EU Surveillance Team: We Need More Surveillance To Justify More Surveillance
from the oh,-look,-a-new-ratchet dept
Whether or not you believe that CCTV surveillance makes the world a safer place, there's a big problem with deploying it more widely: you still need someone to look at that footage and pick out the things of interest, and it's much harder adding new personnel than adding new cameras.
Techdirt has already reported on one attempt to get around this problem, based on smartphones and crowdsourcing. The other obvious approach is to automate the process. That is, to develop systems that can be trained to analyze CCTV streams -- perhaps in real time -- in order to try to spot activities that look "suspicious" in some sense, which can then be passed on to human operators for further evaluation and possibly action.
That's exactly the aim of the European Commission's INDECT research project -- short for the rather unwieldy "Intelligent information system supporting observation, searching and detection for security of citizens in urban environment." Here's how it describes itself:
The aim of INDECT is to develop a platform for: the registration and exchange of data associated with threat recognition, acquisition of multimedia content, inteligent processing of information related to automatic threat detection and especially terroristic threats as well as recognition of serious criminal behaviour or violence. New techniques for intelligent analysis of data will allow recognizing such situations, and giving alert before it is too late. The obiective is also to recognise danger events that could lead to terrorist attacks (e.g. left luggage at an airport, automatic recognition of dangerous tools). The definitions of situations and their parameters will be provided by police department.
As this makes clear, the emphasis is very much on analyzing data quickly enough to act on it before crimes are committed or attacks are carried out. However, that last sentence about "parameters" being provided by the police will naturally raise concerns that this is simply a chance for the latter to deploy yet more technology in ways that will be harmful to things like privacy and civil liberties.
To its credit, the INDECT project seems well aware that its work raises important ethical questions:
All of the research activities within INDECT project are carried out so as to ensure the appropriate balance between the protection of the rights of the individual and the protection of society. INDECT research project has an Ethics Board, which was established to ensure strict compliance of research outcomes with already established rules concerning privacy, data protection, to ensure genuine informed consent of all those participating in the project, and to ensure that information is only used for its intended research purpose. It is also responsible for managing and monitoring all ethical aspects of the project. These aspects include the promotion of gender equality.
That comes from a page on INDECT's Web site devoted entirely to ethical issues. The closing paragraph of that section is as follows:
The sentence: "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" is only true if every aspect of the criminal justice system works perfectly, on every occasion. Tools based on INDECT project research outcomes will provide EU Member States with the technology to ensure that decisions around public safety are based on the maximum amount of relevant information available.
This suggests that the project's participants believe that having even more information available about members of the public is not only justified by the deeply-flawed logic "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear", but that governments have what amounts to a duty to gather that information in order to make that argument true. It's a wonderfully circular piece of reasoning that totally overlooks the possibility that a better solution might be to gather less information about people in public spaces.
Sadly, it seems that, alongside the copyright ratchet, which only ever allows this intellectual monopoly to get stronger and longer, we now have a surveillance ratchet, which can only envisage large-scale snooping become ever-more pervasive and intrusive.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cctv, eu, justifications, surveillance
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Disagree with your last conclusion
I agree that they conclude that *more* information is the solution, but I don't agree that they think "if you've done nothing wrong,..." justifies anything. In fact, they outright agree that it is flawed. Quite frankly that's the first time I've heard any government authority admit that.
Their logic, as I understand it is, "the justice system will make mistakes, so it's better for it to have the best information available to reduce those mistakes."
The thing they are missing is that there is no amount of information that can be gathered that will eliminate false positives while maximizing appropriate interdiction. In fact, as has been discussed here ad nauseum, more information can easily lead to MORE false positives, not less.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"We're the EU government ...and we're WATCHING you."
That ought to go over well with the public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't panic! We know from sci-fi movies that this will never work.
* You know, I tried to come up with some reason, however feeble, why the bad guys are always lax on security, and it's just lazy and lousy unrealistic writing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trapwire
Not anymore. Since the advent of Trapwire and advanced facial recognition, we have entered the age of automated, intelligent monitoring of CCTV cameras, where you do not need as much personnel to monitor a greater number of cameras.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Don't panic! We know from sci-fi movies that this will never work.
Movie style evil lair security: Hero breaks in, blows up a bunch of stuff(up to and possibly including the Big Bad), gets out, movie continues or ends with the hero victorious.
Realistic, intelligently designed evil lair: Hero attempts to break in, gets caught at first checkpoint, is either killed or placed in an inescapable situation, movie ends with hero dead or imprisoned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They missed the gotcha
That the laws you are enforcing perfectly with the information are also perfect.
In a democracy the laws of the land are supposed to reflect the collective morality and best interest of the society to which they apply. For a start, that is itself an assumption that the "average" morality of the society reflects most of the people in it, which is rather tenuous anyway. But even more than that it has been shown countless times that laws are in fact most often created through the will of the most vocal or richest minority of the society whether deliberately or through misguided interpretation of "what is best for society" according to a minority agenda.
So, if INDECT's mythical nivarna of perfect information and perfect law enforcement were ever achieved what it would do is create the most perfect and totalitarian police state in the history of the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's why you need to market it better. Make it more appealing. Give it a friendly name that evokes feelings of protection and benevolence. For example, you could call it "big brother".
"Hi, we're your big brother, and we're watching you."
See? It makes me feel safer already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You got a researcher in my security team.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Trapwire
Even without a human watching you it can be very useful just to have a database of everywhere you have ever been and when, so that when any question about you arises, they can instantly poke into your life.
Even better, it would be useful (in both a good and bad sense) to have realtime knowledge of where every person is located. ("Computer, where is Barkley?" "In holideck 3.")
Bad parents could know where their kids are in order to better control their lives. Stalkers would now have better information than Facebook can provide them.
What we need though is some balance. The East Germans had perfected this before the wall fell. They had half the population employed spying on the other half. Now that's balance. And they had great security. In any police state, you can feel much safer walking a dark alley at 3 AM than you can in many non police states. So it must be a great idea!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
All of this PR nonsense from the European Commission is to try and paint a friendly face over something sinister, hence my ironic (truthful) post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Trapwire
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Off the siong sheet
Andy Smith, an internet security chief at the Cabinet Office, said people should only give accurate details to trusted sites such as government ones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Disagree with your last conclusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I have the image etched into my mind of the Queen of England standing on the terrace with a smile on her face, holding up an national ID card a couple days after the subway bombings. Can you say "Nazi Germany"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Disagree with your last conclusion
That's not how I read it at all. What I think they're saying is that the reasoning itself is sound, but becomes flawed only because of imperfections in the system -- that if everything was working perfectly then you really would have nothing to fear.
I think this is very, very wrong. I think that people who behave perfectly all the time, in a system that is functioning perfectly, still have reason to fear ubiquitous surveillance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Trapwire
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trapwire
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Disagree with your last conclusion
And of course part of their flawed logic is that either perfect information or a perfect system are achievable. Plus, to your point, even if false positives are eliminated the mere existence of the information can invite abuse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Disagree with your last conclusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another case of pre-crime
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Disagree with your last conclusion
In other words, they seem to be implying that we need more surveillance coverage and analysis to make the system 'perfect.' They also seem to be stating that once our surveillance becomes 'perfect,' innocent citizens will no longer have anything to fear from surveillance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Off the siong sheet
One problem with that - very few people trust the government. I gave false information on the last census. I sure as hell will give false information to government websites. There have been far too many incidences of government agencies losing information (such as by leaving a laptop on a train).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Another case of pre-crime
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So total knowledge will make us perfectly safe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They spelled intelligent wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]