Technology vs 'terrorism'



Since September 11th 2001 'terrorism' has understandably become the preoccupation of many, especially in urban areas, where the threat of 'terrorism' is greatest. High on the list of priorities is tightening up the technological means of ensuring security, by adopting in particular new surveillance measures. While these are mainly expansions of already existing systems - biometrics, ID cards, CCTV and communications interception - an interesting and perhaps disturbing new feature of these is the apparent willingness to create modes of integration between previously separate systems. Similar software and dependence on algorithmic techniques permit data-sharing across several boundaries that were previously less porous. The dispersed data-gathering of the surveillant assemblage, that includes relatively 'innocent' items such as consumer transaction trails -'categorical seduction'- converges with the more centralized activities of policing and intelligence -'categorical suspicion'- in the effort to make urban areas safe. The consequences of this are likely to be far-reaching, reinforcing our reliance on technological solutions, and increasingly inserting them into the routines of everyday life in the city.


 

Surveillance and the City

They might not get your best angle, but chances are it'll be a natural pose. From snatching a glance at your reflection to scratching an inconvenient itch, a real-time record of your every move is being taken, tracked and logged in any urbanized area of the modern-day UK. As a nation, we are turning into the unsuspecting Stars of CCTV. With an estimated four million cameras in this country alone - that's one for every fourteen inhabitants - this is about more than the right to have a bad hair day.

In fact, CCTV (television of the closed-circuit variety rather than the equally pervasive Christian Community channel) is only one extremely visible sign that we are, in the ominously Orwellian words of the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, sleepwalking into a "surveillance society". Take the ostensibly open-handed offer of club card points from your supermarket of choice. While this small sign of altruism may be a welcome act of kindness on the part of big business, it also enables a precise record of your shopping history and habits to be collected. Not just by that pimple-faced boy behind the deli counter. Every time you type a request into a search engine, the data is similarly stored and often sold to third parties.

If you've got nothing to hide, so runs the well-worn adage, then you've got nothing to fear. If you ask me, this is a hop, skip and jump from justice. There is a distinct difference between privacy, a basic human right, and the sort of secrecy adopted to hide activity that is actually illegal. Whereas the term privacy describes the altogether innocent quality of being protected from the voyeuristic view or prying presence of others, secrecy entails unjustly concealing or hiding something at the expense of others. To take a topical example, Madeline McCann's parents should be permitted privacy from the press but not allowed to keep secrets from the Portuguese police.

If you allow me to get constitutional for a moment, our freedom is supposed to be safeguarded by the ancient writ of habeas corpus and the less cryptic sounding assumption of innocence until actually proved guilty. Ay, there's the rub! This amalgam of mass surveillance and research into DNA may have proved priceless on the counter-terrorism and crime-catching fronts, adding a degree of scientific certainty to courtroom evidence. 

View Complete Article

Americans Mostly in Support

Apologies to George Orwell, but according to a recent news poll from ABC News and the Washington Post, Americans are largely OK with being watched by video surveillance.

The two news organizations jointly conducted a small telephone poll of Americans July 18-21, 2007, to assess current opinions on public surveillance. Perhaps not surprisingly, considering that city surveillance projects seem to be coming out of the woodwork all the time, some 71 percent of Americans said they were in support of increasing use of surveillance cameras. The support was stronger in women than men, and among those with a college degree as opposed to those who had a high school education or less. Strongest support was found among seniors over the age of 80, while younger counterparts from Generation Y are not quite as warm to the idea of more cameras.

However, before we put cameras everywhere, says Fredrik Nilsson, general manager of Axis Communications, we have to take into account where they're going, because the public is indeed paying attention to these projects.

View Complete Article