China Enacting a High-Tech Plan to Track People

Today's New York Times has an interesting article on new surveillance technologies being built by American companies for use in China:

China Enacting a High-Tech Plan to Track People - New York Times

... Starting this month in a port neighborhood and then spreading across Shenzhen, a city of 12.4 million people, residency cards fitted with powerful computer chips programmed by the same company will be issued to most citizens.

Data on the chip will include not just the citizen’s name and address but also work history, educational background, religion, ethnicity, police record, medical insurance status and landlord’s phone number. Even personal reproductive history will be included, for enforcement of China’s controversial “one child” policy. Plans are being studied to add credit histories, subway travel payments and small purchases charged to the card.

Security experts describe China’s plans as the world’s largest effort to meld cutting-edge computer technology with police work to track the activities of a population and fight crime. But they say the technology can be used to violate civil rights....

Montreal mall fake toilet-cam raising concerns

I was interviewed about this on a Montreal radio station on Friday. It's an interesting issue, because information is not being collected:

Toilet cam working even when it doesn't

Toilet cam working even when it doesn't

Mall customer outraged but landlord says dummy is effective

MICHELLE LALONDE, The Gazette

Published: Friday, August 03

Yes, that's a real surveillance camera on the ceiling of the men's washroom off the food court of Les Cours Mont Royal - but don't worry, it's not operating.

That reassurance was not good enough for at least one Montreal businessman who was outraged to see a video camera in a public bathroom at the downtown Montreal mall.

The camera is inside a protective dome and appears to be pointed toward the washroom's common area, where the urinals are. As of yesterday, there were no signs explaining what the camera is for or whether it is on.

When the man asked a maintenance person about the camera, he was told it wasn't actually functioning but was there to discourage certain activities.

"If the video surveillance is not functional, what assurances do we have that it will not be in the future?"the man wrote in a complaint to mall owners Soltron Realty Inc., which he forwarded to The Gazette on the condition his name not be published.

"If it is functional," the letter continued, "who is watching, is the information secure and will we find our pictures on the Internet? ... I find the use of surveillance camera (real or fake) inside a washroom to be absolutely unethical, immoral and most likely illegal." Unless the camera is removed within 10 days, the man said, he will lodge a complaint with Quebec's privacy commission.

A spokesperson for Soltron said the camera was installed in the washroom several years ago to discourage "sexual misconduct and drug use." Carmela Amorosa, marketing director for Soltron, said the company realized it was illegal to place an operating camera in a public bathroom, but felt some action was necessary.

"It is working," Amorosa said. "Now we don't have these problems. We are doing this to protect our customers from this sort of behaviour in the bathroom." But the case raises questions about the right to privacy and video surveillance, said sources in Quebec's Justice Department, as well as federal and provincial agencies that safeguard privacy.

"People are right to be concerned about being monitored," said Colin McKay, of the federal Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

"The case is interesting because they are not technically collecting information, they are just giving that impression. But perception for a lot of people is a legitimate concern. If they are doing it as a deterrent, they should make that clear." Luc Fortin, an aide to Benot Pelletier, the cabinet minister responsible for Quebec's privacy commission, said it is unclear whether a complaint about camera surveillance in a public washroom would be heard by the Privacy Commission or the Human Rights Commission.

"If it is a question of voyeurism, that would clearly be a case for the Human Rights Commission, but if the camera is being used to gather information and set up a file about a specific person, it would be something we would deal with," Fortin said.

"It's not technically illegal" to install video cameras in public bathrooms, "but companies that do it certainly risk complaints," said Robert Sylvestre of the Quebec Human Rights Commission.

Several court cases have resulted in jurisprudence and a set of principles about video surveillance in public places, he said.

"One of those principles is that the operator of the camera should be able to show that other methods have been tried and failed before they resorted to this."

Cameras coming to BC buses

Video cameras are coming to public transportation in British Columbia. Probably not breaking news, but I find the following quote to be interesting:

"Many proponents of the system say the public is already recorded on video in malls, ATM machines, and various other areas. Cameras on buses and other public areas, they believe, is simply a natural extension."

With cameras in many places, where is it not a natural extension? Once they are commonplace in one public area, it's very easy to justify putting them in another locale.

BCNG Portals Page (R)

Closed-circuit TV cameras coming to buses

By Kevin Diakiw
Black Press

Aug 03 2007

Cameras will be installed on all buses in the coming months, but privacy watch-dogs are concerned about how they’ll be used.

TransLink will spend $4 million for camera installation, primarily as a measure for driver safety. However, TransLink spokesman Ken Hardie said cameras will be placed on various areas of the bus, and will not simply be focused at the driver.

“I believe actually there will be more than one camera on the bus, there will be a number of different views,” Hardie said Wednesday.

The expansion of Closed Circuit Television cameras (CCTV) onto buses has been sold primarily as a device to prevent assaults on drivers.

Hardie said they will have several uses.

“Let’s say taggers, who can create mayhem inside a bus, just by leaving graffiti and other damage,” Hardie said. “... now buses might not leave them the kind of anonymity that they love to have when they do their work.”

It’s that kind of “function creep” that concerns civil libertarians.

“I am concerned about this notion ... now that we’ve got them on the bus ... let’s point them all over the bus and let’s catch the kids with crayons in the back seat while we’re at it,” said Micheal Vonn, policy director for B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

She’s also concerned about who would have access to the images.

Hardie said the video will be “recorded on board” to a hard drive and overwritten every week. A special team with Coast Mountain Bus Ltd. would be the only people with access to the video, unless required by police or court.

Many proponents of the system say the public is already recorded on video in malls, ATM machines, and various other areas. Cameras on buses and other public areas, they believe, is simply a natural extension.

“The question is to what degree are we becoming immune to the idea we should not be on film whenever we’re outside of our house,” Vonn said.

With scores of people already on any particular bus witnessing what’s going on, many feel the public expectation of privacy is low.

Vonn has heard the argument and disagrees.

“If I’m in a restaurant having a private conversation with a friend, a server can overhear snatches of what I’m saying,” Vonn said. “It’s quite different than having my Waldorf salad bugged and my entire conversation recorded.”

Hardie said TransLink is working with the B.C. Privacy Commissioner and will be submitting a privacy impact assessment as part of the process.

At the end of the day, the public will be safer with the presence of cameras on the region’s buses, he said.

“For one element, to know their actions are being recorded will make them think twice, there will be a deterrent effect in some respects,” Hardie said.

TransLink is hoping it will serve not only as an effective investigative tool for police, but will lead to stiffer penalties when perpetrators go to court.

The "but I've got nothing to hide" argument

Daniel Solove, at the University of George Washtington School of Law, has written an interesting article on the "But I've got nothing to hide." Here's a link to the download site and the introduction:

SSRN-'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy by Daniel Solove

INTRODUCTION

Since the September 11 attacks, the government has been engaging in
extensive surveillance and data mining. Regarding surveillance, in December
2005, the New York Times revealed that after September 11, the Bush
Administration secretly authorized the National Security Administration
(NSA) to engage in warrantless wiretapping of American citizens’ telephone
calls.2 As for data mining, which involves analyzing personal data for patterns
of suspicious behavior, the government has begun numerous programs. In
2002, the media revealed that the Department of Defense was constructing a
data mining project, called “Total Information Awareness” (TIA), under the
leadership of Admiral John Poindexter. The vision for TIA was to gather a
variety of information about people, including financial, educational, health,
and other data. The information would then be analyzed for suspicious
behavior patterns. According to Poindexter: “The only way to detect . . .
terrorists is to look for patterns of activity that are based on observations from
past terrorist attacks as well as estimates about how terrorists will adapt to our
measures to avoid detection.”3 When the program came to light, a public
outcry erupted, and the U.S. Senate subsequently voted to deny the program
funding, ultimately leading to its demise. Nevertheless, many components of
TIA continue on in various government agencies, though in a less systematic
and more clandestine fashion.4

In May 2006, USA Today broke the story that the NSA had obtained
customer records from several major phone companies and was analyzing
them to identify potential terrorists.5 The telephone call database is reported to
be the “largest database ever assembled in the world.”6 In June 2006, the New
York Times reported that the U.S. government had been accessing bank records
from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Transactions (SWIFT),
which handles financial transactions for thousands of banks around the world.7
Many people responded with outrage at these announcements, but many others
did not perceive much of a problem. The reason for their lack of concern, they
explained, was because: “I’ve got nothing to hide.”

The argument that no privacy problem exists if a person has nothing to
hide is frequently made in connection with many privacy issues. When the
government engages in surveillance, many people believe that there is no
threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which
case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private.

Thus, if an individual engages only in legal activity, she has nothing to worry
about. When it comes to the government collecting and analyzing personal
information, many people contend that a privacy harm exists only if skeletons
in the closet are revealed. For example, suppose the government examines
one’s telephone records and finds out that a person made calls to her parents, a
friend in Canada, a video store, and a pizza delivery shop. “So what?” that
person might say. “I’m not embarrassed or humiliated by this information. If
anybody asks me, I’ll gladly tell them what stores I shop at. I have nothing to
hide.”

The “nothing to hide” argument and its variants are quite prevalent in
popular discourse about privacy. Data security expert Bruce Schneier calls it
the “most common retort against privacy advocates”8 Legal scholar Geoffrey
Stone refers to it as “all-too-common refrain.”9 The “nothing to hide”
argument is one of the primary arguments made when balancing privacy
against security. In its most compelling form, it is an argument that the
privacy interest is generally minimal to trivial, thus making the balance against
security concerns a foreordained victory for security. Sometimes the “nothing
to hide” argument is posed as a question: “If you have nothing to hide, then
what do you have to fear?” Others ask: “If you aren’t doing anything wrong,
then what do you have to hide?”

In this essay, I will explore the “nothing to hide” argument and its variants
in more depth. Grappling with the “nothing to hide” argument is important, as
the argument reflects the sentiments of a wide percentage of the population. In
popular discourse, the “nothing to hide” argument’s superficial incantations
can readily be refuted. But when the argument is made in its strongest form, it
is far more formidable.

In order to respond to the “nothing to hide” argument, it is imperative that
we have a theory about what privacy is and why it is valuable. At its core, the
“nothing to hide” argument emerges from a conception of privacy and its
value. What exactly is “privacy”? How valuable is privacy and how do we
assess its value? How do we weigh privacy against countervailing values?
These questions have long plagued those seeking to develop a theory of
privacy and justifications for its legal protection.
This essay begins in Part I by discussing the “nothing to hide” argument.
First, I introduce the argument as it often exists in popular discourse and
examine frequent ways of responding to the argument. Second, I present the
argument in what I believe to be its strongest form. In Part II, I briefly discuss
my work thus far on conceptualizing privacy. I explain why existing theories
of privacy have been unsatisfactory, have led to confusion, and have impeded
the development of effective legal and policy responses to privacy problems.
In Part III, I argue that the “nothing to hide” argument—even in its strongest
form—stems from certain faulty assumptions about privacy and its value. The
problem, in short, is not with finding an answer to the question: “If you’ve got
nothing to hide, then what do you have to fear?” The problem is in the very
question itself.

Cell phone info increasingly used as investigative tool

Today's NYT has an article on the amount of information collected by cell phone operators and how it is increasingly being used in police investigations: When the Trill of a Cellphone Brings the Clang of Prison Doors.

Oshawa second-hand store bylaw invades privacy

Earlier this week, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in Cash Converters Canada Inc. v. Oshawa (City) (July 4, 2007) (an appeal from Cash Converters Canada Inc. v. Oshawa (City), 2006 CanLII 3469 (ON S.C.)), overturned a City of Oshawa Bylaw that required sellers of second hand goods to collect detailed personal information about those who sell second hand goods to the stores. The bylaw was inconsistent with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Here's what the Toronto Star had to say about it:

TheStar.com - News - Oshawa second-hand store bylaw invades privacy: Court

Tracey Tyler

LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER

The Ontario Court of Appeal has struck down sections of a controversial Oshawa bylaw that require second-hand dealers to collect detailed personal information from people who sell them goods and transmit the data to police.

The bylaw conflicts with provincial privacy legislation, which requires the collection and retention of personal information to be strictly controlled, the court ruled Wedneday, The 3-0 decision could influence challenges to similar bylaws in other parts of the country, including Alberta and British Columbia.

“This decision comes at a time when cities are gaining broader law-making powers,” said David Sterns, a lawyer representing the Oshawa franchise of Cash Converters Canada Inc., a second-hand store that challenged the bylaw.

“The court has sent a strong signal that all forms of information gathering and surveillance by municipalities are subject to the public’s overriding right to privacy.”

Under the Oshawa bylaw, passed by the city in 2004 as part of a new licensing system for second-hand dealers, stores were required to record the name, address, sex, date of birth, phone number and height of their vendors, who also had to produce three pieces of identification, such as a driver’s licence, birth certificate or passport.

“This information is then transmitted and stored in a police data base and available for use and transmissions by the police without any restriction and without any judicial oversight,” said Justice Kathryn Feldman said, writing on behalf of Associate Chief Justice Dennis O’Connor and Justice Paul Rouleau.

Store owners were required to send reports to police at least daily, in some cases at the time of purchase. The city argued the bylaw was meant to protect consumers from purchasing stolen goods.

But the municipality offered no evidence of a growing problem involving the sale of stolen goods to second-hand dealers, said Feldman.

Nor is there evidence that unscrupulous people are more likely to be deterred by the electronic collection and transmission of personal information, she said.

In 2003, Cash Converters purchased more than 28,000 used items from people in 2003. About 30 of those were seized by police in connection with criminal investigations.

It’s unknown whether any were confirmed as stolen, the court said.

The bylaw did not apply to pawn shops, which are provincially regulated.

See, also, James Daw's column: TheStar.com - columnists - New ruling stands up for privacy.

Respectful surveillance?

Last week, Bruce Schneier linked to an article on "respectful cameras" that can recognize faces and obscure them with an oval. The oval can be removed in the event of an investigation. See: Schneier on Security: Surveillance Cameras that Obscure Faces. But one commentator says it's just the "illusion of privacy".

OPC finds LSAT fingerprinting violates PIPEDA

In a preliminary letter to the complainant, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has concluded that the Law School Admissions Council violates PIPEDA by requiring candidates to submit to fingerprinting at the time the LSAT test is taken:

CIPPIC News « CIPPIC

In a decision released earlier this month, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada found that the requirement for Canadian students to provide a finger/thumb print in order to take the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) is an unnecessary infringement of privacy.

Copy of letter decision sent to Complainant

One of the most interesting aspects of the letter is the conclusion that the non-profit LSAC is engaged in commercial activities sufficient to have PIPEDA apply in the first place.

Also, the Assistant Commissioner's conclusion turned on the four point test applied in the past to video surveillance:

• Is the measure demonstrably necessary to meet a specific need?
  
• Is it likely to be effective in meeting that need?
  
• Is the loss of privacy proportional to the benefit gained?
  
• Is there a less privacy-invasive way of achieving the same end?

FBI audit finds widespread abuse in data collection

I find this article to be very interesting. An audit of the FBI's has revealed "widespread abuse" in connection with FBI collection of information in the course of investigations. Many would not be surprised. But read a litte further and you happen upon this nugget:

The vast majority of newly discovered violations were instances in which telephone companies and Internet providers gave agents phone and e-mail records the agents did not request and were not authorized to collect, the Post said.

While the FBI is seen as the bad guy in most of these articles, it's interesting that the ISPs and phone companies have been handing over loads of data about customers that law enforcement didn't even ask for nor were they authorized to ask for it. Shame on the FBI for keeping it, but worse for the ISPs and telcos.

See: FBI audit finds widespread abuse in data collection - Yahoo! News .

Building China's high-technology surveillance society, with help from the US

Naomi Klein has an interesting piece in the most recent Rolling Stone on the emerging high-technology surveillance state being built in China, with help from some of largest US defence contractors:

China's All-Seeing Eye : Rolling Stone

... Now, as China prepares to showcase its economic advances during the upcoming Olympics in Beijing, Shenzhen is once again serving as a laboratory, a testing ground for the next phase of this vast social experiment. Over the past two years, some 200,000 surveillance cameras have been installed throughout the city. Many are in public spaces, disguised as lampposts. The closed-circuit TV cameras will soon be connected to a single, nationwide network, an all-seeing system that will be capable of tracking and identifying anyone who comes within its range — a project driven in part by U.S. technology and investment. Over the next three years, Chinese security executives predict they will install as many as 2 million CCTVs in Shenzhen, which would make it the most watched city in the world. (Security-crazy London boasts only half a million surveillance cameras.)

The security cameras are just one part of a much broader high-tech surveillance and censorship program known in China as "Golden Shield." The end goal is to use the latest people-tracking technology — thoughtfully supplied by American giants like IBM, Honeywell and General Electric — to create an airtight consumer cocoon: a place where Visa cards, Adidas sneakers, China Mobile cellphones, McDonald's Happy Meals, Tsingtao beer and UPS delivery (to name just a few of the official sponsors of the Beijing Olympics) can be enjoyed under the unblinking eye of the state, without the threat of democracy breaking out. With political unrest on the rise across China, the government hopes to use the surveillance shield to identify and counteract dissent before it explodes into a mass movement like the one that grabbed the world's attention at Tiananmen Square.

Remember how we've always been told that free markets and free people go hand in hand? That was a lie. It turns out that the most efficient delivery system for capitalism is actually a communist-style police state, fortressed with American "homeland security" technologies, pumped up with "war on terror" rhetoric. And the global corporations currently earning superprofits from this social experiment are unlikely to be content if the lucrative new market remains confined to cities such as Shenzhen. Like everything else assembled in China with American parts, Police State 2.0 is ready for export to a neighborhood near you....

FRONTLINE: Spying on the home front

Update: The video of the full show is available online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/.

Check out tonight's Frontline on PBS:

FRONTLINE: coming soon: spying on the home front PBS

Spying on the Home Front
coming May. 15, 2007 at 9pm (check local listings)

(60 minutes) FRONTLINE addresses an issue of major consequence for all Americans: Is the Bush administration's domestic war on terrorism jeopardizing our civil liberties? Reporter Hedrick Smith presents new material on how the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program works and examines clashing viewpoints on whether the president has violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and infringed on constitutional protections. In another dramatic story, the program shows how the FBI vacuumed up records on 250,000 ordinary Americans who chose Las Vegas as the destination for their Christmas-New Year's holiday, and the subsequent revelation that the FBI has misused National Security Letters to gather information. Probing such projects as Total Information Awareness, and its little known successors, Smith discloses that even former government intelligence officials now worry that the combination of new security threats, advances in communications technologies, and radical interpretations of presidential authority may be threatening the privacy of Americans. (read the press release)

PRESS RELEASE

"So many people in America think this does not affect them. They've been convinced that these programs are only targeted at suspected terrorists. ... I think that's wrong. ... Our programs are not perfect, and it is inevitable that totally innocent Americans are going to be affected by these programs," former CIA senior attorney Suzanne Spaulding tells FRONTLINE correspondent Hedrick Smith in Spying on the Home Front, airing Tuesday, May 15, 2007, at 9 P.M. ET on PBS (check local listings) and available for viewing after broadcast at www.pbs.org/frontline.

9/11 has indelibly altered America in ways that people are now starting to earnestly question: not only perpetual orange alerts, barricades and body frisks at the airport, but greater government scrutiny of people's records and electronic surveillance of their communications. The watershed, officials tell FRONTLINE, was the government's shift after 9/11 to a strategy of pre-emption at home--not just prosecuting terrorists for breaking the law, but trying to find and stop them before they strike.

President Bush described his anti-terrorist measures as narrow and targeted, but a FRONTLINE investigation has found that the National Security Agency (NSA) has engaged in wiretapping and sifting Internet communications of millions of Americans: The FBI conducted a data sweep on 250,000 Las Vegas vacationers, and along with more than 50 other agencies, they are mining commercial-sector data banks to an unprecedented degree, and they have even been assigning suspicion ratings to anyone who travels across a U.S. border.

Even government officials with experience since 9/11 are nagged by anxiety about the jeopardy that a war without end against unseen terrorists poses to our way of life, our personal freedoms. "I always said, when I was in my position running counterterrorism operations for the FBI, `How much security do you want, and how many rights do you want to give up?'" Larry Mefford, former assistant FBI director, tells correspondent Smith. "I can give you more security, but I've got to take away some rights. ... Personally, I want to live in a country where you have a common-sense, fair balance, because I'm worried about people that are untrained, unsupervised, doing things with good intentions but, at the end of the day, harm our liberties."

Although the president told the nation that his NSA eavesdropping program was limited to known Al Qaeda agents or supporters abroad making calls into the U.S., comments of other administration officials and intelligence veterans indicate that the NSA cast its net far more widely. AT&T technician Mark Klein inadvertently discovered that the whole flow of Internet traffic in several AT&T operations centers was being regularly diverted to the NSA, a charge indirectly substantiated by John Yoo, the Justice Department lawyer who wrote the official legal memos legitimizing the president's warrantless wiretapping program. Yoo told FRONTLINE: "The government needs to have access to international communications so that it can try to find communications that are coming into the country where Al Qaeda's trying to send messages to cell members in the country. In order to do that, it does have to have access to communication networks."

Spying on the Home Front also looks at a massive FBI data sweep in December 2003. On a tip that Al Qaeda "might have an interest in Las Vegas" around New Year's 2004, the FBI demanded records from all hotels, airlines, rental car agencies, casinos and other businesses on every person who visited Las Vegas in the run-up to the holiday. Stephen Sprouse and Kristin Douglas of Kansas City, Missouri, object to being caught in the FBI dragnet in Las Vegas just because they happened to get married there at the wrong moment. Says Douglas, "I'm sure that the government does a lot of things that I don't know about, and I've always been OK with that--until I found out that I was included."

A check of all 250,000 Las Vegas visitors against terrorist watch lists turned up no known terrorist suspects or associates of suspects. The FBI told FRONTLINE that the records had been kept for more than two years, but have now all been destroyed.

"To simply say, you know, `as a matter of national security we need to know the name of every single person checking into your hotel at any given moment,'" says Alan Feldman, vice president of MGM Mirage, "that seems extremely unusual and, I think, extremely troubling."

In the broad reach of NSA eavesdropping, the massive FBI data sweep in Las Vegas, access to records gathered by private database companies that allows government agencies to avoid the limitations provided by the Privacy Act, and nearly 200 other government data-mining programs identified by the Government Accounting Office, experienced national security officials and government attorneys see a troubling and potentially dangerous collision between the strategy of pre-emption and the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Peter Swire, a law professor and former White House privacy adviser to President Clinton, tells FRONTLINE that since 9/11 the government has been moving away from the traditional legal standard of investigations based on individual suspicion to generalized suspicion. The new standard, Swire says, is: "Check everybody. Everybody is a suspect."

Spying on the Home Front is a FRONTLINE co-production with Hedrick Smith Productions, Inc. Hedrick Smith is correspondent and senior producer. The program is produced and directed by Rick Young. FRONTLINE is produced by WGBH Boston and is broadcast nationwide on PBS. Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers. Additional funding for FRONTLINE is provided by The Park Foundation. Additional funding for Spying on the Home Front is provided by The JEHT Foundation. FRONTLINE is closed-captioned for deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers and described for people who are blind or visually impaired by the Media Access Group at WGBH. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. The FRONTLINE executive producer for special projects for is Michael Sullivan. The executive producer for FRONTLINE is David Fanning.

Narcotics diary of FBI agent on EBay

If you were smoking dope in New York between 1931 and 1959, your comings and goings may be detailed in a surveillance diary of a former FBI agent, which is being sold on EBay. It is apparently complete and unredacted. No name have been changed to protect the innocent or guilty. More: Boing Boing: EBay find: Narcotics diary of FBI agent, NYC, 1931-1959

Band "shoots" video by sending Data Protection Act requests to CCTVs that caught them performing

This is too funny.

Apparently Manchester band "The Get Out Clause" recorded a music video by performing in the vicinity of CCTV cameras and then requesting the footage under the UK Data Protection Act.

Band "shoots" video by sending Data Protection Act requests to CCTVs that caught them performing - Boing Boing

A new place to put cameras: Lollipops!

England, well beyond the cutting edge of surveillance, has found a new place to put cameras: in the lollipop-shaped signs used by crossing guards.

Campaign to lick lollipop rage UK news guardian.co.uk

For generations, lollipop men and women have shepherded schoolchildren safely across roads armed only with their trusty signs.

But they are about to undergo a Robocop-style makeover: their signs are to be equipped with cameras in an effort to combat "lollipop rage" by aggressive drivers.

The new signs, which cost £890 each, will allow lollipop men and women - officially known as school crossing patrol officers - to record dangerous driving and capture car number plates, say council leaders.

Offsite surveillance in Halifax bar may set precedent

I was interviewed the other day by Chris Lambie of the Halifax Chronicle Herald in response to the recent decision to restore the liquor license of a well-known Halifax bar on the condition that it double its surveillance cameras and allow the feeds to be reviewed off-site by the police (See: Canadian Privacy Law Blog: Halifax bar gets liquor license back on condition that cops have off-site access to surveillance system). I didn't realize that my comments would form its own article ...

Dome agreeing to let cops monitor patrons via in-house cameras could set precedent, privacy expert fears - Nova Scotia News - TheChronicleHerald.ca

By CHRIS LAMBIE Staff Reporter

Sun. Dec 30 - 5:27 AM

The decision to give law enforcement officials access to surveillance cameras at the Dome bar complex in downtown Halifax could mean other bars will be forced to do the same if they want to keep selling booze, says a privacy expert.

Authorities closed the Dome after a brawl early on Dec. 24 resulted in 38 arrests. The bar is back in business now, but only after it agreed to implement a long list of security measures, which include giving police and liquor inspectors full access to surveillance cameras at the premises or via the Internet.

"The biggest risk is this can become more common, and once you start doing that it’s very easy to extend it further and extend it further," said David Fraser, a privacy lawyer in Halifax.

"They see it work in once place and they extend it all over the place. And then it’s impossible to go out and have a drink without actually being watched by the police. A lot of people would get freaked out by that."

Once police and liquor inspectors get access to surveillance cameras in bars with a history of violence, authorities could make it mandatory in establishments with potential for problems, Mr. Fraser said.

"As these things become more normal or more standard, the less jarring it is for those who actually care about privacy.

"If you put a frog in a pot of cold water and you turn up the heat, it’s not going to jump out because it doesn’t notice the incremental changes."

There would be few limits on what authorities could do with the information they gather from surveillance cameras, Mr. Fraser said.

"It’s really no different than, theoretically, having a cop sitting at the bar or walking around the establishment. It’s just a whole lot more convenient and probably more pervasive."

Mr. Fraser said he’d be less likely to have a drink in a bar if he knew authorities could be watching.

"The idea of being watched at all has a psychological kind of a factor. For some people, it adds enough of a creep-out factor that, if you’re given the choice of two places that are otherwise identical, one has video surveillance which you know is being watched by cops and the other one doesn’t, regardless of whether or not you intend to do anything unlawful, you’d probably go to the place that was slightly less creepy. At least that would be my own inclination."

The more people watching surveillance cameras in bars, the more room there is for abuse, Mr. Fraser said.

"Sometimes on cable (TV) you’ll see these shows of weird things caught on surveillance," he said.

"Many of them come from the United Kingdom, where there’s pervasive surveillance by law enforcement. And people are making copies of these tapes when they see funny things. And you can tell, when you see how the cameras zoom, that they follow attractive women’s bottoms and things like that. Stuff like that really has the potential to be abused."

Police aren’t sure yet how they’ll use 64 surveillance cameras at the Dome.

"This is something new to us. We’ve never had access to their cameras, other than, as in any establishment, you would have after (a crime) for the purpose of investigation," Halifax Regional Police Supt. Don Spicer said after Friday’s Utility and Review Board hearing that reinstated the Dome’s liquor licence.

"So we really have to look at what we really will be doing with the access that we will be gaining."

There are signs outside the Dome indicating the bar is under video surveillance.

"When you go to a public place, which a bar is, and the signs are posted, I don’t think there will be any problems," said Environment and Labour Minister Mark Parent, who is responsible for the alcohol and gaming division.

The new camera system means liquor inspectors will be able to monitor the bar without being there, Mr. Parent said.

"That was something that the bar owner offered voluntarily and it makes our job that much easier," he said.

It does set a precedent "for bars like the Dome," Mr. Parent said.

"It clearly sends a signal to any other establishment that’s having problems that they need to take some dramatic steps."

At first, Mr. Parent said it’s not akin to the all-seeing Big Brother in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-four.

"I guess Big Brother if you want to put it in that sense, if you’re out to do something wrong," he said. "If you’re not out to do something wrong, then I think you’d see it as a safeguard."

The cameras are "an effective low-cost tool because we don’t have the staffing to be everywhere at once," Mr. Parent said. "So I think the important thing is that notices are up so people know, so that it’s not a surprise to them."

Surveillance video could be used to both indict and clear people of any wrongdoing, he said.

"Certainly there are privacy concerns that need to be addressed," Mr. Parent said. "The tapes would need to be used only by official people. You’d have to be very careful how you used them and they would have to make sure that there was no abuse of that in any way. . . . It’s always a balance between public safety and public privacy."

Update: I was just interviewed by CBC Radio News here in Halifax on the story. Here's the piece:

Here, also, is the order of reinstatement from the Utility and Review Board of Nova Scotia.

Update: Here's a CBC online report: Police plans for Halifax bar surveillance cameras cause concerns.

Canada on top in international privacy survey

Privacy International's latest report puts Canada at the top of the heap (along with Greece and Romania), but sinking into the mire.

The Canadian Press: Canada, Greece and Romania have best privacy records, global report says

Canada, Greece and Romania have best privacy records, global report says
59 minutes ago

LONDON - Individual privacy is best protected in Canada but is under threat in the United States and the European Union as governments introduce sweeping surveillance and information-gathering measures in the name of security and border control, an international rights group said in a report released Saturday.

Canada, Greece and Romania had the best privacy records of 47 countries surveyed by London-based watchdog Privacy International. Malaysia, Russia and China were ranked worst.

Both Britain and the United States fell into the lowest-performing group of "endemic surveillance societies."

"The general trend is that privacy is being extinguished in country after country," said Simon Davies, director of Privacy International. "Even those countries where we expected ongoing strong privacy protection, like Germany and Canada, are sinking into the mire.

"I'm afraid that Canada has kind of lost the plot a plot a little bit this year and hence its move downwards," Davies told the Canadian Press in comments about Canada.

He cites the C-I-A's accessing the banking records of Canadians through the SWIFT banking information system, the Canadian no-fly list, and the Toronto Transit Commission's installation of security cameras as examples of the erosion of privacy rights.

He also decried the increasing number of programs involving the United States, which he said unfortunately has no federal privacy law.

"What's happening, is that Canadian information, sensitive information, is flowing across the border in increasing volumes," Davies said.

"Frankly, that's the sort of situation where government should put pressure on the U.S. government to protect that information legally," he said, "But it's not doing so."

The report came two days after Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart warned in a release that 2008 will be "another challenging one for privacy in Canada."

"Heightened national security concerns, the growing business appetite for personal information and technological advances are all potent - and growing - threats to privacy rights," Stoddart said.

In the United States, President George W. Bush's administration has come under fire from civil liberties groups for its domestic wiretapping program, which allows monitoring - without a warrant - of international phone calls and e-mails involving people suspected of having terrorist links.

"The last five years has seen a litany of surveillance initiatives," Davies said.

He said little had changed since the Democrats took control of Congress a year ago.

"We would expect the cancellation of some programs, the review of others, but this hasn't occurred," Davies said.

Britain was criticized for its plans for national identity cards, a lack of government accountability and the world's largest network of surveillance cameras.

Davies said the loss earlier this year of computer disks containing personal information and bank details on 25 million people in Britain highlighted the risks centralizing information on huge government databases.

The report said privacy protection was worsening across western Europe, although it was improving in the former Communist states of eastern Europe.

It said concern about terrorism, immigration and border security was driving the spread of identity and fingerprinting systems, often without regard to individual privacy.

The report said the trends "have been fuelled by the emergency of a profitable surveillance industry dominated by global IT companies and the creation of numerous international treaties that frequently operate outside judicial or democratic processes."

The survey considers a range of factors including legal protection of privacy, enforcement, data sharing, the use of biometrics and prevalence of CCTV cameras.

Halifax bar gets liquor license back on condition that cops have off-site access to surveillance system

Early on Christmas Eve a huge brawl at one of Halifax's largest bars resulted in the suspension of the property's liquor license. After a hearing yesterday, the license was restored on a number of conditions. Among them, the bar has to double the number of surveillance cameras on the premises and has to provide liquor regulators and the police with real-time access via the internet.

This is a first in Nova Scotia, but likely not the last time we'll hear of this. Why not have them mandatory in all licensed establishments? In all hotels? Hmm. Drinking takes place in university residences, so maybe we should require police surveillance of those places? The thin edge of the wedge.

See: Buck-a-drink binge nights bite the dust: Dome gets liquor licence back with vow to hike prices, beef up security

Does the SWIFT incident expose PIPEDA's loopholes?

IT Business is running an article entitled SWIFT scandal exposes PIPEDA holes, in which the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and Phillipa Lawson of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic lament that PIPEDA allows the disclosure of personal information without consent in response to a foreign subpoena.

(For some background, see my previous posts on SWIFT.)

Is this a loophole or something that should be remedied? Certainly the European Union thinks that disclosing European info in this way is not OK.

I'm not sure there is really anything that can be done about this, other than to keep data out of jurisdictions with laws that you consider offensive. Certainly, we have seen that the EU and some Canadian provinces think that the USA Patriot Act is overbroad and a threat to privacy. Unlike some public sector laws in Canada, PIPEDA is completely silent with respect to the export of personal information. But if data is in a jurisdiction with a lawful power to compel the production of that information, the practical impact of a foreign law is virtually nil. Particularly if the foreign law is as toothless as PIPEDA.

Practically speaking, the solution is really to keep those data warehouses out of those jurisdictions. While SWIFT is a European outfit, they had a data centre in the US that was within the lawful jurisdiction of the US authorities armed with subpoenas. As an international clearing system, it would obviously have to transmit some data back and forth between HQ and the US. But there doesn't seem to be any compelling argument to suggest that all that data should have been kept there.

Canada, with it's European-accepted privacy laws, would have been an ideal place to locate the SWIFT data centre. Miliseconds from New York and Brussels, but a world away from the US as far as privacy laws go. Any international company doing business with personal information in the United States really should think about this. What SWIFT did may have been completely lawful in the US, but it certainly has caused more than its fair share of headaches and has opened it up to potential liability in the EU.

The top science-and-tech privacy threats of 2007

'Tis the season for the year in review. Slate kicks it off with the The top science-and-tech privacy threats of 2007. The list includes:

1. Surveillance cameras.
   
2. The war on smoking.
   
3. The war on junk food.
   
4. The war on salt.
   
5. Pedestrian cell-phone use.
   
6. Naked body scanners.
   
7. Phone-surveillance ads.
   
8. Human chip implants.
   
9. Mind-reading.
   
10. Manipulating sexual orientation.

The irony of privacy enhancing technologies

I reported last month that the Information and Privacy Commissioner has issued a report on the proposal to dramatically increase video surveillance on public transit in Toronto. (Canadian Privacy Law Blog: Ontario Commissioner releases detailed report on TTC surveillance cameras)

InterGovWorld.com has an extensive article on the Commissioner's suggestion that reversible faceblurring technology may make the system more palatable. I spoke with the author, Rosie Lombardi, at length on the topic who has done a good job of summing up my take on the topic:

More privacy-boosting technology begets more video surveillance

... A point that's often overlooked is that privacy legislation is ultimately about feelings, says David TS Fraser, a privacy lawyer at Halifax-based law firm McInnes Cooper. "Although the legislation is written in a way that talks about personally identifiable information and identity theft, it's ultimately designed to protect people's sensibilities about unwanted intrusions," he says.

PET technology may not be enough to address those sensibilities unless the rules governing the use of surveillance are stated. "While the technology may do a good job of limiting the actual intrusions, I'm not sure it does much to address people's feelings about being watched. Unless the policies and procedures around surveillance are clearly communicated, it won't diminish that visceral feeling of unease about being spied upon."

Fear of the unknown is at the core. "If you see a cop at a corner, you can tell from his uniform who he is, what he's looking at, and if you've aroused his suspicions," he says. "But a camera is completely faceless. You don't know who's watching and how the information captured is used - will it wind up on late-night television?"

He notes a significant number of videos in these shows displaying people caught in embarrassing situations come out of Britain, where an extensive network of cameras in public places is rousing a public backlash. Cavoukian noted in her report that U.K. camera operators have caught entertaining themselves by zooming in on attractive women. "If you're going to outsource surveillance to a bunch of badly-paid guys locked in dark rooms, they're going to see more bums than bombs," agrees Fraser.

He concedes that automating the enforcement of policies and procedures around surveillance with PET technology rather than relying on fallible human operators to refrain from misusing the information offers some comfort. But he warns this may have the unintended effect of increasing video surveillance. "Unfortunately, this stuff makes it more acceptable to put video cameras all over the place, and by making it better and safer with less intrusive technology, it may ironically lead to more surveillance."