Relations between Security, Technologies and Citizens

Dr David Murakami Woodd.f.j.wood@ncl.ac.uk

Global Urban Research Unit

EUROCITIES FSF-Telecities Summer EventICT FOR SAFE DIGITAL CITIES

June 2007

Outline

Concepts: Technology Security Citizenship

9 Steps Towards Ambient Surveillance? Examples 5 Models of Society Problems and Prospects

Technological Lock-in Dehumanisation and Insecurity Enabling Environments or Automated Societies?

Concluding Challenges

Concepts 1: Technology Traditional view of technology:

Linear Cause-and-Effect ‘Impacts’ on Cities Predictablee.g.: Cities will spread out or 'die‘ because of Internet

Utopian version = Technological determinism If it can be done, it should be done People should fit the system ‘Silver bullet’ view: technology ‘x’ will solve problemse.g.: CCTV and crime

BUT: Technological relations are also social relations Produced for particular reasons, in particular contexts Support mobility and control for capital and social elites Uneven geographies reworked not eliminated Create new forms of social divisions

Technological capacity ahead of policy capacity

Concepts 2: Security

Predominance of risk and risk management Militarisation:

Military concepts move to civil arena Increasingly permanent State of Emergency / State of

Exception Security becomes ‘trump card’ over liberty, privacy,

human rights etc.

Security = safety? The Return of Mass Surveillance

Surveillance has always been part of government Care and Control are not in opposition Targeted v. mass surveillance

Concepts 3: Citizenship Components of Trust:

Accountability Bias Predictability Affect Competence

Problems of Privacy From individual to social / group privacy?

Problem of Data Data still treated as simply ‘information about…’ State sees right to acquire data as paramount? But: ‘Data Doubles’ as important to life chances as

physical bodies? Data = valuable commodity, c.f.: image rights debate

Problem of Transparency Surveillance and Freedom of Information = reciprocal

Towards Ambient Surveillance? 1-3

1. Digitisation – information in searchable and remotely accessible databases Creation of Data Doubles - digital citizens composed of the

information, stand for ‘real’ selves in transactions with the state.

Profiling Social Sorting – based on risk / profit

2. Automation – algorithms analyse collected data Simulation Pre-emption – anticipating and preventing Heuristics – learning systems, self-programming?

3. Connection – telecommunication combination with computing Connection between previously separate systems Information sharing – convenience but increased danger of

unauthorized use Wireless – WPAN – WLAN – WWAN – WGAN?

Towards Ambient Surveillance? 4-6

4. Increasing Power Moore’s Law: processing power doubles approx. every 12

months Greater intensity of surveillance But also: speed – real time

5. Miniturization From room-sized machines to almost microscopic in 50 years Combination of greater power in smaller chips ‘Smart Dust’ sensors / ‘Motes’ c. 2x2mm Nanotechnology – molecular machines Towards workable quantum computing?

6. Distribution Technologies no longer have to be single objects in boxes Dispersed networks of (invisibly) linked components At-a-distance surveillance and analysis

Towards Amient Surveillance? 7-9

7. Infrastructurization Technologies moved from being highly visible to being buried

or moving within Components become assumed and taken for granted

8. Mobility Devices no longer have to be in one place Mobile with user Remote Controlled Independently mobile? Robots and ‘Swarms’

9. Addressability Standard ‘address’ – URL, protocols and languages Location - where are you? Verification – are you entitled? Identification – who / what are you? Protocols are the key…

Example 1: Biometrics

Technologies that ‘recognise’ human bodily traits or movements, e.g.: facial recognition iris scanning movement recognition etc.

Already widespread Some more reliable than

others Problems with face

recognition

Need to reorganise space to ‘make it work’?

Privium System, Schiphol Airport, Netherlands (Schiphol website)

Example 2: (Trans)National Databases

Growing numbers of national databases Police DNA Database (NDNAD) FIND Connecting for Health National Identity Register (NIR) etc.

Many questions, e.g.: NDNAD Preponderance of black men’s DNA DNA of innocent Children’s DNA

New problem: cross-border sharing With USA – e-borders projects With EU – agreements on data-sharing (just signed)

Where are systems of accountability, consent etc.?

Example 3: RFID

Radio Frequency Identification chips

Current ‘silver bullet’ (smart everything…)

Passive vs. Active Tags and Implants Used for:

Cargo Retail products Animals People – from patients to

nightclubbers to workers to…?

Human RFID implant (Getty Images)

Example 4: Mobile Cameras

e.g.: Helmet Cams – and not just for police Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Rolling Robots Swarms – robots working together

Increasing development of either temporary, remote-controlled or independently mobile systems

From the skies over the Gulf to the streets of Liverpool and Milan: UAVs (top – military Predator drone aircraft

(USAF); left – r/c helicopter camera (PA)

Example 5: Scanners

Only use a small part of the EM spectrum

Developers want to change this. e.g.: Backscatter X-ray

(Rapiscan) Millimetre Wave (Qinetiq)

Increasingly portable and low-cost From airports to train

stations, shopping centres, schools…

Pinch-points

Brain scanning – moving out of hospitals…

Qinetiq’s next generation millimetre wave scanner

(Qinetiq Press Release, 2004)

Example 6: Smart Dust

Workable sensors at smaller scales

Distributed, wireless, multi-functional

Smallest working sensors from Dust Networks ‘Motes’

Will be seen as ‘big’ in very short time Micro – Nano

Implications for privacy How to regulate? Tiny ‘smart dust’ mote on US penny

(UC Berkeley Smart Dust project)

Five Models of the Ambient Intelligence Society

1. Volunteerism – the ‘British Way’ – muddle-through, compromise etc…

2. Laissez-Faire – let the market decide

3. Security State – militaristic paternalism

4. Transparent Society – everything is known

5. Reciprocal Society – mutual accountability

Model 1: Volunteerism

Development of ambient intelligence and protocols ignored

Lack of fundamental rights Codes of Practice and volunteerism predominate Shackled regulators State able to produced contingent arguments for

exceptions and exemptions Technological advances run ahead of policy Trust problem not addressed Costs out of control Never certain where ‘lines crossed’ Citizen participation = patchy

Model 2: Laissez-faire

All the privacy you can afford Protocols developed by private sector:

Development of ‘Brandscapes’ Encourage development of ‘Personal Information

Economy’ Personal data as commodity State and private sector pays market value of

data it wants But in turn citizen has to pay for access to

information Embedded within existing unequal market

relations ‘Privacy’ set by market relations and technological

capacity Privacy-Enhancing Technologies (PETS)

Rich become ‘augmented’; poor left conventional

Model 3: Security State

Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear Assume that State of Exception will become the

norm Security trumps all other considerations Rights contingent on national security

considerations Citizen can obtain what information state feels is

relevant and necessary State can share data as it wishes and can change

the purposes to which data is used as it wants. Protocols developed by state:

Automated systems which cannot be questioned Space altered to fit system requirements

Model 4: Transparent Society

Information Wants to Be Free Proliferation of quasi-independent automated

systems for multiple functions Open-source protocols developing through interaction

Assume all information will flow Everything you do is public knowledge or liable to

be known by the state, private companies, and other individuals

But everything the state or private companies do is equally available

No assumption of privacy, but build specific minimal protections based on contracts allowable in clearly-defined circumstances

Model 5: Reciprocal Society

Surveillance and accountability as reciprocal Liberty and privacy integral part of national

security, not opposed to it Technologies fitted to policies not vice-versa

Mandatory Privacy / Surveillance Impact Assessment for new technologies and systems

Control exercised over developed of Ambient Intelligence protocols – for common good.

Create new legal bases for relationships between state and citizen

Strengthen independent oversight and audit capacity

States, companies are ‘custodians’ of data not owners

Problems and Prospects Technological Lock-in

Choice and implementation of technologies in cities can cut down future choices for citizens

Can’t let ‘system requirements’ precede citizen choice

System failure Dehumanisation and Insecurity

Does humanizing cities through ambient intelligence means relative dehumanisation of people?

Mass surveillance creates insecurity and division Enabling Environments or Automated

Societies? Ambient Intelligence can enable the already disabled:

sensory environments, interactive cities Or it could industrialise and automate behaviourc.f.: Lianos’ Automated Socio-Technical Environments

(ASTEs)

Concluding Challenges

Policy still a long way behind technological development Need to move from ‘running to catch up’ to ‘getting ahead

of the game’ Need to understand challenges of ubiquity of surveillance

State – citizen Corporate – citizen Citizen – citizen Parastates, Criminals… Media Things…

Need to rethink conception of data Need to rethink understanding of privacy How to assess technologies?

Not just ‘education’ and ‘making people understand.’ Need to involve people Open-source Protocols – interactive environments