-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
blog.html
183 lines (133 loc) · 24.6 KB
/
blog.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
<!doctype html>
<!--[if lt IE 7]> <html class="no-js lt-ie9 lt-ie8 lt-ie7" lang="en"> <![endif]-->
<!--[if IE 7]> <html class="no-js lt-ie9 lt-ie8" lang="en"> <![endif]-->
<!--[if IE 8]> <html class="no-js lt-ie9" lang="en"> <![endif]-->
<!--[if gt IE 8]><!--> <html class="no-js" lang="en"> <!--<![endif]-->
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge,chrome=1">
<title>SurveillanceRights</title>
<meta name="description" content="SurveillanceRights">
<meta name="author" content="Faculty of Information, University of Toronto">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="css/style.css">
<link rel='shortcut icon' href='favicon.ico' type='image/x-icon'/ >
<link rel="apple-touch-icon-precomposed" sizes="114x114" href="apple-touch-icon-114x114-precomposed.png">
<link rel="apple-touch-icon-precomposed" sizes="72x72" href="apple-touch-icon-72x72-precomposed.png">
<link rel="apple-touch-icon-precomposed" href="apple-touch-icon-precomposed.png">
<script src="js/libs/jquery-1.7.2.min.js"></script>
<script src="js/libs/modernizr-2.5.3-respond-1.1.0.min.js"></script>
<script src="js/responsiveslides.min.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
<header>
<h1 id="fittext1"><img src="img/veos_logo.png" alt="Camera Watch Logo">SurveillanceRights</h1>
</header>
<nav role="navigation" id="access">
<a class="skip-link icon-reorder" title="Accordian" href="#menu">Menu</a>
<ul id="menu">
<li><a href="index.html">Home</a></li>
<li><a href="app.html">SurveillanceWatch App</a></li>
<li><a href="watching-about.html">Who's Watching You?</a></li>
<li><a href="events-workshops.html">Events</a></li>
<li class="active"><a href="blog.html">Blog</a></li>
<li><a href="resources.html">Resources</a></li>
<li><a href="faq-app.html">FAQ</a></li>
<li><a href="contact.html">Contact Us</a></li>
</ul>
</nav>
<div id="main">
<article>
<section>
<div style="margin: 10px 0px; padding:12px; color: #00529B; background-color: #BDE5F8; font-size:0.9em;"><strong>Note</strong>: This blog was created for a period of the project and is not currently active.</div>
</section>
<section>
<h3>Spy Games: The Surveillance and Control Technologies of Microsoft's Xbox</h3>
<p><b>Posted September 16, 2013 by Alex</b></p>
<p>Following Microsoft's May 21st announcement that the company's Xbox 360 would be succeeded by a new videogame system, the Xbox One, Microsoft <a href="http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/32618/is-the-xbox-one-a-covert-surveillance-device/" target="blank">attracted a hail of criticism from privacy advocates, civil libertarians and gamers over the system's capacity for surveillance</a>. Indeed, the new videogame system proposed by the software giant <a href="http://business.financialpost.com/2013/06/13/e3-2013-qa-xbox-canada-talks-used-games-premium-pricing-mandatory-kinect/?__lsa=b20f-f6e3" target="blank">will include a sensor which is mandatory for the operation of the device</a>, the next generation of its motion tracking hardware, the Kinect. While this issue raises some questions about why invasive technologies are increasingly entering the home, it begs the question: what does the inclusion of a surveillance device mean in a technology which is basically an expensive toy?</p>
<p>To answer this question, it is worth considering the way in which Microsoft uses surveillant technologies, systems and software in existing products and how it plans to do so in the future. Microsoft already has a strong track record for surveilling gamers and their videogame systems, installing sophisticated software and hardware into the Xbox 360 to discourage users from modifying the hardware and pirating videogames. To this end, <a href="http://support.xbox.com/en-US/billing-and-subscriptions/account-management/xbox-live-console-ban" target="blank">Microsoft has used this technology to ban users from connecting to its network, known as “Xbox Live” if their videogame system detects any tampering</a>. On the surface, this system seems fair enough as users are protected from players who hack hardware for cheating and game producers are protected from piracy, as modifications for the Xbox 360 are traditionally used to illegally copy games. However, this system also demonstrates a remarkable amount of control which the company retains over their hardware even after it becomes an owner's property. Being banned from Microsoft's servers also prevents users from accessing any digital content they have purchased from Microsoft prior to their ban, effectively preventing this content from being used again. What this problem ultimately alludes to is an issue of translation, as traditional rights like those of first sale and ownership are eroded through their transformation into digital issues, associated with a weaker set of civil and legal traditions.</p>
<p>For example, you probably wouldn't put a surveillance camera in your kitchen to let the Coca-Cola Corporation know how many drinks you enjoy daily. Yet, with the Xbox One, Microsoft is making a similar proposal, putting a camera in your livingroom (the Kinect) that can tell who is playing videogames, what their attitudes are towards commercials and even how many people are watching a movie. Many of these proposals seem innocuous enough, but let's unpack them further.</p>
<p>First, Microsoft's Kinect keeps much of the data it gathers on you, it's even capable of using that information as a password. The Kinect does this by more than simply taking your picture: it uses an infra-red camera to determine your height, posture and numerous other variables, while it uses a microphone to constantly record your voice. Some of this information, known as biometric data is incredibly sensitive and while Microsoft purports to “anonymize” this data by stripping your personal information, it remains questionable why this information needs to be gathered and kept by Microsoft in the first place. Are you comfortable knowing that someone is taking pictures of your living room, watching you while you play, or recording your voice constantly? </p>
<p>More troubling still, people like the chief financial officer of Microsoft's interactive division have suggested to investors and marketers that the Kinect could be used to watch consumers in their home, sending them targeted advertisements. While Microsoft has denied this strategy, other tactics by Microsoft indicate that suggestion is highly plausible.</p>
<p>Currently, Microsoft uses a system of advertisements called “Nu-Ads” with the Microsoft Kinect. While a Nu-ad plays on the Xbox, the Kinect watches a user's body to determine how they respond to the advertisement. This information is then sold back to marketers to understand not only how consumers are reacting to commercials, but also to supply demographic information which can only be gathered through a camera, including potentially the age and race of those watching the ads.</p>
<p>Finally, Microsoft has recently patented a system through which it will utilize the Kinect to enforce policies known as “digital-rights-management.” These policies are intended to prevent too many people from watching a film at the same time. To enforce this policy the Kinect will photograph the number of people in front of the system and turn off the film if it detects more people watching it than spectators allowed. What is troubling about this technology is that it greatly expands the territory which the Xbox is allowed to govern, expanding from control over the system to controlling the user's living room and their social habits.</p>
<p>What these issues demonstrate is an alarming trend in home entertainment which not only suggests that consumers can expect greater surveillance in their electronics, but increasing control over what they are permitted to do with these devices and who is allowed to use them.</p>
<h3>Coca Cola's "security camera" ad</h3>
<p><b>Posted September 16, 2013 by Brenda</b></p>
<p>Video surveillance doesn't just capture nefarious criminal acts, but also random acts of kindness, nuttiness, and even heroism. So we are told in Coca Cola's “security camera” advertisement, aired during the 2013 Super Bowl and currently showing at movie theatres during the trailers. Watch and let “stolen kisses,” “attacks of friendship,” and “unexpected firemen” set to Roger Hodgson's (formerly of Supertramp) solo version of “Give a Little Bit” give you a dose of the warm and fuzzies. Or not.</p>
<p>The spot was created for Coca-Cola Latin America by the Landia production company in 2012 and has been making the rounds of the internet, gaining an impressive number of likes and eliciting comments that suggest such footage helps to 'restore faith in humanity'. This was the intent: <a href="http://www.digitalstrategyconsulting.com/intelligence/2012/07/video_viral_of_the_week_cocaco.php" target="blank">"People tend to associate security cameras with negative events, but we wanted to disprove that assumption by demonstrating the abundance of happy events and actions they capture," said Martin Mercado, the creative director behind the ad</a>. </p>
<p>Mr. Mercado is absolutely right. Of course surveillance cameras capture happy events. Cameras are non-selective. They capture everything within view of the lens, good, bad or indifferent and they do it 24/7 (assuming the camera is actually functioning). It stands to reason that there are bound to be some heart-warming moments recorded, as well as hours of nothing and the occasional crime. There is, in fact, no question that it happens all the time. </p>
<p>But the commercial does raise other questions. Those of us who are concerned about the ubiquity of surveillance cameras in contemporary society often wonder, who is watching? And what is happening to our personal data? Well, here is one answer. If you're caught on a camera owned by Coke, your data could be shared with an advertising company scouring hours of footage for sweet moments to reveal on national TV. In all fairness, Coca Cola apparently did seek permission for the use of the clips from participants that could be identified and has admitted that some scenes had to be re-staged if the subjects in the video could not be contacted. But that does not negate the fact that footage, ostensibly collected “for security purposes” as most camera installations claim, was mined and repurposed for reasons that the subjects of that surveillance could never in their wildest dreams have imagined as they went about their daily lives beneath the camera gaze. Basic privacy principles, including informed consent, and using data only for the purposes for which it is originally collected, are clearly disregarded.</p>
<p>As technology improves and companies get ever more creative at mining and dreaming up new and profitable uses for our personal visual data, we really do need to think about the kinds of uses that we as a society think are acceptable, and which are not. Should Coca Cola, or any company, be able to profit from “stolen kisses”?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAhMONfOdoE" target="blank">Check out the ad here and see what you think.</a>
</p>
<h3>Who's Watching You - Public Forum</h3>
<p><b>Posted September 16, 2013 by Roxanna</b></p>
<p>As a research assistant on the Who's Watching You Project, one of my responsibilities was to interview Toronto citizens and ask them what they knew about their rights when it came to their privacy in video-surveilled public places. I was surprised to learn that many highly educated professionals did not know a lot. In fact a good friend of mine who worked in City Hall for many years, was unaware that there was any sort of regulation when it came to CCTV and surveillance. </p>
<p>During the public forum held by the project in Toronto on June 4th, Vance Lockton, the senior regional analyst for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, expressed similar concerns. The OPC has similarly found that many Canadians have very little idea about their privacy rights and correspondingly, organisations seem to have little understanding of their responsibilities under PIPEDA, the privacy act governing private sector video surveillance. When I was first hired as a research assistant under Professor Andrew Clement, one of my tasks was to go into the Toronto Eaton center, a large shopping center in downtown Toronto. I went into each store, walking around wearing something rather distinctive and then asked the store manger for my image, something you are allowed to do. They told me due to the privacy of other customers they were unable to do so. Time and time again I asked to no avail, and at one store even their privacy expert told me that they do not have to give me my image. I was shocked, as it clearly states in PIPEDA that if I want to see the information (in this case my image) that an organization holds of me, it should be provided if I can request it clearly. I had provided dates and my description. Most of the stores did not know what PIPEDA was and were unhelpful in my request. Except for a few exceptions. </p>
<h3>Leave or I'll Trespass You</h3>
<p><b>Posted September 16, 2013 by Joseph</b></p>
<p>When we were first doing a walkabout in downtown Toronto to look at video surveillance signage and practices, Professor Andrew Clement and I were threatened vehemently by a security office manager at the large department store that we would be “trespassed”. It all started very innocently, but without knowing it, the young woman responsible for security at the store changed our research trajectory for years to come. </p>
<p>What caught our attention were signs in the shoe department that looked like they had been printed on an inkjet or maybe a laser printer, warning customers they were being captured on video surveillance. These signs were not very detailed and were exclusively found in the shoe department, while it was very obvious by simply looking up that the entire store was being monitored by dozens of dome cameras hanging from the ceiling. </p>
<p>As researchers bound by ethical consideration we did not feel we could take pictures of the signage because although it was a publically accessible space, the store in the shopping mall was still private property. So we asked the clerk who was responsible for the signage and whether we could talk to them about taking a picture and about their video surveillance policy in general. We were referred to the security office towards the side of the store. The security office was in a hallway with a small greeting area and a number of adjacent rooms. </p>
<p>When we explained what we were interested in, we were adamantly told by one of the security officers working in a dark room off to the side, that signs were only required for covert surveillance and that their signs in the shoe department were a mere courtesy. After more informal conversation, while waiting for the director of security, we were also told that they didn't share any information except with the police because of privacy legislation. We recognized, based on our own research into privacy policy and video surveillance regulation that they were likely wrong on both counts, but waited patiently for the director. </p>
<p>When a young woman stepped forward and we tried to explain that we were interested in understanding their signs and their video surveillance policy, she, without pausing for a breath, said, “Our video surveillance practices and signs are trade-secrets. You cannot ask about them or take pictures. Get out now or I will TRESPASS you”. After a couple of attempts to engage her in discussion, we realized we would get nowhere, so we left. But we didn't leave fast enough. In the hallway out of the store we had stopped to look at a screen displaying a video feed of our personally identifiable images being captured by the store without signage or explanation. We paused, and a voice called from down the hall “Leave now or I will Trespass you!” We knew right then that we had stumbled onto a research area shrouded in misinformation and fear, and an aggressive security manager become a contributing factor in our research on video surveillance practices and policy.
</p>
<h3>Asked to Leave a PUBLIC sidewalk</h3>
<p><b>Posted November 28, 2012 by Roxanna</b></p>
<p>For this project, I went to major public areas with a great deal of surveillance, such as Dundas Square, Nathan Philips Square, and major intersections in the city of Toronto in order to attain a variety of responses to our questions. I was forewarned about the possibility that a police officer or security officer might ask me what I was doing. However, since I am only asking questions rather than soliciting a product, I have the right to do so, as long as I respect people’s right to refuse to answer. However on August 18th 2012, Professor Ferenbok and I were at Dundas Square. There was an event and we felt that we could use this to our advantage and be able to interview more people. At 1:30pm a security guard came up to me while I was interviewing a young women and told me that Dundas Square was being rented out and it is private property. I told him I was conducting interviews on behalf of University of Toronto and that we were funded by the OPC. He told me “you can’t do this on private property”. Rather than argue, I took the interviewee across the street and told Joseph briefly about the incident at which point he went to speak with the security manager. I conducted another interview this time on the sidewalk on the west side of Yonge Street. Upon Joseph’s return and the end of my interview I asked him what the security guard had said, to which he replied that the security guard told him that even the sidewalks around Dundas Square are considered “Private Property.”</p>
<h3>Thinking about CCTV</h3>
<p><b>Posted November 14, 2012 by Brenda</b></p>
<p>I’ve been running a google search on CCTV (closed circuit television) for the past few weeks, just to see where the term comes up and how people talk about it. And as you might guess, the primary place it appears is in news articles discussing incidents during which CCTV cameras revealed shocking, generally criminal events and where the footage either helped or failed to help to solve criminal cases. Calls for more cameras and the occasional call to fix existing cameras also appear. Infrequently, an article questioning the benefit of camera surveillance versus its cost pops up, usually in relation to one of those stories where the footage failed to assist in a publicized investigation. The articles have titles like “<a href="http://www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk/CCTV-FOOTAGE-Woman-threatened-meat-cleaver-armed/story-17300630-detail/story.html" target="_blank">CCTV Footage: Woman threatened with meat cleaver</a>” or my personal favorite, “<a href="http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/336027" target="_blank">Shop worker fights off robber with bottle of Toilet Duck</a>”.</p>
<p>Interestingly, these articles come from a range of international news sources from China, India, the UK, various Scandinavian and European countries, Australia, Canada, and the US. Of course, the fact I limited my search to those written in English meant that many stories from a variety of international news sources were omitted. But the results are still compelling: CCTV really has become a rather ubiquitous technology. And the way that these cameras are discussed in the popular press, across this wide range of international boundaries and cultural divides, is remarkably similar. Cameras help prevent crime. Cameras help catch bad guys. The perpetrator might have gotten away with it if not for the cameras. If we want to stop criminals we need more cameras.</p>
<p>Against this tide of overwhelmingly positive popular press stands a body of academic research that is similarly uniform in tone and conclusions. But in stark contrast to the media stories, study after study finds that cameras probably don’t prevent crime, and for various reasons ranging from poor camera positioning, lack of ongoing monitoring, mechanical failure, or lack of oversight and integration with community policing strategies, cameras can’t always help catch the bad guys after the crime happens, either. Researchers for the British home office <a href="https://www.cctvusergroup.com/downloads/file/Martin%20gill.pdf" target="_blank">found that CCTV is much more complicated to install correctly</a> and use effectively than those who use it often consider, while the 20 contributors to a <a href="http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-and-society/issue/view/CCTV" target="_blank">special issue of the Surveillance & Society Journal</a> provide a range of critical perspectives on a number of topics linked to CCTV. This is not to say that all the research says cameras are bad; just that the reality is much more nuanced and complicated than articles titled “Caught on CCTV: Horrifying moment…” suggests.</p>
<p>So, why the disconnect between popular opinion and academic data?</p>
<p>It’s easy to speculate and hard to really know why. But one obvious reason is that people are far more likely to read and be influenced by the articles about Toilet Duck triumphs caught on camera than to stumble across and plow through a study of surveillance camera use in Canada, even a highly accessible one such as the <a href="http://www.sscqueens.org/projects/scan" target="_blank">Surveillance Camera Awareness Network’s report</a>.</p>
<p>This points the way to the need for more public education on the issues that arise in connection with video surveillance technologies. The <i>Video Surveillance and Privacy: Who is Watching You? (and do you know why?)</i> project is trying to find out what Canadians know about the video surveillance as a first step. Figuring out what people know and don’t know is a logical first step in planning public education. Asking them where they might look for information, if they want it, is another step in our process. And finally, we’re hoping we can help the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who funds this research, target education materials where they will fill the greatest need and make them available where people want to look.</p>
</section>
<section>
<p><b><i>General blog disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are those of the author(s) not the University of Toronto where this research will take place or the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada who funds it.</i></b></p>
</section>
</article>
<script> function loadContent() { $("#sidebar").load("sidebar.html"); } </script>
<div id="sidebar"> <script>loadContent()</script> </div>
</div> <!-- #main -->
<script> function loadContent() { $(".footer").load("footer.html"); } </script>
<div class="footer"> <script>loadContent()</script> </div>
<script src="js/script.js"></script>
<!-- Responsive Header -->
<script src="js/fittext.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
$("#fittext1").fitText(1.1, { minFontSize: "14px", maxFontSize: '72px' });
</script>
<script>
$(function () {
// Slideshow 1
$("#slider1").responsiveSlides({
auto: true, // Boolean: Animate automatically, true or false
speed: 1000, // Integer: Speed of the transition, in milliseconds
timeout: 3000, // Integer: Time between slide transitions, in milliseconds
random: true, // Boolean: Randomize the order of the slides, true or false
maxwidth: 1000, // Integer: Max-width of the slideshow, in pixels
});
});
</script>
<!-- Google Analytics -->
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-37322083-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<!-- // <script>
var _gaq=[['_setAccount','UA-XXXXX-X'],['_trackPageview']];
(function(d,t){var g=d.createElement(t),s=d.getElementsByTagName(t)[0];
g.src=('https:'==location.protocol?'//ssl':'//www')+'.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
s.parentNode.insertBefore(g,s)}(document,'script'));
</script> -->
</body>
</html>