<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none;" alt="" src="https://px.ads.linkedin.com/collect/?pid=2975524&amp;fmt=gif">
BLOG

Espionage Barbie? Tech Toys Bring Whole New Meaning to Youth Privacy

March 30, 2017

Espionage Barbie

Technology has created a never-ending battle between security and privacy. We want technology to make our lives as convenient as possible. And for the most part, we’re willing to give up a bit of privacy to make it possible.

We use Facebook. We let our Amazon Echo listen just in case we need something. We give Google a detailed record of our location data. People want privacy but not if it comes at the expense of innovation.

But what about when it comes to our kids?

It might have been funny to think of Barbie as a Cat Burglar when the doll came out in 2009. But Espionage Barbie is getting real. Are we giving up on youth privacy, too?

How to See Your Baseline Traffic

Germany Bans Espionage Doll

The Internet of Things is rolling through just about every piece of technology you can think of. And according to Mikko Hypponen, Chief Research Officer at F-Secure, “in five years’ time you go and buy a toaster, it—regardless of the toaster you buy, even if there’s no IoT features—it’s still gonna be an IoT toaster.”

This idea is already moving into the toy business. In February 2017, Germany banned the My Friend Cayla doll, calling it a stealthy espionage device. It listens and records everything your kids say!

Norwegian Consumer Council Technical Director, Finn Myrstad, went a step further to show how closely the listening doll blures the line between technology and privacy. He asks the doll “Can I trust you?” and gets a simple “I don’t know” in reply.

You might think this is just a subset of the discussion we have about devices like smart TVs, gaming consoles, smartphones, and connected cars collecting so much data about us. We have court cases defending the privacy of data collected by Amazon’s Alexa—but it’s a bit different when we talk about youth privacy.

 

 

Why Youth Privacy and Tech Toys Are Major Cyber Security Concerns

The main issue with tech toys that aim for better engagement through listening and personalized responses is the storage of data. When the Cayla doll records a conversation with your child, the data is sent to the doll manufacturer and then another company that develops voice-recognition software.

When you buy a toy like this for your child, you’re leaving his/her personally identifiable information (PII) in the hands of a company that could be hacked as easily as any other.

You might be willing to sacrifice a bit of your own privacy—but your kids? We’ve seen in the past that a tech toy companies can be hacked and there will only be more incidents if attackers see these are such weak targets.

When PII is compromised at such a young age, we risk setting children up for data breaches and security attacks later on in life. With the inevitability of connected devices—tech toys included—we have to figure these security concerns out before we make a youth privacy mistake that we can’t take back.

Shining a Light on Espionage Barbie and Emerging Tech Toys

Any act of espionage is compromised the moment it is identified by the target. So if we want to eliminate the security concerns of tech toys, we have to make it so that hackers can’t hijack these devices in such secrecy.

As is the case in so many data breaches, attackers find their way into a network and exfiltrate data without ever being noticed. If a company that stores tech toy data is compromised, so are our children.

This is why network visibility is so important in an age where sprawling connectivity is inevitable. We can’t sacrifice security for convenience anymore! We can have both if we properly baseline network traffic.

To learn how to properly baseline your network, download our free white paper, How to See Your Baseline Traffic.

See Everything. Secure Everything.

Contact us now to secure and optimized your network operations

Heartbeats Packets Inside the Bypass TAP

If the inline security tool goes off-line, the TAP will bypass the tool and automatically keep the link flowing. The Bypass TAP does this by sending heartbeat packets to the inline security tool. As long as the inline security tool is on-line, the heartbeat packets will be returned to the TAP, and the link traffic will continue to flow through the inline security tool.

If the heartbeat packets are not returned to the TAP (indicating that the inline security tool has gone off-line), the TAP will automatically 'bypass' the inline security tool and keep the link traffic flowing. The TAP also removes the heartbeat packets before sending the network traffic back onto the critical link.

While the TAP is in bypass mode, it continues to send heartbeat packets out to the inline security tool so that once the tool is back on-line, it will begin returning the heartbeat packets back to the TAP indicating that the tool is ready to go back to work. The TAP will then direct the network traffic back through the inline security tool along with the heartbeat packets placing the tool back inline.

Some of you may have noticed a flaw in the logic behind this solution!  You say, “What if the TAP should fail because it is also in-line? Then the link will also fail!” The TAP would now be considered a point of failure. That is a good catch – but in our blog on Bypass vs. Failsafe, I explained that if a TAP were to fail or lose power, it must provide failsafe protection to the link it is attached to. So our network TAP will go into Failsafe mode keeping the link flowing.

Glossary

  1. Single point of failure: a risk to an IT network if one part of the system brings down a larger part of the entire system.

  2. Heartbeat packet: a soft detection technology that monitors the health of inline appliances. Read the heartbeat packet blog here.

  3. Critical link: the connection between two or more network devices or appliances that if the connection fails then the network is disrupted.

NETWORK MANAGEMENT | THE 101 SERIES