USES OF SURVEILLANCE

LIS 550 Winter 2010Kris UnsworthTuesday, February 23, 2010

Moore, A.D. 2005 Information Ethics: Privacy, Property and Power

Employee Monitoring: Evaluative Surveillance v. Privacy

Cyberlollygagging

60.7% of people surveyed said they surf the internet and use email for personal purposes at work (WebSense, 2001).

Is this really a problem?

“control” based definition of privacy

“the right to maintain a certain amount of control over the inner spheres of personal information” (Moore 2005, p. 182)

“control over access to oneself and to information about oneself” (ibid. p. 252)

William Prosser’s four torts Intrusion: Intruding (physically or

otherwise) upon the solitude of another in a highly offensive manner.

Private facts: Publicizing highly offensive private information about someone which is not of legitimate concern to the public.

False light: Publicizing a highly offensive and false impression of another.

Appropriation: Using another’s name or likeness for some advantage without the other’s consent.

Tokens and types

Right to control access to a specific token: Bodily privacy -- a right to control access to

and uses of one’s body, capacities, and powers

Could also be called “Physical Privacy” or “Spatial Privacy”

Right to control types: Information about oneself – a right to control

over use of personal information Information may take many forms – written,

recorded, video, etc…

Criteria for justifiable invasion of privacy1. For what purpose is the undocumented personal

knowledge sought? 2. Is this purpose a legitimate and important one? 3. Is the knowledge sought through invasion of privacy

relevant to its justifying purpose? 4. Is invasion of privacy the only or the least offensive

means of obtaining the knowledge? 5. What restrictions or procedural restraints have been

placed on the privacy-invading techniques? 6. How will the personal knowledge be protected once it

has been acquired? Parent, W. “Privacy, Morality and the Law” Philosophy &

Public Affairs 12, 4 (Fall 1983) p. 269.

Do we give up claims to privacy when we’re at work?

Employee monitoring Drug testing Closed circuit video

monitoring Internet monitoring and

filtering E-mail monitoring Instant message

monitoring Phone Location Personality and

psychological testing Keystroke logging

Legislation 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act

“prohibits unauthorized interception of electronic communications, including e-mail. However, the law exempts service providers from its provisions, which is commonly interpreted to include employers who provide email and internet access” http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v9n2/brother.html

National Labor Relations Act Provides framework for fair labor practices and labor organizing

Employee Polygraph Protection Act Protects private-sector workers from exposure to polygraph

testing. Government employees and certain government contractors are still subject to examination

State statutes Connecticut – statute requires employers alert employees if they

use electronic monitoringhttp://epic.org/privacy/workplace/

Employee rights to privacy Smyth v. Pillsbury Co. 914 F. Supp.

97 (E.D. Pa., 1996) “kill the backstabbing bastards”

Gerald Biby v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, et al. No. 04-3878, 419 F.3d 845 (8th Cir., August 22, 2005)

Thin consent

Notification that monitoring will take place and if one wants to continue working a condition of employment is agreeing to such surveillance

Hypothetical thick consent Imagining a pro-employee situation

and then asking what an employee would do in the face of some kind of surveillance

UW Information Systems Securityb.   Monitoring User Accounts, Files, and AccessThe UW does not routinely inspect or monitor the use of computers. However, the

normal operation and maintenance of UW computing and network resources require authorized UW staff to back up and cache data and communications, log activity, monitor general usage patterns, and perform other activities that are necessary for the delivery and availability of service.

Receipt of a report or discovery of inappropriate or unauthorized use of computing and network resources may trigger monitoring and investigation by authorized UW staff.

UW systems owners and operators may specifically monitor the activity of individual users including files, session logs, content of communications, and Internet access without notice, when:

The user's activity prevents access to computing and network resources by others. General usage patterns indicate that unacceptable activity is occurring. There is reasonable cause to believe that a user has violated or is violating policy or

law. It appears necessary to do so to protect the UW from liability.It is required by and consistent with law.Evidence of misuse of computing resources will be referred to appropriate UW

officials. Evidence of possible criminal activity, which could include user files, email, and/or activity logs, will be turned over to appropriate UW and law enforcement officials.

Necessary surveillance Licensing Insurance concerns Employee protection Preventing theft of proprietary

information Identifying cases of sexual

harassment or hostile work environments

Cybersecurity

Current Events!

Philly student laptops

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20100219_Student_claims_school_spied_on_him_via_computer_webcam.html

The story seems to be a bit more complex than this. Interesting background and discussion with someone whose kids are at the same school:

http://www.facebook.com/marc.rotenberg

GULP!

http://mashable.com/2010/02/18/school-spies-on-kids-through-webcams/

DNA

"Many parents don't realize their baby's DNA is being stored in a government lab, but sometimes when they find out, as the Browns did, they take action. Parents in Texas, and Minnesota have filed lawsuits, and these parents' concerns are sparking a new debate about whether it's appropriate for a baby's genetic blueprint to be in the government's possession."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/04/baby.dna.government/?hpt=C1

Indigenous people and cultural property http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/

opinion/08riley.html

"American intellectual property laws, except in very specific circumstances, do not protect indigenous peoples’ collective cultural property."

Twitter use by Congress

I thought some of you might be interested in this report about the use of Twitter by Congress members: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41066.pdf

Google Buzz

 I thought this may be of interest to some of you. Here are some thoughts regarding privacy and Google's new Buzz feature.

http://quartz.syr.edu/rdlankes/blog/?p=941  

and then Library Garden's response...

http://tinyurl.com/yfs2pxu

CCTV and sky police

I read this article the other day and forwarded it to my presentation group, but I thought that it might be interesting to everyone. It talks about how the UK police are going to start using military-type unmanned aircraft to monitor people as early as 2012. Definitely an extension of the "well, if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear" argument. I wonder what it is about the UK that has made them a "surveillance state" more so than other countries?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/23/cctv-sky-police-plan-drones

My favorite part is where they say one of their goals is to prevent tractor theft.

I love Alaska

a recent case in which anonymity itself can backfire is the documentary film "i love alaska" (http://www.minimovies.org/documentaires/view/ilovealaska). a couple of Dutch filmmakers produced this film based on the profile of an anonymous user selected from the AOL search data released in 2006. the film is on the one hand very interesting: the filmmakers saw the queries of this anonymous user as her prose and used it to narrate their film (without her knowledge). one of the interesting developments of our digital times has been the possibility of "participatory surveillance" (Albrechtslund,2008) which the film confronts the viewer with. (from surveillance listserv)