You Might be Interested In

“Security theatre.” The concept is easy to understand. Members of the public will feel more secure if there are obvious signs that an organization or their government is taking steps to protect them from threats real and imagined.

This is especially true if these threats are new – the attacks of 9/11 helped to usher in a new set piece in North America featuring pervasive surveillance, recurring identity verification on a technological and personal level, and more frequent interactions between the public and security agents from public and private organizations.

This type of theatre is particularly effective in times of crisis, when the threat seems more immediate, and seems capable of affecting a segment of society rather than simply an individual. As a result of past crises, governments have put in place proposals that have led to increased identification requirements, greater surveillance powers, frequent intrusion into their personal lives and restriction in the activities they can undertake without challenge from authorities.

As individuals, though, we constantly come across moments that pull back the curtain to expose the machinery. These prompt us to question the usefulness to an individual security measure, if not an entire security strategy.

There is a small but relevant example in our own building. The landlords have recently installed a number of surveillance cameras capable of panning over every square inch of the public space in our building. There are even multiple cameras in each of the enclosed emergency stairwells.

If we assume that the landlord has implemented these cameras as a result of a security audit, where known and potential threats suggested that a level of risk, then we might just suffer the constant monitoring of our activities in the building.

But what if one of these cameras was evidently broken? I’ve passed by the same camera, located in a remote corner of the building, seven times in the last week. The plastic dome that protects the lens and rotating assembly has fallen off. I’ve reported the problem to security twice. After the first report, they obviously tried to replace the dome – with electrical tape. That failed, and the dome has been lying on the ground for the past five days.

Now, this isn’t the biggest problem that could beset a technologically advanced security camera, but its continuing condition does lead to three questions:

1. Why can’t someone take the time to repair it properly?
2. If they don’t need to repair it, do they need it to be operational?
3. If it doesn’t need to be operational, why does the camera need to be there at all?

I think we’ve all had a similar experience at some time, where it becomes obvious that there is more concern in having security equipment or procedures in place than ensuring they work effectively.

Or am I wrong? Have you?

What if any government had the opportunity to rewrite history, to paste over unflattering narratives and emphasize its purported strengths? I know, unfortunately that isn’t a rhetorical question.

What if 1984, George Orwell’s classic novel about the tyranny of oppression and never-ending surveillance, had been seized and rewritten to promote the work of Oceania, the government in power?

That’s the premise behind Alexander Charchar’s delicate reworking of the book’s cover art.

“ … That which is hard to ignore, is the fact that it’s ugly. Horribly ugly. It’s centered text to the left, with no thought of kerning or, even though an attempt has been made, to have the lines of text balanced. Perfect for a world where such detail in the arts is ignored and, in a sense, repulsed by those with political muscle …”

Charchar felt that previous cover art was intended to reflect the design sensibilities of the decade (the book has been through so many reprintings, there are dozens of past covers ) rather than the anti-totalitarian message Orwell intended to drive into the reader’s heart and mind.

How would a government like that of Oceania approach its communications with its citizens? As a rough and functional necessity – much like the brutalist approach to architecture?

That certainly strikes a chord if you lived through the second half of the twentieth century, when totalitarian governments in Europe and Asia largely emphasized homogeneity and efficiency over creativity.

It’s also a contrast with the reality we face today, where governments continually experiment with nuanced and targeted messages designed to build support for increased security and ever more invasive surveillance measures.

Sitting in the audience at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy 2009 conference (wiki, Twitter stream, blog, ustream live broadcast) today, I’ve heard several speakers try to discuss how privacy relates to concepts like national security, surveillance, information security and Web 2.0 applications. At the core of each discussion is an ongoing (some would say never-ending) debate: does privacy come at the expense of this other “X” element?

In effect, will we have to trade some of the impact, the effectiveness, or the positive gains of (in one case) Web 2.0 innovations in order to maintain contemporary privacy protections?

Some Web 2.0 advocates question whether privacy advocates (like us) are reflecting the needs or desires of actual users when we argue for privacy protections and strict data protection regimes.

Peter Swire, an Ohio State University professor and former privacy official in the Clinton administration, made the blunt observation today that:

” … the Web 2.0 movement is opposed to the privacy movement … they don’t ‘get’ privacy as central or moral a purpose as people who have been coming to [this conference] … “

You see, the Web 2.0 movement favours the greater and wider distribution of information. Access to more information is empowering. The assumption is that a more transparent and communicative society (especially government) will lead to more representative government and increased democratic participation (if only in issues of particular relevance to individual voters).

Privacy advocates, on the other hand, have long maintained that minimizing access to data is the best way to safeguard data and personal privacy. It’s not necessarily locking every piece of data in a secure box, but certainly making sure each individual has a close eye on the keys to the box containing their own information.

On a different panel, Bruce Schneier, the noted security commentator, noted that “in the New World, there will be more information, but it will not be fair.” He drew a distinction about who is required to disclose data or personal information: the government or the individual citizen.

” … open government laws enforce liberty … forcing transparency in principle enforces control …”

Sunshine legislation may open government to be more accountable for its actions. Increased information collection about individuals, whether through surveillance, through interception, interrogation or simply through increased identification requirements, could lead to more restrictions on how that individual leads their life.

Is there any reason to fear that a largely transparent society, built upon the energy and optimism of innovators like Web 2.0 developers, could produce an environment where individuals are more exposed, perhaps to monitoring, surveillance and control?

As I mentioned, these are ongoing debates. Bruce Schneier injected a dose of reality during his comments:

” … data is the pollution problem of the information age … [today, we ] look back to the Industrial Age and wonder how they dealt with all that pollution …”

Recently, a journalist for Wired magazine attempted to live a location-aware lifestyle. That means he tried to take advantage of the GPS capabilities of every electronic tool he could get his hands on, linking all his activities to his location and then transmitting that data to his network.

In his article, Mat Honan describes one period of introspection – and comes away with a startling realization:

To test whether I was being paranoid, I ran a little experiment. On a sunny Saturday, I spotted a woman in Golden Gate Park taking a photo with a 3G iPhone. Because iPhones embed geodata into photos that users upload to Flickr or Picasa, iPhone shots can be automatically placed on a map. At home I searched the Flickr map, and score — a shot from today. I clicked through to the user’s photostream and determined it was the woman I had seen earlier. After adjusting the settings so that only her shots appeared on the map, I saw a cluster of images in one location. Clicking on them revealed photos of an apartment interior — a bedroom, a kitchen, a filthy living room. Now I know where she lives.

In 2000, this 15-year-old hacker brought down some of the most heavily visited websites on the net: Amazon, eBay, CNN, Yahoo!. At the time, reports claimed the hack caused a billion dollars’ worth of damage to these companies.

Since that time, cybercrime has become big business, with some reports suggesting it’s on par with or bigger than the illicit drug trade. Identity theft features prominently in this underground frontier, with credit card information and entire identities up for sale by the thousands.

Tonight, CBC is airing Web Warriors, a one-hour documentary with an exclusive look at the world of hackers, and the cyber-sleuths who pursue them. If you miss it on TV, the entire documentary is available on CBC’s site as well.

And on the subject of teenage hackers, we’d like to point you towards Little Brother, the novel for young adults by BoingBoing blog coeditor Cory Doctorow. Little Brother takes place in the not-so-distant future where a group of teens use technology to protest the ever-increasing government surveillance around them. It’s a story that looks at hacking, jamming and surveillance, and offers insight into the privacy vs. security debate…all through the eyes of a 17-year-old.

On October 11, In 22 cities across Europe, citizens demonstrated to express their concerns over what they see as the increasing growth in government-created surveillance societies. October 11 was Freedom Not Fear Day, organized by the German Working Group on Data Retention.

In Berlin alone, over 15,000 protesters gathered in a rally that ended at the Brandenburg Gate. (The organizers have argued that 15,000 is a lowball number from the authorities, and the actual number could be closer to 50,000.) Peaceful and creative action took place throughout Europe, including art performances in Vienna, public lectures in Rome, and the construction of a collage made from uploaded photos of UK surveillance equipment and tactics in London.

From the website of the German Working Group on Data Protection:

“Surveillance mania is spreading. Governments and businesses register, monitor and control our behaviour ever more thoroughly. No matter what we do, who we phone and talk to, where we go, whom we are friends with, what our interests are, which groups we participate in – “big brother” government and “little brothers” in business know it more and more thoroughly. The resulting lack of privacy and confidentiality is putting at risk the freedom of confession, the freedom of speech as well as the work of doctors, helplines, lawyers and journalists.

The manifold agenda of security sector reform encompasses the convergence of police, intelligence agencies and the military, threatening to melt down the division and balance of powers. Using methods of mass surveillance, the borderless cooperation of the military, intelligence services and police authorities is leading towards the construction of “Fortresses” in Europe and on other continents, directed against refugees and different-looking people but also affecting, for example, political activists, the poor and under-priviledged, and sports fans.

People who constantly feel watched and under surveillance cannot freely and courageously stand up for their rights and for a just society. Mass surveillance is thereby threatening the fabric of a democratic and open society. Mass surveillance is also endangering the work and commitment of civil society organizations.

Surveillance, distrust and fear are gradually transforming our society into one of uncritical consumers who have “nothing to hide” and – in a vain attempt to achieve total security – are prepared to give up their freedoms. We do not want to live in such a society!

We believe the respect for our privacy to be an important part of our human dignity. A free and open society cannot exist without unconditionally private spaces and communications.”

In the United States, Freedom Not Fear Day was supported by a number of NGOs, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). Together, they issued a release calling for an end to watch lists and data profiling programs that fail to comply with the federal Privacy Act, the establishment of comprehensive data protection legislation, and the repeal of the Patriot Act.

But Freedom Not Fear Day was a decidedly more subdued affair in the U.S. Besides this endorsement and statement issued by EPIC, EFF and IP Justice, no other activities appear to have been scheduled to commemorate Freedom Not Fear Day in Washington D.C. Canadian activities were similarly subdued: the official website notes that a light projection was planned for Toronto’s City Hall but information on who organized it and how it turned out couldn’t be found.

Granted, the roots of Freedom Not Fear Day are in Berlin and the global day of action seems to have spread to other European capitals but it’s interesting to note that North Americans seem reluctant to stand up to the notion of “security theatre“.

Canadians often face the argument that increased public video surveillance is necessary to guarantee their personal safety, or to make sure that their neighbourhood, community or city remains free of vandalism, poor driving or violent crime. Once a new surveillance technique or technology is put into operation, it becomes difficult to reverse the decision – and, consequently, we, as individual members of society, lose one more private moment in time.

Privacy advocates keep particularly alert for this type of creeping incrementalism, where a security-obsessed state is assembled around us piece by piece, each piece of security apparatus argued as a seemingly logical and reasonable response to a real threat to safety or security. After all, are you disturbed to see video cameras in your corner store, outside city hall or on your bus? These were not common place ten, fifteen or twenty years ago.

Governments often use the opportunity presented by large-scale events, such as Olympic Games or the meeting of international leaders, to implement new surveillance techniques or technologies. This was the case in Athens, where an extensive network of closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) was put in place in preparation for the 2004 Olympic Games.

Predictably, once the Olympic Games were finished the local police forces wanted to use this CCTV network to monitor the activities of their citizens, including the surveillance of civil demonstrations in the city. Eventually, the head of the Greek Data Protection Authority resigned in November 2007 after losing his battle over the appropriate use of the legacy CCTV network.

As Canada prepares to host the 2010 Winter Olympics in British Columbia, privacy advocates are readying for a debate about the extent of public surveillance that will be necessary to protect the public. The Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia has spoken about limiting the use of CCTV in public surveillance in the past and, in March 2006, our Office released Guidelines for the Use of Video Surveillance of Public Places by Police and Law Enforcement.

The push to install large scale surveillance systems often rests on two arguments: the systems protect personal safety and security, and Canadians should have no expectation of personal privacy in public. The first argument has been shown to be weakly supported – particularly in the case of the extensive CCTV network installed in the United Kingdom – and the second argument is patently false.

We’ve decided to commission research into how developments in public surveillance techniques and technology are affecting Canadians, individually and as a society. First off, Queen’s University will be examining the proliferation of surveillance cameras across the country, and report on the trends in the use of public surveillance – although it seems as if we are seeing more and more attempts to expand surveillance networks. As well, the University of Alberta will be taking a detailed look at whether privacy issues are being properly considered in the run-up to the 2010 Olympics.

As with all our commissioned research, this work will be made publicly available early next year – and we hope it helps to maintain an important and public dialogue about how security and surveillance measures proposed for the 2010 games will actually affect the lives of people in British Columbia – and across Canada.

In the meanwhile, we will be continuing to consult with the RCMP and other branches of the Government of Canada about their plans for surveillance and other security measures at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver.

(photo courtesy of Art of State)

The rising cost of air travel might be the least of your worries when flying in the future.

The Washington Times has reported that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has expressed interest in a “security bracelet” developed by Canadian-based Lamperd Less Lethal, a company specializing in firearms training and specialized civil defence equipment. Lamperd proposes, in this corporate video, that air passengers would be fitted with a bracelet containing boarding pass information, the passenger’s personal information and the ability to track a passenger’s whereabouts. As well, the device would be equipped with Electro-Muscular Disruption technology or EMD, meaning air crew could remotely deliver a shock to the bracelet-wearer, immobilizing the wearer for several minutes. The bracelet, given to the passenger at check-in, would be worn for the duration of the flight and could not be taken off until the passenger reaches his or her destination.

Lamperd claims in its video that, “Given the choice…many, if not most passengers would happily opt for the extra security of the EMD security bracelet.”

Given recent studies that show increased skepticism among the general public over how their personal information is often handled, and coupled with growing doubts over whether many of these post-9/11 security measures actually make us safer, we have our doubts: would passengers be prepared to put their desire for security before their own concerns over how such a bracelet could be (mis)used? Could a security bracelet really be effective in deterring terrorism, or does it just make people feel safer without actually improving anything?

Update from the Department of Homeland Security
(07/18)

“This allegation stemmed from a misleading video posted on the Lamberd Website which depicts an ID bracelet that would contain identifying information as well as the ability to stun the wearer. The company claims to connect use of such a device to DHS and TSA, but no discussions between these agencies has ever taken place. …

This concept was never funded or supported by the DHS or TSA and hasn’t even been discussed for two years.”

The author of a new article on surveillance in The Walrus thinks you do. Hal Niedzviecki says that while the thought of being monitored used to disturb us (think George Orwell and Nineteen Eighty-Four), cameras and other surveillance techniques are so prevalent today that we’ve stopped noticing them. And, he says, when we do notice we don’t really care (case in point: when it was announced that 10,000 cameras would be installed in Toronto’s subways, streetcars and buses, he asserts that citizens “shrugged and went about their business”).

What’s more, he points out that video cameras are only one means of surveillance – and that many people don’t realize this. Think of Air Miles programs that collect information on your shopping habits (and give you points in return) and social networking sites that let you update your “status”, enabling you to let people know what you are doing as often as you like. Because we enjoy these activities, and because some of them bring us pleasure, Niedzviecki makes the argument that we actually enjoy being watched.

He also contends that because we enjoy many of these activities, and because our current focus is more on protection against terrorism than on privacy and state totalitarianism, we either see surveillance as a good thing (protection) or we get so used to it that we don’t see it at all. He goes into detail about the implications of this.

And while some of the author’s concerns might be a bit of a stretch (he refers to Hitler’s actions as “the world’s first genocide by database”), it does make sense to think twice when you are revealing personal information online and when out in the real world doing seemingly simple things like buying milk. And if you have questions about how you are being watched you can always refer to OPC guidelines on video surveillance in the public sector and in the private sector.

Several Canadian universities, including Queen’s and the University of Victoria, recently launched a multi-disciplinary study on the sociological and cultural impacts of surveillance. “The New Transparency: Surveillance and Social Sorting” received $2.5 million from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

We all know surveillance is a part of our everyday life.  With our dependence on computers, the widespread sharing of our personal information with individuals and institutions, and the heightened concern about security by governments, every one is a potential candidate for some form of surveillance – on the street, at work, while at play, or even at home.

The New Transparency has proposed a series of lofty goals – to make “visible the identities of individuals, workings of institutions and flows of information never before seen” – using surveillance as the key to gather this data. The project intends to focus on “three vitally important questions”:

1) What factors contribute to the general expansion of surveillance as a technology of governance in late modern societies?
2) What are the underlying principles, technological infrastructures and institutional frameworks that support surveillance practice?
3) What are the social consequences of such surveillance both for institutions and for ordinary people?

In the past week, we have seen the government announce over $60 million for a new home for the Communications Security Establishment – Canada’s leading electronic surveillance agency. On a more practical level, more and more police forces are arguing for the proliferation of video surveillance, whether to increase security in our local park, to guarantee the safety of transit workers, or to prepare for the Olympic Games in Vancouver.

As a society, we have to consistently question any demand for increased surveillance. The OPC has set guidelines for the imposition of video surveillance by law enforcement agencies: these are also a useful series of questions to be posed whenever an organization proposes to place us under a stronger microscope.