Are there any ways to dominate the internet???
big brother = e-government
======================================================
Privacy and the Surveillance Explosion
By
Timothy C. Mack
As surveillance technologies become more ubiquitous, are we using them for good or for evil? The answer is Yes. The president of the World Future Society offers an overview of who is watching us and why.It has long been a cliché that evolving technologies drive social change. In part, this process is energized by expanded capabilities for responding to a perceived problem or need. But the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, also certainly qualify as a change driver, especially in the area of proactive intelligence—i.e., early identification and effective response to security threats.
One of the leading areas of technological response to this perceived need has been the explosive growth of surveillance capability (especially video surveillance). This has happened largely at the government level, but the technologies are increasingly used by commercial enterprises and private citizens, as well.
Surveillance encompasses the monitoring of behavior, movement, or other dynamic states (mostly involving people) for the purpose of influencing, managing, directing, or protecting. While most often used in crime and terrorism prevention, surveillance is also used for such work as epidemiological oversight by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example. Construction sites, warehouses, commercial office buildings, and parking lots also commonly have surveillance technology installed for the protection of property.
One of the challenges facing surveillance technology is its common political association with negative images of continual spying on citizens in George Orwell’s classic novel 1984. Since 9/11, however, public acceptance of surveillance has risen in the United States, and the rate of approval for public surveillance cameras continues to rise (now around 70%). Products like Microsoft’s Kinect, which offers movement, voice, and gesture recognition (largely for video game applications), have also increased public comfort and acceptance.
On the other hand, state laws that regulate audiotaping and videotaping of individuals, especially in public settings, are more in flux. The practice continues to face challenges from pro-privacy organizations.
Surveillance is a costly activity for cities. New York City’s “ring of steel,” which consists of 200 cameras in lower Manhattan, has already cost the city $200 million. And it’s not just “Big Brother” (government) watching us: “Little Brother” surveillance is also growing—e.g., private systems installed in places such as retail stores. For example, critical Boston Marathon bombing footage came from a nearby Lord & Taylor department store, and footage of the shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords came from an adjacent Safeway grocery store.
Of course, as the use of this technology increases, so do related public policy questions. Many feel that camera systems are most effective in the investigation stages of criminal activity, where parameters are clearly established, rather than the deterrent stage, where the boundaries on use are much vaguer. Supporters of these systems point to the lack of adequate public education on the deterrent side.
Cost effectiveness and privacy issues will definitely continue to be debated as camera systems grow. For example, urban camera and drone systems are often installed for the stated purposes of traffic control, but then converted later to general surveillance. In fact, 12 U.S. states have banned speed cameras, and nine have banned red-light cameras. The District of Columbia announced plans in September 2013 to double its traffic-camera system, which had added $85 million to District coffers in traffic enforcement fines during FY2012. In a Washington Post survey, 63% of respondents supported red-light cameras and 53% supported speed cameras. System defenders cite an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety report finding that red-light cameras have reduced fatal crashes from running lights by 24% in all cities, and reduced all types of fatal intersection crashes by 17%.
Information Enhancement and InterpretationSurveillance cameras can already track thermal differences, distinguish details and color in very dark and low-light situations, detect motion, control access, and provide retail point of sale (POS) observation, as well as identification and recognition. Using biometrics at POS does not require central storage. You carry the biometric information on a card with your ID and then use it to verify identity as part of the authentication process.
What now represents the cutting edge of surveillance technology is intelligent analysis of the visual images being collected. A federal research program called Mind’s Eye is part of a visual intelligence program that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is developing. Mind’s Eye is a series of visual algorithms designed to predict human behavior, including threatening behavior or dangerous situations.
While it is still several years from full deployment, Mind’s Eye will describe actions in surveillance areas using text messages and offer possible interpretations. It is also designed for use by unmanned vehicles in dangerous or uncontrolled areas. The program is even able to interpolate unobserved off-camera actions to make judgments. DARPA’s research partner in this program is Carnegie Mellon University’s National Robotics Engineering Center.
Operating in parallel to this is the development of a Spatiotemporal Activity Reasoning Engine at SUNY at Buffalo, which focuses on pulling out and assessing the “nouns” and “verbs” in any visual image. Inherent questions in this process are: What are we seeing? What is happening here? and What should we be doing in response?
One special area of interest in this arena is the prediction of, and response to, potential sexual assault and other interpersonal crimes in public and commercial spaces. Interpreting and reacting to social interaction as it slides into assault or larceny is a potential challenge even for human monitors; it may prove difficult to establish viable guidelines that navigate the boundaries between failure to flag criminal activity and excessive false positives.
Enhancing Visual Surveillance With Biometric IdentificationWhen we consider the identification and recognition aspects of visual surveillance, we still need to ask Who are we seeing? and Are they who they seem to be? This challenge is being addressed by melding biometrics with video surveillance, and some highly creative solutions are under development.
Biometrics of all types are already being used for identification and verification, including fingerprint, face, iris, speech, and DNA analysis using hand-held portable devices in combination with fixed systems. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is now working on protocols for Web biometric systems and cross-modality testing, such as simultaneous face and iris capture plus no-touch fingerprint capture. These biometric and visual tools could also be used to authenticate e-commerce and POS transactions. The U.S. federal standard is now a maximum of 20 seconds to capture a fingerprint scan, and the commercial market is likely to push this limit much lower.
This growing role of software in analyzing video feeds in real time naturally leads to a decreased need for 24/7 personnel, with their well-known limits in attention span. This software never sleeps, and it notifies supervisors and response personnel to a critical incident immediately.
In essence, human memory is being outsourced to mobile technology for the capture and assessment of still and video images and decision making based on their content. Or to put it another way, decision support is moving increasingly toward decision automation in commercial settings.
• Facial-recognition technologies. Verification is matching a real-time image against a claimed identity by utilizing a library of certified images. Recognition involves matching an image against an identity library to provide a name. The average person has the capacity to recognize at most 1,500 faces at any one time. A NIST report from 2012 states that the capacity of facial-recognition technology has improved by two orders of magnitude over the last 10 years, while recognition errors have been dropping by 50% every two years. Clearly, its use will continue to increase.
U.S. programs are modest compared with those in China. The national Golden Shield program aims to use facial recognition to track every one of China’s 1.3 billion people. The state of the art in China is now the ability to verify identity using facial-recognition software from up to 500 feet away.
Another public-policy question that is gaining momentum is the practice of building third-party facial-recognition files from Facebook personal profiles. While social networks now connect one-third of the world population, these connections are often informal and abbreviated, directed to everyone and to no one. Nonetheless, they greatly facilitate data mining.
Data mining is the use of statistical techniques and programmatic algorithms to discover previously unnoticed relationships involving data, usually relating to individuals or groups. This includes economic and social behavior patterns, which may be suggestive of other less constructive activities and therefore useful in surveillance.
This data mining capability has been called “big data” in the media, and it is perceived as being able to peel away the social covering and reveal the personal secrets of us all. Wired magazine editor Chris Anderson argued in a 2008 issue of his magazine that big data has now rendered the scientific method obsolete. If one throws enough data into an advanced machine learning technique, he argues, all correlations will be revealed, thus explaining everything.
While a preference for observation over modeling is still evolving, the definition of big data offered by IBM seems useful in its clarification: Big data is characterized by volume, variety, veracity, and velocity. This means that volume (data set size) alone is not enough. These massive data sets must be sufficiently rich to cover the range of factors one wants to investigate, sufficiently dependable to accurately reflect real-world factors, and sufficiently nimble to avoid it taking the rest of one’s life to answer a large data question.
• Other biometrics developments. The future of biometrics seems quite extravagant. For example:
- Body-odor research, under way at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, including its use as a lie detector (tracking odor changes, like galvanic skin response in the polygraph).
- 3-D imaging being developed in Japan to capture gait and walking style (90% accurate) and barefoot print analysis (99.6% accurate).
- Keystroke signature (how a password is entered) using speed and rhythm patterns in combination with other factors.
- Palm vein patterns (already being used in some U.S. schools) scanned by a near-infrared reader without physical contact.
- Nose profile based on shape and size (not as accurate as iris scan).
- Japanese use of human posterior patterns, developed for antitheft systems in the seats of automobiles (98% accurate).
- Ear print of outer and inner ear (99.6% accurate).
- DNA, which is still too expensive but is coming down in cost very rapidly.
Portable smartphone platforms for biometrics are also developing rapidly, as is the market penetration of the smartphone itself, which recently surpassed the “feature” cell phone in global unit sales.
Smartphone prototypes in development include capabilities such as 3-D viewing (without special glasses), above-screen projection, and a maneuverable viewer point of view. All of these capabilities will allow security-system monitoring at much greater levels of detail.
Secure data and secure sites will be accessible through multiple-level biometric authentication and verification tools. Fingerprint identification from screen touch, facial recognition from phone cameras, and voice recognition are all expected to be part of this package. Screenless smartphones (which reduce battery size and weight) will be activated by touch or voice via a cloud interface. When a screen is needed, any nearby computer will allow display of that data on its screen.
In the past, identity could be established by things we carry (driver’s license, passport, etc.) and things we remember (passwords, PINs, etc.). But these are quite vulnerable to theft and hacking. Biometrics, while more secure, will also follow an individual through a lifetime, thus raising concerns about privacy and unauthorized uses.
Physical attributes such as retina patterns, vein patterns, and hand configuration are harder to alter than behavioral attributes. But behavioral biometrics programs will be able to assess emotional states from such factors as facial cues, posture, gestures, and the tone, pitch, and speed of speech. The International Biometrics and Identification Association is working toward identity-management protocols that will be both appropriate and effective.
So far, however, the rate of technical innovation has far outpaced the rate of social invention, especially outrunning legal and ethical structures, as Chris Dede of the Harvard Graduate School of Education has observed. A working protocol now exists whereby U.S. and UK law enforcement and intelligence services can activate the speaker on a cell phone and thus listen to any conversations taking place nearby. RFID (radio frequency identification) chips normally used for warehouse security, now also enable employers to track personnel.
• Drones. Unmanned aerial vehicles and aerial surveillance drones such as the MQ-9 Reaper can identify the heat signature of a human body from a distance of 60 kilometers (about 37 miles). The prospect of such drones in private hands is alarming. Who will be empowered to use them, and who will be observed? At present, drones are still treated by the FAA like model planes. No flights are permitted above 400 feet (about 122 meters), and commercial use is prohibited.
The ever-greater use of domestic drones in law enforcement raises the policy possibility of cameras now, weapons later. At what point might public demonstrations become target-rich environments?
An interesting industry that has sprung up in response to the private sector surge in commercial drones is in countersurveillance equipment. These include heat-signature-cloaking garments (initially funded on Kickstarter) and face paint (known as CV Dazzle), plus mouth inserts to foil facial recognition. In addition, privacy Web sites and blogs dispense advice about turning off cell phones and removing the battery to foil GPS tracking, or encasing the phone in a customized foil packet marketed under the name OFF.
Privacy Issues and Public ConcernU.S. courts have ruled that the use of facial-recognition technology may be restricted under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable search and seizure.” Yet, at the same time, Americans’ First Amendment rights may cover the capturing of images as a protected form of self-expression, so long as this does not involve tracking an individual in a public space. The question here is the reasonable expectation of privacy in specific situations. U.S. Senator Al Franken (Democrat–Minnesota) strongly supports the position that people have a fundamental right to privacy, but regulation is lagging behind technology—which is not desirable.
Public opinion swings widely in the United States, as seen in responses to revelations concerning massive surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA). Those disclosures have increased public concerns about protection of privacy rights, as reflected by an August 2013 poll by the Associated Press–NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. This survey shows a continued concern about public safety and terrorism (related to the 9/11 attacks and subsequent events), but many people have reservations. Only 53% said that the U.S. government does a good job of ensuring freedoms, compared with 60% two years ago. And 61% felt that the impact of 9/11 has grown to the level of “a great deal,” compared with 50% in 2011. On the disapproval side, 61% surveyed said they oppose government collection of the online communications of citizens.
In many cases, U.S. government policies seem contradictory. For example, NSA practice between 2006 and 2009 directly violated guidelines set by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act limits the release of student records and personal identifying information to third parties. On the other hand, the use of cameras in U.S. public schools (often operated by private contractors) has grown steadily—to well over 50% today.
Another concern is the rapid transfer of surveillance monitoring to the cloud. While this may decrease overhead and installation costs—Internet protocol (IP) versus closed circuit television (CCTV), or digital versus analog—questions about data security remain. The digital IP pathways provide easier access to the surveillance stream for users, two-way communications, inexpensive and easy digital storage, improved image quality, ease of maintenance, and system scaling. Of course, open IP frameworks also offer easier access by unwanted third parties, which has been a downside of the digital cloud since its inception.
It is common for public opinion surveys in the United States to report that, while most responders think the government should be able to collect DNA in order to catch criminals and terrorists, they also object to that government having samples of their own specific DNA. However, one recent Supreme Court ruling, which defined DNA collection as a legitimate police practice, reinforces its use even by local police departments. The Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act also enables searching of a wide range of conversations for trigger words or phrases that suggest suspicious behavior, as well as monitoring visits to certain Web sites or communications with suspicious individuals or groups. This is largely done through text scanning, capture, and analysis programs, such as Carnivore and Coolminer, both developed by the FBI.
In response to the growth of these sorts of capabilities, groups like the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which was founded in 2001, have grown up to deal with such issues as airport body scanners and biometric data collection and retention. Also influential is the Identity Counsel International, headed by Joseph Atick, which focuses on the social impact of technology and the commoditization of identity data.
The definition of what constitutes identity data continues to expand. It now includes the ability to track smartphone user location, personal networks, likes/dislikes, and commercial behavior. It is coming to include a fuller understanding of how connected humans influence and persuade one another, such as how word-of-mouth marketing could be efficiently managed and even be used to build networks that provide peer-to-peer purchasing advice.
Finally, there are potential political consequences to consider, including developing the ability to identify influencers in any network, track behavioral indicators of growing mental illness, and track the spread of memes, especially political ones (based on the epidemiological concept that disruptive ideas are a form of social contagion).
Actual epidemiological behavior (e.g., the spread of influenza) can also be tracked, based on electronic movement and communications patterns using smartphone information. Even obesity is becoming somewhat predictable through social patterns. Accordingly, public health, urban planning, and marketing strategies might be guided by examining behavior relating to the use of smart tech.
In the same manner, disaster-relief monitoring could be shaped using mobile-phone tracking and reporting (during the last Haitian earthquake), and geo-tagged media could be used to enhance public safety at a variety of levels (as after the Boston Marathon bombing).
Surveillance for Health and Social ServicesOne of the great challenges for services in the twenty-first century is their cost. Medical testing without doctor visits is one of the developments under way to meet this challenge. Medical assessments such as sonogram and blood work can now be managed at home by the patient through innovative smartphone apps.
Less-expensive medical-monitoring environments can be provided at home by what have been called Granny Pods in the United States. These are portable manufactured housing, or auxiliary dwelling units, that can be equipped with cameras, vital sign sensors, Internet connections, and climate management. Most commonly placed adjacent to a family home, they provide additional bed space that was otherwise unavailable. A number of private companies are now offering them in the United States and Europe.
All of these technical stopgaps rely on the growing acceptance of telehealth and the belief that computers continually tracking blood pressure, glucose levels, and other indicators can yield adequate health-care monitoring 24/7. The biggest criticism is that such remote monitoring is sterile and unnuturing and thus unlikely to improve a patient’s physical or psychological well-being. This may be especially true for patients with heart disease or other serious chronic conditions, such as diabetes and pulmonary disorders.
On the cost side, evidence from the UK suggests that such monitoring could produce a yearly savings of some £2,300 per patient (about $3,600), compared with the cost of traditional institutional care. This is certainly relevant in this age of government fiscal constraint.
From Big Brother to E-GovernmentThe growth of e-government initiatives around the world has been steady and transformative. Starting in cities such as London, the initial role of surveillance was largely related to public and traffic safety. But with the growth of Smart Cities and other technology-driven policy endeavors, the integration of interactive video into a wide range of governmental services seems very likely.
Some analysts see 2020 as the year where broadband connectivity hits the 4G level (100+mbps) for all smart personal devices worldwide, allowing public interfaces to function at a new level. This is already being demonstrated in the growing cloud capacity of governments, such as the UK’s G Cloud. It would also enable the fully measured society and the Internet of Things planetwide. A sensor network like the one being prototyped by HP Labs—where such factors as light, temperature, humidity pathogens, pesticides, etc., can be measured and recorded at nearly every point on the globe—will enable us to test models and monitor patterns in a wide range of fields. Zoom panoramic technology capturing actual cityscapes could be combined with digital modeling to update planning documents in real time.
On the interactive side, smartphone application interfaces could enable two-way citizen input and dialogue. Civic organizations providing repositories for crowdsourced data could serve as “urban observatories.” Systems already in place include LIVE Singapore!, which runs real-time open data streams that allow city residents to tag and track trash pickups. Transport systems for food, energy, or water services could also become part of a transparent tracking system as the world’s cities get smarter.
One of the few downsides to this vision is that most of this tracking will likely be done via the Internet. While management of the Internet is internationalized, its regulation and restrictions are still largely national.
What’s next for e-government at the regional and global level remains unclear. However, both the governmental and market-based motivations are robust, and solutions are likely to be crafted in relatively short order.
Timothy Mack
About the AuthorTimothy C. Mack is president of the World Future Society and executive editor of World Future Review. His last article for THE FUTURIST, “Foresight as Dialogue,” was published in March-April 2013. Email tmack@wfs.org. |
