The students note that while the technology provides a way to thoroughly search more people without needing to profile those for further pat-downs, they acknowledge that the technology represents a unique invasion into one’s personal body and space.

To mitigate some of the ethical concerns, they propose creating a robust code of ethics to help guide the officials who are using the system (ie, don’t oogle at someone’s image, etc), that users of the technology should undergo frequent “ethical/moral testing” to ensure they are abiding by the code of ethics, and they suggest the design of the system should be modified to blur out some of the more personal areas that can often be exposed.

Given that we didn’t spend too much time on this particular surveillance system, and that this poster was created 6 months before the current increased attention to this technology, I think their brief analysis and suggestions are quite apt.

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. Data Surveillance and Privacy Protection Workshop
2. CFP: Identity and Identification in a Networked World Graduate Student Symposium
3. Want to be a PhD student at UW-Milwaukee School of Information Studies?
4. Perspectives on Surveillance
5. On the Privacy Concerns of Chicago’s 911-CCTV Surveillance Infrastructure

When a 911 call is received, the CAD system scans the OVS network to find any safety camera within 150 feet of the address of the call.

Within seconds, real time video of the location appears on the call taker’s screen.

This story in the NY Times notes the typical privacy concerns with this kind of public surveillance infrastructure:

[O]pponents of Mr. Daley’s use of public surveillance cameras described the new system as a potential Big Brother intrusion on privacy rights.

“If a 911 caller reports that someone left a backpack on the sidewalk, will the camera image of someone who appears to be of Arab or South Asian descent make police decide that person is suspicious?” asked Ed Yohnka of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.

“There seems to be this incredibly voracious appetite on the part of the city to link up cameras to the 911 system,” Mr. Yohnka said. “But there are just no longitudinal statistics that prove that surveillance cameras reduce crime. They just displace crime.”

Nothing too surprising in the discourse surrounding this system, except for this quote in the Times article:

Some experts, including Albert Alschuler, a law professor at Northwestern University, say the surveillance cameras and updated 911 system do not violate privacy rights because the cameras are installed in public locations.

Huh? I’m not familiar with Prof. Alschuler’s work, or what kind of “expert” he is, but I’m quite surprised that he would take such a binary approach to privacy, and not recognize that a right to privacy in public often exists (within social and contextual norms, if not the law).

Wyatt Ditzler, one of our PhD students, provides further comments on this story, noting a concern over who has access to the system and the retention policies of the video captured. Ditzler also provides a “slight joke,” suggesting that “Perhaps video surveillance, open to the public, covering all governmental offices is in order.” Many have actually called for this form mutual surveillance and full disclosure to everyone, such as in Brin’s Transparent Society. The problem with this vision of society, as Bruce Schneier has pointed out, is that it fails to account for dissimilarities in power relations. Law enforcement can do a lot more to affect my life if they know all my secrets, than I can do to affect theirs.

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. Recursive Surveillance
2. Use of cloud computing increasing, despite privacy concerns
3. Microsoft Plans to Sell Search Ads – Privacy Concerns?
4. Universal Automobile Surveillance in the UK
5. Data Surveillance and Privacy Protection Workshop

And, yes, I talk to fast when I get excited about a topic.

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. Commentary for the “Eagle Eye” DVD
2. Seeking References on Cellphone Surveillance
3. Public Surveillence via Cellphone
4. Cellphone Surveillance
5. Does Using Skype Authorizing NSA Spying?

Special Issue of Surveillance & Society | www.surveillance-and-society.org

Performance, New Media, and Surveillance | guest editorsJohn E. McGrath and Robert W. Sweeny

The relationship between the visual arts and surveillance has been explored through large scale exhibitions (e.g.: CTRL [Space], ZKM), and texts such as Loving Big Brother (McGrath, 2004) have introduced questions of performance and performativity into the surveillance debate. However, as the technological possibilities available to artists grow, and the social impact of surveillance is increasingly recognized, there is a need for a thorough examination of the uses of surveillance in the visual arts, particularly in the genres of new media and performance art, where issues regarding technological engagement and embodiment come to the fore. The editors of this special volume of Surveillance and Society are seeking papers that examine the complexities of surveillance in new media and performance art. We intent to acknowledge various issues including but not limited to:

• (Re)Examination of New Media and Performance Art through surveillance themes and theories.
• Modes of spectatorship and participation in New Media and Performance Art that are complicated through surveillance technologies.
• Examples from technological and live artistic practices that present novel forms of interaction and engagement.
• Analysis of the gaze in its various forms (male, actuarial, scopic) as related to New Media and/or Performance Art.
• Discussions regarding visualities produced in the spaces of surveillance, including the visual culture of technologies that measure gait, map surveilled populations, and monitor public spaces.
• Examinations and articulations of surveillance space (including data space) through artistic practice.
• Explorations of the performative nature or surveillance society and space.
• Political, resistant and utopian currents in surveillance art practice.

We are also open to related subjects not outlined above. Projects by artists working in new media would be of particular interest, particularly those that make use of the digital nature of the Journal of Surveillance and Society. These might include media and methods such as hypertext, digital video, animation, videogames, and social/tactical/locative media.

Please contact the guest editors, John E. McGrath johnemcgrath@yahoo.com or Robert W. Sweeny sweeny@iup.edu in advance to discuss proposed topics.

All papers must be completed and submitted electronically, no later than March 31st, 2009, but after January 1st 2009 when the new Open Journal System-powered website will be fully operational.

The issue will be published October 31st, 2009.

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. Perspectives on Surveillance
2. ACLU Sets “Surveillance Clock”
3. The Twin Dangers of the National Surveillance State
4. Cellphone Surveillance
5. Data Surveillance and Privacy Protection Workshop

The closing paragraph pretty much sums up where we are on the project:

At this point, with “Eagle Eye” flying high at the box office, Zimmer isn’t sure when the DVD will come out or how much of his interview will be on the final version. Still, he says, it was a fun experience and an opportunity to educate the public about some of the issues the movie focuses on. ”My hope is that movies like this can raise awareness of the privacy and surveillance implications of new technology, and prompt a dialogue. We need to find ways to benefit from these emerging technologies without threatening the liberties we enjoy.”

I’m hoping to get a stand-alone copy of the interview to distribute for educational purposes. I’ll keep everyone posted….

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. “Is My Cellphone Spying on Me?” Eagle Eye DVD Commentary
2. Seeking References on Cellphone Surveillance

The major findings of the report include:

• The full text chat messages of TOM-Skype users, along with Skype users who have communicated with TOM-Skype users, are regularly scanned for sensitive keywords, and if present, the resulting data are uploaded and stored on servers in China.
• These text messages, along with millions of records containing personal information, are stored on insecure publicly-accessible web servers together with the encryption key required to decrypt the data.
• The captured messages contain specific keywords relating to sensitive political topics such as Taiwan independence, the Falun Gong, and political opposition to the Communist Party of China.
• Our analysis suggests that the surveillance is not solely keyword-driven. Many of the captured messages contain words that are too common for extensive logging, suggesting that there may be criteria, such as specific usernames, that determine whether messages are captured by the system.

This passage from the report’s foreword sums up the scope of this discovery:

While there have been other recent revelations of corporate complicity in China’s censorship and  surveillance regime – the Yahoo case involving Shi Tao and others comes to mind  — the facts laid out in Breaching Trust are of such massive proportions that these other cases pale in comparison.

The lessons to be drawn from this case are numerous and issues of corporate social responsibility will be raised. If there was any doubt that your electronic communications – even secure chat – can leave a trace, Breaching Trust will put that case to rest.  This is a wake up call to everyone who has ever put their (blind) faith in the assurances offered up by network intermediaries like Skype. Declarations and privacy policies are no substitute for the type of due diligence that the research put forth here represents.

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. Does Using Skype Authorizing NSA Spying?
2. FBI’s DCSNet Electronic Surveillance System Exposed
3. ACLU Sets “Surveillance Clock”
4. Debrief: Surveillance Studies Summer Seminar
5. Student Poster on Ethical Issues Related to Backscatter Airport Surveillance Technology

TrackMeNot is a great example: a simple Firefox extension that periodically issues randomized search queries to popular search engines, thereby hiding users’ actual search trails in a cloud of ‘ghost’ queries, significantly increasing the difficulty of aggregating such data into accurate or identifying user profiles. While it might not fully protect one’s privacy or create a veil of full anonymity, TrackMeNot acts as an expression of resistance, and draws attention to the practice of search query data retention.

I recently came across another example: DIY anti-CCTV glasses: attach infra-red LEDs to a pair of sunglasses, and you become a blur of white light to many CCTV cameras. There’s a great video showing how to do it here.

Commenters at BoingBoing and Schneier have doubted the full efficacy of such a technique, but, as is often the case, technologies of obfuscation and restistence aren’t meant to be 100% fool-proof. Rather, they are meant to tip the balance of power back — even if only somewhat — into the hands of average citizens, and bring attention to the controversal aspects of the growing ubiquity and normalization of everyday surveillance and privacy invasions.

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. Obfuscation as a Solution to Web 2.0 Data-Mining Threat

• Scientific American has a nice special issue dedicated to “the future of privacy.” Nothing new here for most privacy scholars, but it is a nice treatment of the issues that is approachable to those who don’t spend every breathing moment thinking about privacy and surveillance theory. (Also very good for undergraduate courses!)
• Colorado Law School professor Paul Ohm has released an important new article on “The Rise and Fall of Invasive ISP Surveillance,” where he argues that “Nothing in society poses as grave a threat to privacy as the Internet Service Provider.”
• Google released a new version of Picasa, that now includes facial recognition technology to help you identify friends and family in your pictures without requiring you to tag them by hand each time you see them. Similar to Riya, Picasa’s facial recognition technology will ask you to identify people in your pictures that you haven’t tagged yet. Once you do and start uploading more pictures, Picasa starts suggesting tags for people based on the similarity between their face in the picture and the tags you already put in place for them. (I’ll blog more about this separately soon.)
• Google also released its own Web browser, Chrome. Many saw conspiracy when Google made the (bone-headed) mistake of simply copying its standard EULA to the Chrome site, which erroneously stated that users grant “Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.” Of course, Google confirmed this was an error, and changed it. Meanwhile, others showed great concern over whether Google would be snooping on browser activity. Lauren Weinstein and Google’s own Matt Cutts helped diffuse those concerns.
• Speaking of browsers, the new version of Internet Explorer (IE8) includes an “InPrivate” mode that lets users control whether or not IE saves their browsing history, cookies, and other potentially sensitive data. This is in line with Safari’s “Private Browsing” feature, but has not avoided all criticism.
• As an iPhone user, I’ve often wondered whether the device “phones home” and what kind of usage statistics might be be shared with Apple. (Recall how the Mini-Store iTunes update from a few years ago caused a stir due the automatic transmission of users’ listening habits to Apple.) Turns out that the iPhone does take periodic screenshots of everything you do in order to make that “shrinking screen” effect work when you press the home key. While presumably that image isn’t stored or transmitted, Wired points out the larger concern: “The phone presumably deletes the image after you close the application. But anyone who understands data is aware that in most cases, deletion does not permanently remove files from a storage device.” Apple should make transparent how this works, where these images reside on the phone, and the process under which they are deleted from memory (including the cache).
• My friend and colleague Anders Albrechtslund has published an excellent article Surveillance and Ethics in Film: Rear Window and The Conversation in the Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture 15(2), pp. 129-144.
• Finally, I’m sad to hear that Sivacracy is going on indefinite hiatus. The silver lining here is that Siva is inching closer to completion of his book The Googlization of Everything.

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. Catching up – link dump
2. Link Dump: January 20, 2008
3. Link Dump – November 1, 2007
4. Catching up…
5. Google (Quietly/Oddly) Adds Privacy Link to Homepage

I’ve been asked to film an interview that will accompany the DVD bonus material for the forthcoming (Steven Spielberg produced) action/thriller movie “Eagle Eye,” which features sophisticated surveillance technologies as one of its plot devices. The topic for the interview will be cellphone surveillance.

I’ve discussed the topic on occassion here, but am seeking any references readers might have at hand that might help me organize my thoughts on the topic.

Thanks.

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. More Cellphone Surveillance
2. Cellphone Surveillance
3. NYT on Cellphone Surveillance
4. “Is My Cellphone Spying on Me?” Eagle Eye DVD Commentary
5. Sprint Offers Family Locator Cellphone Tracking

• January 28, 2008 is Data Privacy Day
• US intelligence agencies are reportedly working on new plans to allow government access to virtually any e-mail, file transfer, or Web search.
• Joris van Hoboken reacts to a comment in the above story from an intelligence officer that “security and privacy are a zero sum game”.
  
• Alec Saunders at GigaOM has written a Privacy Manifesto for the Web 2.0 Era. It includes four key principles (which essentially map onto the Code of Fair Information Practices): a customer’s right to know what private information is being collected; the right to know the purpose for which the data is being collected; the position that each customer owns her personal information; and that customers have a right to expect those collecting their information to store it securely.
• Jack Balkin outlines three different kinds of surveillance that will be increasingly important in what he describes as the National Surveillance State: democratic or participatory surveillance, distributed surveillance, and metasurveillance.

I’m still going through my Bloglines account and will surely have more links to share soon…

Related posts: (automatically generated)

1. Catching Up – Link Dump
2. Link Dump – November 1, 2007
3. Catching up – link dump
4. Link Roundup on Facebook, SocialAds, and Privacy
5. Google (Quietly/Oddly) Adds Privacy Link to Homepage