Rachel is a student at a US university who was sexually assaulted on campus. She decided against reporting it (fewer than 10 percent of survivors do). What she did, however, was register the assault on a Web site that is using novel ideas from cryptography to help catch serial sexual predators.
The organization Callisto lets a survivor enter their name in a database, together with identifying details of their assailant, such as social media handle or phone number. These details are encrypted, meaning that the identities of the survivor and the perpetrator are anonymous. If you hacked into the database, there is no way to identify either party.
However, if the same perpetrator is named by two people, the Web site registers a match and this triggers an e-mail to two lawyers. Each lawyer receives the name of one of the survivors (but not the name of the perpetrator). The lawyers then contact the survivors to let them know of the match and offer to help coordinate any further action should they wish to pursue it.
Photo: Reuters
In short, Callisto enables the survivors of sexual assault to do something unprecedented: they can discover if their abuser is a repeat offender without identifying themselves to the authorities or even identifying the name of the abuser. They have learned something useful, and possibly helpful, without having given anything away.
“Survivors can find it healing to know they are not the only one. They don’t feel it is their fault,” says Tracy DeTomasi, Callisto CEO.
And there is strength in numbers. “Maybe one person doesn’t have a case, but two people do.”
Photo: Reuters
The ability of two strangers to pool their knowledge without revealing any personal information to each other is a seemingly paradoxical idea from theoretical computer science that is fuelling what many are calling the next revolution in tech. The same theory enables, for example, two governments to discover if their computer systems have been hacked by the same enemy, without either government divulging confidential data, or two banks to discover if they are being defrauded by the same person, without either bank breaking financial data protection laws.
‘PRIVATE ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES’
The umbrella term for these new cryptographic techniques, in which you can share data while keeping that data private, is “privacy-enhancing technologies,” or Pets. They offer opportunities for data holders to pool their data in new and useful ways. In the health sector, for example, strict rules prohibit hospitals from sharing patients’ medical data. Yet if hospitals were able to combine their data into larger datasets, doctors would have more information, which would enable them to make better decisions on treatments.
Photo: Reuters
Indeed, a project in Switzerland using Pets has since June allowed medical researchers at four independent teaching hospitals to conduct analysis on their combined data of about 250,000 patients, with no loss of privacy between institutions. Juan Troncoso, co-founder and CEO of Tune Insight, which runs the project, says: “The dream of personalized medicine relies on larger and higher-quality datasets. Pets can make this dream come true while complying with regulations and protecting people’s privacy rights. This technology will be transformative for precision medicine and beyond.”
The past couple of years have seen the emergence of dozens of Pet startups in advertising, insurance, marketing, machine learning, cybersecurity, fintech and cryptocurrencies. Governments are also getting interested. Last year, the UN launched its “Pet Lab,” which was nothing to do with the welfare of domestic animals, but instead a forum for national statistical offices to find ways to share their data across borders while protecting the privacy of their citizens.
Jack Fitzsimons, founder of the UN Pet Lab, says: “Pets are one of the most important technologies of our generation... because they offer the promise that private data is only used for its intended purposes.”
The theoretical ideas on which Pets are based are half a century old. In 1982, the Chinese computer scientist Andrew Yao (姚期智) asked the following question: is it possible for two millionaires to discover who is richer without either one revealing how much they are worth? The counterintuitive answer is that, yes, it is possible. The solution involves a process in which the millionaires send packets of information between each other, using randomness to hide the exact numbers, yet at the end of it, both millionaires are satisfied that they know who is the richer, without either of them knowing any other details of the other one’s wealth.
Yao’s “millionaires problem” was one of the foundational ideas of a new field in cryptography — “secure multiparty computation” — in which computer scientists investigated how two or more parties could interact with each other in such a way that each party kept important information secret and yet all were able to draw meaningful conclusions from their pooled data. This work led in the mid-1980s to a flourishing of increasingly mind-bending results, one of the most dazzling being “the zero-knowledge proof,” in which it is possible for a person to prove to someone else that they have some secret information without revealing any information about it. It allows you, say, to prove that you have solved a sudoku without having to reveal any details of your solution. Zero-knowledge proofs involve a process, as with the millionaires problem, in which the prover sends and receives packets of information in which crucial details are obfuscated with randomness.
‘FULLY HOMOMORPHIC ENCRYPTION’
Another valuable instrument in the Pet toolbox is “fully homomorphic encryption,” a magical procedure often called the holy grail of cryptography. It enables person A to encrypt a dataset and give it to person B, who will run computations on the encrypted data. These computations provide B with a result, itself encrypted, which can only be decrypted once passed back to A. In other words, person B has performed analytics on a dataset while learning nothing about either the data or the result of their analytics. (The principle is that certain abstract structures, or homomorphisms, are maintained during the encryption process.) When fully homomorphic encryption was first mooted in the 1970s, computer scientists were unsure it would even be possible and it was only in 2009 that the American Craig Gentry demonstrated how it could be done.
These three groundbreaking concepts — secure multiparty computation, zero-knowledge proofs and fully homomorphic encryption — are different ways that data can be shared but not revealed. In the 1980s, during the early years of research, cryptographers were not thinking that these innovations might have any practical uses, in large part because there were no obvious real-world problems to which they were a solution.
Times have changed. The world is awash with data, and data privacy has become a hugely contentious political, ethical and legal issue. After half a century in which Pets were essentially arcane academic games, they are now seen as a solution to one of the defining challenges of the digital world: how to keep sensitive data private while also being able to extract value from that data.
The emergence of applications has driven the theory, which is now sufficiently well developed to be commercially viable. Microsoft, for example, uses fully homomorphic encryption when you register a new password: the password is encrypted and then sent to a server who checks whether or not that password is in a list of passwords that have been discovered in data breaches, without the server being able to identify your password. Meta, Google and Apple have also over the last year or so been introducing similar tools to some of their products.
In addition to new cryptographic techniques, Pets also include advances in computational statistics such as “differential privacy,” an idea from 2006 in which noise is added to results in order to preserve the privacy of individuals. This is useful in applications such as official statistics, where simple averages can reveal private information about people coming from minority groups.
Much of the recent investment in Pets has come from cryptocurrencies. Earlier this year, crypto-exchange Coinbase spent more than US$150 million to buy Unbound Security, a multiparty computation startup co-founded by Briton Nigel Smart, professor of cryptography at KU Leuven in Belgium.
“In the blockchain space, multiparty computation is now everywhere,” he says. “In the last year it has gone from ‘will this work?’ to being standard.”
He believes Pets will eventually spread across the entire digital ecosystem.
“This is the future. It is not a fad. What this tech allows you to do is collaborate with people you wouldn’t have thought of collaborating with before, either because it was legally impossible to do so, or because it wasn’t in your business interest, since you would have been revealing information. This opens up new markets and applications, which we are only just starting to see. It’s like in the early days of the Internet, no one knew what applications would come along. We are in the same situation with Pets.
“I think it is becoming more and more intrinsic. You see it everywhere. All data will eventually be computed with privacy-enhancing tech.”
EFFECTIVE APPLICATIONS
The current applications of Pets are niche, partly because the technology is so new, but also because many people are unaware of it. Earlier this year, the UK and US governments jointly launched a ￡1.3 million prize for companies to come up with ideas to “unleash the potential of Pets to combat global societal challenges.”
Yet some uses are already having an effect, such as Callisto. DeTomasi says that 10-15 percent of survivors who have used the site have had matches, meaning that their assailants have numerous victims. DeTomasi does not know the names of any survivors with matches, or the names of the assailants, since the system keeps them secret. (The “Rachel” mentioned in the introduction is an invented name for the purposes of illustration.)
DeTomasi does say, however, that 90 percent of sexual assaults on campuses are by serial offenders, who on average will perpetrate six times during their college year. “So if we stop them after two times, we are preventing 59 percent of assaults from occurring.” Callisto is currently available at 40 universities in the US, including Stanford, Yale, Notre Dame and Northwestern, and the plan is to roll it out to all universities. “It is definitely needed,” she adds, “and it is definitely working.
The Nuremberg trials have inspired filmmakers before, from Stanley Kramer’s 1961 drama to the 2000 television miniseries with Alec Baldwin and Brian Cox. But for the latest take, Nuremberg, writer-director James Vanderbilt focuses on a lesser-known figure: The US Army psychiatrist Douglas Kelley, who after the war was assigned to supervise and evaluate captured Nazi leaders to ensure they were fit for trial (and also keep them alive). But his is a name that had been largely forgotten: He wasn’t even a character in the miniseries. Kelley, portrayed in the film by Rami Malek, was an ambitious sort who saw in
It’s always a pleasure to see something one has long advocated slowly become reality. The late August visit of a delegation to the Philippines led by Deputy Minister of Agriculture Huang Chao-ching (黃昭欽), Chair of Chinese International Economic Cooperation Association Joseph Lyu (呂桔誠) and US-Taiwan Business Council vice president, Lotta Danielsson, was yet another example of how the two nations are drawing closer together. The security threat from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), along with their complementary economies, is finally fostering growth in ties. Interestingly, officials from both sides often refer to a shared Austronesian heritage when arguing for
Among the Nazis who were prosecuted during the Nuremberg trials in 1945 and 1946 was Hitler’s second-in-command, Hermann Goring. Less widely known, though, is the involvement of the US psychiatrist Douglas Kelley, who spent more than 80 hours interviewing and assessing Goring and 21 other Nazi officials prior to the trials. As described in Jack El-Hai’s 2013 book The Nazi and the Psychiatrist, Kelley was charmed by Goring but also haunted by his own conclusion that the Nazis’ atrocities were not specific to that time and place or to those people: they could in fact happen anywhere. He was ultimately
Last week gave us the droll little comedy of People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) consul general in Osaka posting a threat on X in response to Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi saying to the Diet that a Chinese attack on Taiwan may be an “existential threat” to Japan. That would allow Japanese Self Defence Forces to respond militarily. The PRC representative then said that if a “filthy neck sticks itself in uninvited, we will cut it off without a moment’s hesitation. Are you prepared for that?” This was widely, and probably deliberately, construed as a threat to behead Takaichi, though it
RSS