Imagine you're in charge of infiltrating sleeper agents into the United States. The year is 1983, and the proliferation of identity databases is making it increasingly difficult to create fake credentials. Ten years ago, someone could have just shown up in the country and gotten a driver's license, Social Security card and bank account -- possibly using the identity of someone roughly the same age who died as a young child -- but it's getting harder. And you know that trend will only continue. So you decide to grow your own identities.

Call it "identity farming." You invent a handful of infants. You apply for Social Security numbers for them. Eventually, you open bank accounts for them, file tax returns for them, register them to vote, and apply for credit cards in their name. And now, 25 years later, you have a handful of identities ready and waiting for some real people to step into them.

There are some complications, of course. Maybe you need people to sign their name as parents -- or, at least, mothers. Maybe you need to doctors to fill out birth certificates. Maybe you need to fill out paperwork certifying that you're home-schooling these children. You'll certainly want to exercise their financial identity: depositing money into their bank accounts and withdrawing it from ATMs, using their credit cards and paying the bills, and so on. And you'll need to establish some sort of addresses for them, even if it is just a mail drop.

You won't be able to get driver's licenses or photo IDs on their name. That isn't critical, though; in the U.S., more than 20 million adult citizens don't have photo IDs. But other than that, I can't think of any reason why identity farming wouldn't work.

Here's the real question: Do you actually have to show up for any part of your life?

Again, I made this all up. I have no evidence that anyone is actually doing this. It's not something a criminal organization is likely to do; twenty-five years is too distant a payoff horizon. The same logic holds true for terrorist organizations; it's not worth it. It might have been worth it to the KGB -- although perhaps harder to justify after the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 -- and might be an attractive option to existing intelligence adversaries like China.

Immortals could also use this trick to self-perpetuate themselves, inventing their own children and gradually assuming their identity, then killing their parents off. They could even show up for their own driver's license photos, wearing a beard as the father and blue spiked hair as the son. I’m told this is a common idea in Highlander fan fiction.

The point isn't to create another movie plot threat, but to point out the central role that data has taken on in our lives. Previously, I've said that we all have a data shadow that follows us around, and that more and more institutions interact with our data shadows instead of with us. We only intersect with our data shadows once in a while -- when we apply for a driver's license or passport, for example -- and those interactions are authenticated by older, less-secure interactions. The rest of the world assumes that our photo IDs glue us to our data shadows, ignoring the rather flimsy connection between us and our plastic cards. (And, no, REAL-ID won't help.)

It seems to me that our data shadows are becoming increasingly distinct from us, almost with a life of their own. What's important now is our shadows; we're secondary. And as our society relies more and more on these shadows, we might even become unnecessary.

Our data shadows can live a perfectly normal life without us.

This essay previously appeared on Wired.com.

EDITED TO ADD (9/9): Interesting commentary.

Imagine you're in charge of infiltrating sleeper agents into the United States. The year is 1983, and the proliferation of identity databases is making it increasingly difficult to create fake credentials. Ten years ago, someone could have just shown up in the country and gotten a driver's license, Social Security card and bank account -- possibly using the identity of someone roughly the same age who died as a young child -- but it's getting harder. And you know that trend will only continue. So you decide to grow your own identities.

Call it "identity farming." You invent a handful of infants. You apply for Social Security numbers for them. Eventually, you open bank accounts for them, file tax returns for them, register them to vote, and apply for credit cards in their name. And now, 25 years later, you have a handful of identities ready and waiting for some real people to step into them.

There are some complications, of course. Maybe you need people to sign their name as parents -- or, at least, mothers. Maybe you need to doctors to fill out birth certificates. Maybe you need to fill out paperwork certifying that you're home-schooling these children. You'll certainly want to exercise their financial identity: depositing money into their bank accounts and withdrawing it from ATMs, using their credit cards and paying the bills, and so on. And you'll need to establish some sort of addresses for them, even if it is just a mail drop.

You won't be able to get driver's licenses or photo IDs on their name. That isn't critical, though; in the U.S., more than 20 million adult citizens don't have photo IDs. But other than that, I can't think of any reason why identity farming wouldn't work.

Here's the real question: Do you actually have to show up for any part of your life?

Again, I made this all up. I have no evidence that anyone is actually doing this. It's not something a criminal organization is likely to do; twenty-five years is too distant a payoff horizon. The same logic holds true for terrorist organizations; it's not worth it. It might have been worth it to the KGB -- although perhaps harder to justify after the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 -- and might be an attractive option to existing intelligence adversaries like China.

Immortals could also use this trick to self-perpetuate themselves, inventing their own children and gradually assuming their identity, then killing their parents off. They could even show up for their own driver's license photos, wearing a beard as the father and blue spiked hair as the son. I’m told this is a common idea in Highlander fan fiction.

The point isn't to create another movie plot threat, but to point out the central role that data has taken on in our lives. Previously, I've said that we all have a data shadow that follows us around, and that more and more institutions interact with our data shadows instead of with us. We only intersect with our data shadows once in a while -- when we apply for a driver's license or passport, for example -- and those interactions are authenticated by older, less-secure interactions. The rest of the world assumes that our photo IDs glue us to our data shadows, ignoring the rather flimsy connection between us and our plastic cards. (And, no, REAL-ID won't help.)

It seems to me that our data shadows are becoming increasingly distinct from us, almost with a life of their own. What's important now is our shadows; we're secondary. And as our society relies more and more on these shadows, we might even become unnecessary.

Our data shadows can live a perfectly normal life without us.

---

Bruce Schneier is Chief Security Technology Officer of BT, and author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World.

1. Sad, but VERY insightful story of Alan Shimmel getting 0wned (1,2,3,4, others on his blog)
2. A very good essay on security industry/market/community "Evolution is Punctuated Equilibria" ("Right now, Internet security is due for another period of rapid change.")
3. As I like to say, most everybody in out industry is confused about risk (myself included, in fact) - here is some nice reading about the subject: "Quant love", "What is Risk?" ("The probability of a threat overcoming security controls resistance to exploit a vulnerability that results in a loss.") While you are at it, check this blurb about risk and CVSS (BTW, CVSS is about "V" - vulnerability, not "R" for risk!)
4. Solid gold on "running IT as business" (and where it hits the wall) - Richard, the original CIO.com piece ("If you've tried managing an internal IT department as a bona fide business you already know that you can't take that very far, for the obvious reason that your IT department isn't a business.")
5. More fun stuff from Richard on insiders and why NOT look for them (sadly, same logic applies to not looking for owned boxes in your environment...).
6. Analyst firms shocking discovery: wireless MAY have security issues (I guess count it as humor...)
7. Fun read: "Challenges of Enterprise Cloud Computing" ("By moving the data into the cloud, enterprise, for now, will lose some capabilities to govern their own data set.")
8. Raffy on visualization. ("One of the dangerous things is if you don't understand the log file itself, don't assume you'll understand the visualization of it or even generate a visualization that makes sense") Amen to that! BTW, Raffy's book is finally out.
9. Compliance and checkbox mentality: fun pickup from my original "DLP and Compliance" post - Rich and TechTarget. Good stuff! ("Don’t Sell ‘Compliance’ If It Isn’t A Checkbox ")
10. RedHat is nicely 0wned (more info)
11. BGP hole to dwarf the DNS hole?
12. Chris continues the virtualization and PCI DSS theme here. The jury is still out on this one, even though the common sense approach (that virtualization is OK in regards to PCI) will probably win.
13. NEWS FLASH! Privacy dies. The date of death? 1967. While reading it, think just how visionary some folks are...
14. Finally, just for laughs: How to Spin Bad News

Enjoy!

BTW, I am saving some fun reading for dedicated posts soon :-)

You can not process complex events in some very simple way and expect to get accurate results.  You need knowledge, represented by one or more situational models, to process complex events.

Some folks, like to say that a “complex event” is simply an event which is an aggregation of two more more event objects.    If you follow this (flawed) logic, then counting integers is complex event processing; because 1 plus 1 is 2, and 2 is an aggregation of 1 and 1, so 2 is a complex event (not!).  

Since we know that counting is not a complex processing operation, then some folks would say that you can process complex events with very simple operations because you are processing complex events , in the case adding 1 to the previous number (counting), enriching an event object.

This is simply nonsense.

The logic flaw is that the basic definition of a “complex event” (used by many people) is wrong.   A complex event is not simply an event object with two more more events as sub-components. 

A complex event is when two event objects are combined (processed) to form a complex object with a higher degree of inference, or situational knowledge.   One plus one equals more than two in complex event processing, because the combination of event objects requires knowledge (e.g. a situational model).

A Complex Event = Sum (EventsObjects) + Situational Knowledge

Let there be no mistake about it.    Complex event processing is the complex processing of complex events.   You cannot accurately process complex events with simple event processing models.

The simple processing of complex events is not CEP, it is simple event processing (event track-and-trace, simple event object enrichment, simple event object aggregation, and so forth).