Loss of Privacy

Despite fears over the erosion of privacy in the United Kingdom, new spy drones have taken to the British skies.  Originally used for military purposes, the small, remote control helicopters are now overhead, beginning in Merseyside.

…senior officers in Merseyside, who are trialling the drone, said they did not believe it was the next phase in creating a Big Brother society.

Assistant chief constable Simon Byrne said: “People clamour for the feeling of safety which cameras give.

CCTV, spy drones, DNA lists, and anything else the British government can think of only make you feel safer.  They really don’t make you safer.  But at least the sheeple feel better and the media has their daily sound bite to make others feel better.

“Obviously there is a point of view that has been expressed but our feedback from the public is anything we can do to fight crime is a good thing.

There is a reason why many people are skeptical.  There is little transparency as to the use of the spy drones [video].  There also appears to be little oversight on their use.  There is also the very real, long-term effect of the police becoming so reliant on the spy drones that they forego the time tested policy of employing the local citizenry in helping to fight crime.

We still know very little from the July 7th bombers.  Sure, their identities were pieced together via one or two cameras in London, but we know virtually nothing about them or their whereabouts before they entered London.  The attempted attackers were able to escape despite the use of so many cameras.  With these two instances, you’d have to be a moron to believe that any of this is evidence that CCTV cameras work as they should.

“There are safeguards in place legally covering the use of CCTV and the higher the level of intrusion, the higher the level of authority needed within the police force to use it. So there is that balance there.”

Oh, okay then.  Since you say there’s a balance and you won’t misuse it, I’ll believe you.  There is still little evidence as to who controls the CCTV cameras or where the video and photographic evidence ends up.  Most do not even know how long the videos and photographs are stored before they are purged.

There is a large question pertaining to morality when implementing such devices as CCTV and spy drones.  People who would normally walk through life without their private lives being scrutinized, will now be forced to behave differently solely because they know that they will be on some sort of video 24/7.

Take, for instance, the shop in Texas, whose employee is going to end up on the sex offenders list because she sold a vibrator.  While some people would think purchasing such an item is morally reprehensible, others do not.  But how many people would now be reluctant to even enter the store, knowing that they will be recorded as doing so and risk being arrested because of an overly strict interpretation of the law?

These spy drones may make the police’s jobs more efficient, but are we really willing to sacrifice our privacy to make the police a little bit more efficient, especially when there is little to no evidence that they work?  And, since the police and the government are supposed to be serving the people, not using their positions to pursue their own private agendas, can we really trust them to do the right thing?  From J. Edgar Hoover, to Nixon, to George Bush, we have seen new technologies abused and used to further some twisted ideas against the very people they were put into place to protect.

At the end of the day, is there anyone who actually believes that these spy drones are being put into place for the betterment of society?  This is more control, added to the numerous controls already in place in the United Kingdom.  Just chalk this up to a nice little addition to the laws that will require British citizens to acts as agents of the government and report people who might be criminals.  At least we aren’t under the illusion that they are there to help us.

The world of going into public and remaining largely anonymous is quickly disappearing.  Not only is the government watching you, your fellow citizens are only far to happy to watch you, as well as law enforcement officials.  We seem to be a planet full of watching others screw up only so we can film them and gain fame from what others do.  While I still believe that foot patrols and an actual police presence, with live humans, is far more effective on crime, I fear that we may never return to the time of the beat cop, forcing us all to get used to being photographed while gardening or hanging out the laundry.

While others have been questioning for months whether the UK has already become a surveillance society, Deputy chief constable of Hampshire, Ian Readhead, is worrying that this is indeed where his country is headed.

He told the BBC’s Politics Show that CCTV was being used in small towns and villages where crime rates were low.

His force area includes the small town of Stockbridge, where parish councillors have spent £10,000 installing CCTV.

Mr Readhead questioned whether the relatively low crime levels justified the expense and intrusion.

“If it’s in our villages, are we really moving towards an Orwellian situation where cameras are at every street corner?

These concerns have not fallen on totally deaf ears.  The Commons Home Affairs committee is set to announce an inquiry into the growing use of surveillance in the United Kingdom.

It is thought the inquiry will include the impact of identity cards, the expansion of the DNA database and the large rise in the use of CCTV cameras.

Shadow home secretary David Davis said the move was welcome, adding: “Under Labour we have progressively moved towards a surveillance society with the government’s obsession with ID cards and the DNA database being just two examples.

Since the UK already has the world’s largest DNA database, Mr. Readhead has said he would like the use of such a database to be reviewed.  More worrying, is the other uses of data mining against British Citizens.

…research published in November revealed other types of surveillance, from “dataveillance” – the use of information from credit cards, mobile phones and loyalty cards – to US security agencies monitoring telecommunications.

Richard Thomas has been fighting against a surveillance society for the past two years, often vocal about the road the government is traveling on.

“We’ve got to say where do we want the lines to be drawn? How much do we want to have surveillance changing the nature of society in a democratic nation?,” he told the BBC.

At the time a spokesman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) said there needed to be a balance between sharing information responsibly and respecting the citizen’s rights.

With people like Mr. Readhead and Richard Thomas continuing to press the government, many of the protocols put in place by the current administration could be reversed.  Though it is a reality now that the UK is the worst Western society at protecting it’s citizens’ privacy, there is still time to change the road they are on and still time to return from the brink of making Orwell’s dream a nightmare of a reality.

The BBC is reporting that the Home Office is considering forcing local Council staff, doctors and charity workers to report anyone who they think might one day commit a violent crime to the police.  The Home Office believes “possible warning signs could include heavy drinking, mental health problems or a violent family background.”

Civil liberty advocates are concerned that this will encourage spying on customers, resulting in individuals being placed under surveillance when they haven’t committed any crimes.  This proposal is taking a cue from the United States by claiming that this help to protect the children.

They are being viewed as an attempt to close a loophole which allowed Soham murderer Ian Huntley to get a job in a school, despite previous accusations of violence.

Two new agencies are being suggested for the proposal; one on potential offenders and one on potential victims.

Jago Russell, policy officer at campaign group Liberty, said the proposals left many “unanswered questions” about what should be done about someone with a “worrying profile”.

“How far are we willing to go in pursuit of the unrealistic promise of a risk-free society?”

Indeed, why are people continuing to be duped into giving up more freedoms?  This proposal will only add to the spying of British citizens.  It isn’t going to save anyone.  It will only deluge the police in more paperwork of someone who might, one day, become violent.

The leaked document states: “Public bodies will have access to valuable information about people at risk of becoming either perpetrators or victims of serious violence.”

It says when staff become “sufficiently concerned” about an individual, that person should be should “risk assessed” and, if necessary, referred for further attention.

How much is sufficiently concerned?  What public bodies are going to have access to individuals’ personal information and why?  How are they going to decide if a “risk assessed” person should or should not be referred for further attention and who are they going to be referred to?  Is the individual going to have the right to know they are being investigated or will they remain in ignorance of any snooping that public offices, police, and other government are doing?

This proposal is, seemingly, exactly what the British government wants.  They are already criticized as being a surveillance society and have more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the world.  Now, they appear to be heading down the Stasi road of canvasing individuals in every aspect of their lives.  British citizens should be worried and very concerned about the ever reaching hand of the government into their lives.  Remember, if you look hard enough, everyone is a criminal.

Not happy with tracking people via RFID and CCTV cameras, a Canadian firm has created the Eyebox, which can track an individual’s gaze as far as ten meters away.  The company hopes to sell it to advertisers so they can calculate how many people stare at their ads and for how long.

With Eyebox, brick-and-mortar advertisers can determine which billboards or products people are looking at in mall corridors or on store shelves, and count them in the same manner that Google counts clicks for online ads.

Xuuk (Kingston, Ont.) claims to have extended the range of the Eyebox to 32 feet and to have eliminated the need for personal calibration. People walking by don’t have to stop in order to be counted.

Because the light is infrared, users are unaware of being observed. Xuuk emphasizes that no data on the identity of the user is collected. Instead, the device simply counts how many people per day have looked at an ad or product. By using a separate Eyebox for each billboard or product on a shelf, advertisers can be charged on a “per-look” basis.

Tracking eye movements is, well, it’s downright creepy, and, although the creator of the Eyebox has ruled out combining the device with retinal scanning, he cannot control what others do with it.

Although Vertegaal ruled out the marriage of the eyebox2 technology with retina scanners or image capturing devices, he conceded the possibility was out there and warned that if customers chose to combine the eyebox2 technology with other image capturing devices, there was little his company could do about it.

“[Already], face recognition software is being used in Europe to track shopping mall theft,” he said. “While we do not encourage such use, and given that our cameras cannot identify people or provide images, it still seems these directions are already being taken by other companies regardless of our hardware.”

All the hyped up paranoia about big brother watching you has now come true.  The Eyebox will know what you are looking at and for how long you have stared at it.  Philip K. Dick was quite the visionary now, wasn’t he?  And after him was Looker, which dealt with this very possibility, in 1981.  Go download it.  You know you’re curious now.

So, now we have holographic images starting to come into their own.  Add an Eyebox, some CCTV, and you have all the makings for Minority Report type advertising.

I would attempt to defeat such measures with sunglasses but this thing can see through them due to the type of infrared scanning.  Therefore, I will support privacy groups before the have been silenced on the matter.  Advertisers may see dollar signs, but I see the continued erosion of my privacy.

While surfing around the net this week, I came across Worth1000.com‘s, If Hackers Ruled 6, photo contest.  While all the photos are great, many of them very creative, the The Rule of the Hackers is my favorite.

This particular entry was made by grini256.  Considering it was grini256′s first work, it’s pretty good.  I know I could never do something like this on my first try.