, typical of adolescence, means that personalities 'immature' are oriented to assume the 'thinking of others' as one's own (the famous indifference), but at the same time 'saving oneself' from estrangement from oneself as a result of the archiving process of one's 'own intimate thought' in a place to which no one is given access except to the individual himself, who will conserve in case you need to resort to it.

It is conformity. (from which the 'licking' also derives, ask the young!)

They are all very well studied social characteristics and known to many enthusiasts and scholars of the subject.

The affirmation of the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten about internet accounts, the principle of innocence up to the final instance of judgement, have had a very troubled path, especially opposed by the modern state, which has become an antagonist of the private sphere, in name of the 'general safety'.

Absolute antagonist to the right to privacy is the right to know, one of the irremovable cornerstones of modernity and the principle of every 'transparent administration'. The right to know is the eldest son of the 'tangentopoli', of the change from the old system of cryptic politics and the secret society.

But without the secret societies today we would not have a united Italy and neither the P1-2-3-….
So the boundaries are very blurred. This is why it is argued that it is a matter for 'legal engineers/scientists'...

The advent of databases, thanks to modern technologies, have enlivened the theme of the private/public dichotomy even more.

'The Italian transposition law of directive no.46/95/EC, which effectively entered into force in 1997, has undoubtedly led to a series of important transformations in customs and commercial practices, and an undoubted change in social behavior (…) The legislative interventions that followed after the entry into force of law 675/96, the numerous provisions of the Guarantor, the vastness of the existing databases and therefore the need for a systematic reorganization of the matter have imposed the creation of a Unique Code of privacy' (Legislative Decree 196 of 2003) [Sica-Cardarelli-Zeno-Zencovich]

The implementation of the Privacy Code has been exemplary in the distinction between 'sensitive data' and 'available data'

But still today we need more updates. For example, in Italy the telephone operator or social networks are required to provide the judicial authority, and only to it and upon written and countersigned request, with the data in their possession on specific persons being investigated.

This doesn't apply to America. The right to be left alone (lit. "the right to be left alone" or "right to be left alone"), according to the formulation of the US jurist Louis Brandeis, which was probably the first in the world to formulate a privacy law together with Samuel Warren, is the fundamental pillar of US society.

According to US philosophy, the right to privacy should not be confused with the right to secrecy, which is also aimed at protecting a reserved area of private life but which for some reason includes elements that are still known to some people: the doctor, for example, he is certainly aware of his patient's state of health, but he has a duty to maintain professional secrecy on the information he is aware of.

Privacy should not be confused with solitude either, since there is a profound difference, in fact, between "being alone" and "being left alone".

Originally in America there was a 'restrictive' attitude on the right to privacy, considered inaccessible. Then America took a step back also due to the awareness of becoming vulnerable to violations by third parties (seethe WikiLeaks case).

«By judgment of 6 October 2015 relating to the Irish case Facebook-Schrems, the European Court of Justice declared the agreement invalid Safe Harbour between the EU and the United States, on the processing of personal and sensitive data of European citizens, mainly due to the absence of borders and derogations from the powers of the authorities that protect national security.

The deal was then replaced by the new one EU-US Privacy Shield of the February 2, 2016, which concerns data of European citizens transmitted via the internet from the EU to the United States, or permanently held in databases of private companies or intelligence bodies residing in the United States, and US companies that process the data of citizens in Europe. The agreement does not specify limits and exceptions for intelligence authorities, while it requires US companies (operating both in Europe and in the United States) to adhere to and comply with EU privacy regulations towards European citizens.
Close cooperation with the Department of Commerce and the Federal Trade Commission is foreseen, as well as the creation of an Ombudsman for disputes with intelligence». [Wikipedia]

Based on these regulations, the FBI was able to send Apple a letter of judicial authority to have access to the data contained in a terrorist's cell phone. So the legislation helps the FBI, but only as long as it asks for the cell phone password.

Different thing becomes if the FBI asks for a software to the parent company to enter the system even just for a particular mobile phone. It is famous that Apple is unassailable from the point of view of viruses and hackers. The iOS system does not allow it. So it would be enough to provide the key to even just a mobile phone to break down all the credibility and seriousness of the company, as well as, what is much more serious, the safety of millions of citizens.

Apple was right to defend itself and to deny – it would probably also be a very difficult thing – the possibility of violating its own defense 'system'!


The war between Apple and the FBI explained in 6 points


Sign up to our newsletter!