David

UK DNA Database Criticised by Report

The UK’s DNA database, already under fire by the European Court of Human Right for retaining samples and data from innocent people, has now been lambasted in a report by the government’s own genetics watchdog. The Human Genetics Commission.

The report, called Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear? contains a numbers of serious criticisms, most notably the finding that police forces around Britain are routinely arresting people simply in order to obtain their DNA. Almost a million innocent people, including many children, are now on the database, and the ECHR ruling has finally prompted the government to make some minor concessions, such as keeping the DNA of innocent people for 6 years as opposed to 12, but there appears to have been no fundamental change in police practice, nor any change in the instructions given to local forces on best practice.

It’s main recommendations are:

that there should be a parliamentary debate about the recording of what it calls ‘unconvicted’ people;
that because the purpose of the database has shifted over time, there should be constraints set out in new primary legislation;
that “robust evidence of the ‘forensic utility’ of the database should be produced to justify the resource cost and interference with individual privacy it represents”; and,
that there should be an independent oversight board and appeals board to consider removal of profiles; and transparency over data and other issues.

These are all laudable, but I really start to question their judgement in using the term ‘unconvicted people’. British law has always worked on the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. People are therefore ‘innocent’ until they have a conviction. The term ‘unconvicted’ seems to imply that innocence is no longer an assumption, and that the working hypothesis is that everyone is either guilty or not yet (therefore, potentially) guilty. This is what results from the normalisation of surveillance in everyday life, and it’s one thing we warned most strongly against in our own Report on the Surveillance Society back in 2006. When even critical reports start using language that reflects the worldview of the people they are criticising, you have to be concerned.

Calling people ‘unconvicted’ and not ‘innocent’ matters.

Helmet cams – self-protection or surveillance?

I am a cyclist, and for a while now I have been thinking about the increasing numbers of my fellow cyclists in the UK who are filming their everyday rides to work, and often posting the results online on sites like youtube. This has become more obvious as something particular since i have moved to Canada where very few cyclists seem to do this. There are more and more discussions on online cycling forums and even dedicated areas for swapping videos, tips and camera stories. This practice seems to have started amongst mountain-bikers and other extreme sports enthusiasts, but the use of handlebar or helmet-mounted cameras on ordinary commuting rides has a very different purpose. For most it appears to originate in a desire for self-protection. Cyclists are more aware than most of bad driving and how vulnerable you can feel when people cocooned in large mobile chunks of metal and glass are doing stupid things around you at high speed.

But as a surveillance studies specialist as well as a cyclist, I have more mixed feelings. We’ve been studying the way in which surveillance has come to be perhaps the primary way in which the state organises itself, and how crucial it as become to capital, to the organisation of labour and materials. We have also identified the way in which increasingly ubiquitous surveillance affects social relations, how it is implicated both as a reaction to, and as a driver of, the decline of social assurance, of trust. We’ve talked about the dehumanising effects of surveillance: the loss of dignity, privacy, of how memory and the mollifying effects of forgetting are replaced by constant recording. We have predicted the decreasing size and cost of surveillance devices, of their growing mobility, independence and even ‘democratization’ (or at least wider spread), and seen those predictions happen at even greater speed than most had anticipated.

The surveillance society has spawned reactions: there has been anti-surveillance (smashing of cameras, protests, mapping of paths of least surveillance etc.), situationalism and play, there has been ‘sousveillance’ with activists turning the gaze back on the watchers, and there has been guerilla and vigilante surveillance, with groups citizens using the increasingly cheap surveillance equipment for their own personal and political ends from the Texas Minutemen watching the US border for illegal immigrants to my cyclist friends.

My real concern, I suppose, is whether the use of surveillance by ordinary people is some kind of empowering self-protection, or whether it is simply another step further into a surveillance society. The answer, I think, is that it is both. Certainly the cyclists don’t see it as the latter, but people, even the most intelligent, rarely see themselves as part of a trend that many would regard as negative. Some do recognise the connection but have no problem with it. The same ‘nothing to hide. nothing to fear’ rhetoric is trotted out, but usually by people who are too naive to understand the implications of what they are saying, too self-centered to realise that it isn’t just about them, or too boring to be able to even imagine what they might ever do anything interesting enough to come to the attention of anyone watching. The use of helmet cams does however, have an in inherent and implied politics: it does make it very difficult to construct any coherent politics of state CCTV if you are yourself involved in surveillance on an everyday basis. How can you complain about the number of cameras in your high street, when you make videos of drivers who have annoyed you and put them online?

I’ll be posting more about this as I think of it.

Olympic surveillance legacies

David Loukidelis, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia, speaking today at The Surveillance Games workshop, has made it quite clear that his office does not want the Winter Games to leave a legacy of securitization in the city or indeed, fear (as the Assistant Federal Privacy Commissioner, Chantal Bernier, put it), in the consciousness of its residents. In particular he argued that the 600 (yes, 600) cameras that are being installed at the Olympic venues and beyond should not be allowed to remain after the games. I hope that his office is able to deliver on this view, but I doubt that it will. As Kevin Haggerty and Phil Boyle have noted, security architecture is now an actual deliverable of the Olympics, and as many other researchers have shown, such architecture, including in particular CCTV but also adjusted local or national laws on the thematic and spatial limits of protest and freedom of expression (which, as Michael Vonn of the BCCLA and Chris Shaw, a leading anti-games activist, are describing at this very moment in the conference, are themselves often illegal and unconstitutional) tends not only to persist but to act as a kind of Trojan Horse for an expanded surveillance. And as Vonn’s group has also shown – the city is building a permanent CCTV control centre as part of the security architecture for the Games, and you don’t do that for cameras that are going to be removed.

The Surveillance Games

I’ll be off the next few days at ‘The Surveillance Games’ conference in Vancouver.

Coincidentally, the local police have recently announce that they will be buying the same kind of sonic weapons we saw being used against protestors at the Pittsburgh G8 meeting. Except they want us to call them ‘megaphones’ and claim they won’t use them aggressively*. I think we still need to call a weapon a weapon. Just think, with such rebranding the police could get over their recent little problem with tasers too: just call them ‘joy-buzzers’ (just with a whole lot more ‘joy’...). The urban arms race that such mega-events always spark off as manufacturers push their latest toys to anxious governments, of course just adds another layer of bitter irony to the fact that Canada also intends to ignore its own call for global truce during the Games… it seems that you don’t even need the actual gesture for gesture politics these days.

*Even if these devices were just megaphones, this purchase would in any case be rather ironic given that Vancouver city has banned protestors from using any amplification devices by amending their bylaws in July 2009.

Everyday prejudices mean Canadians end up on watchlists

Another great audit report from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner here in Canada, investigating the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (Fintrac) has just been released. Fintrac, created in 2001 in the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and now with even more extended powers, operates a databases which is supposed to contain details of those suspected of supporting terrorism or money laundering (often on behalf of major criminal and terrorist groups).

However, there is a good story in The Globe and Mail today which leads on the most worrying aspect identified by the audit, which is that in many cases, the Fintrac database is massively overreliant on unsubstantiated suspicions from low-level functionaries in banks, insurance firms and credit agencies. Some of these ‘suspicions’ were clearly simple prejudice as they appeared to be based entirely on ethnicity. Part of the problem is that there are no clear guidelines as to what constitutes a reasonable suspicion in the legislation.

But being put on the database can have serious consequences, firstly because of the potential penalties involved (up to $2m CAN fines and 5-years imprisonment) and secondly, because the information in the Fintrac database can be accessed by Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the RCMP – Canada’s FBI) or shared with overseas police and intelligence services. In the latter case, as we already know, mounting errors can result in innocent people being subject to ever more harsh treatment including being excluded from countries, placed on no-fly lists or even the UN1267 ‘known terrorists and affiliates’ list, as well as, in the worst cases, opening them up to extraordinary rendition, imprisonment and torture.

Jennifer Stoddart, the current Privacy Commissioner, has a well-deserved reputation getting positive changes made, so let’s hope she can persuade Fintrac to get this sorted out pretty soon.

New ID cards Website

http://www.identity-cards.net/ the national id cards website

This website contains a comprehensive listing of national ID cards by geographic region worldwide allowing users to study and compare specific national policies regarding identity cards, as well as a list of resources on the topic.

National identification systems have been proliferating in recent years as part of a concerted drive to find common identifiers for populations around the world. Whether the driving force is immigration control, anti-terrorism, electronic government or rising rates of identity theft, identity card systems are being developed, proposed or debated in most countries. However, there is no comprehensive database documenting the status of national identity card systems anywhere in the world, and this website has been designed in order to fill this gap.

We invite users to help compile this information. Go to ‘UPDATE ID INFORMATION’ and follow the steps to submit current information about national ID card systems globally.

This website has been developed under The New Transparency Project an MCRI project funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The idea for the website comes from the book “Playing the Identity Card” recently edited by Colin Bennett and David Lyon, and published by Routledge (2008). The website is maintained and updated by a group of students and faculty from Queen’s University and the University of Victoria.

(Information from The New Transparency Project)

Private Sector Data Losses

People often concentrate rather too much on abuses by the state of personal data. But private sector organisations are certainly no better. One key example was made public this week, when the new UK Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, announced that he would be prosecuting a major mobile phone company (he is not saying which one yet*) for selling personal information which it held on customers. The trade in personal information is a very difficult thing to regulate: telecoms companies will deny up front that they ever do anything like this, but yet we know it happens frequently in every jurisdiction, in both management-sanctioned and illicit forms; and practically, of course, once the information is ‘out there’, it cannot be recalled. So, no-one should feel safe just because they have ticked (or unticked) that little box under all that often indeciferable text about what a company might do with your data. I hope that whatever firm this is, it gets hits where it will hurt most, on its bottom line.

*Update: T-Mobile have now confirmed that they are the company responsible.

UK pushes forward with online data retention plans

Like Canada, the UK is pushing forward with new plans to force telecommunications companies and ISPs to retain online data, despite opposition from both the industry and ordinary service users. The New Labour govenrment had delayed the plans from last year, faced with the strength of the opposition and launched a ‘consulation’. The consultation apparently still generated 40% opposition, which one would think was enough to tell them that something was wrong. But, as I said last year, “the collection of such traffic data will still go ahead… partly at least because the Americans want it; there is pressure on many countries for this kind of data collection and storage – see for example, the FRA law in Sweden. Networking these databases together with others is a major aim of the FBI’s secretive ‘Server in the Sky’ project.”

However, now the UK plans go further than many other countries’ schemes in this area, as they would cover not only traffic data but also a whole range of data which would not normally have been regarded as traditional communications like social networking activity and even internal online gaming data. This would seem to be in line with US programs that regard the behaviour of – let’t not forget, fantasy – game and virtual world avatars as somehow indicative of real-world tendencies and practices (e.g.: Projects VACE and Reynard), an extremely dubious assumption and one which extends the reach of the state into people’s fantasy and dream lives.

The BBC story mentions an estimated 2Bn GBP (around $3.5 CAN) cost for this – which will no doubt be passed on to service users – but given the immense problems posed by some of this data, I would reckon that this could a massive underestimate, especially if one takes into account the UK state’s history of appallingly-managed computerisation and database-building schemes. The original plans also would have allowed all agencies empowered under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to make use of such data, and the RIPA consultation response from the UK government did contain some indications that some new agencies would be given powers of access, but I am still not sure whether the government will keep the list of agencies as long as it was in last year’s draft Communications Bill.

Surveillance State, USA

There’s a really good article by Alfred McCoy here, on the US surveillance state. I am currently reading his brilliant new book, Policing America’s Empire.

Guardian article

The Guardian‘s Comment is Free site published a short version of my critiques of RIPA today… you can read it here.

Or the full version prior to editing is here:

A little-known tribunal is meeting this week to consider a case a case of wrongful surveillance. The case brought by Jenny Paton and Tim Joyce against Poole District Council in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Tribunal concerns the local authority’s targeted surveillance measures against the couple and their children in an investigation of their application for school places. Among other activities, council employees trailed the family and interrogated neighbours.

The case comes in the same week that the government issued its response to a consultation process on the reform of the law which the tribunal oversees: the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) (2000). RIPA has proved controversial as it seems to give many different public bodies new powers of surveillance, but that isn’t entirely true: as many local council officials admit, much of this was going on before 2000, but RIPA regulates and restricts it – in fact, it restricts it too much to some of the published responses to the consultation process. It is, however, almost impossible to determine whether RIPA has increased or decreased surveillance of this kind as no consistent records were kept prior to RIPA’s introduction. What is certainly the case is that the public is now more aware of the use of surveillance powers by agencies they had never realized were allowed to do such things.

Surveys have found that only 9% of RIPA authorizations resulted in either prosecution of enforcement action. In Australia, earlier this year, when only 28% of the use of targeted surveillance (in that case by police) resulted in prosecutions, their law was denounced as an excuse for ‘fishing expeditions.’ So what does a 9% rate indicate for Britain? Desperation perhaps? Or at least that RIPA was being massively overused for trivial issues. The House of Lords Constitution Committee report, Surveillance: Citizens and the State, certainly thought so, arguing not only that the inadequate administrative procedures should be reviewed but also that the government should think again about the whole business of allowing Local Authorities police powers, and that in any case, these powers “should only be available for the investigation of serious criminal offences which would attract a custodial sentence of at least two years.”

The government has failed to take heed of these recommendations. Ok, so they have agreed to restrict the authorization of covert surveillance under RIPA to ‘Director, Head of Service, Service Manager or equivalent’, and that Local Authorities should designate compliance officers so there will be no more junior officers deciding to play James Bond, as in the Poole case. However, by going to a ‘consultation’ whose respondents were dominated by Local Authorities and other RIPA-enabled agencies, they have managed to avoid doing anything particularly radical. This started from limiting the scope of the review through the questions they asked in the consultation.

For example, by asking which covert investigatory techniques specifically should be removed (and discounting any views that said ‘all of them’) they managed to get a mixed set of answers that failed to produced a clear vote against any one technique. Result: no techniques get removed and in fact some of the existing allowed techniques get extended to yet more agencies, for example the new Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (the replacement for the Child Support Agency). In particular, this extension of powers covers telecommunications data, whose keeping by the state has of course increased since RIPA was proposed. Now RIPA will be used to allow new bodies access to this data.

A curious note throughout the response by the government is the insistence on using an idea of non-interference with law-enforcement as a reason for not allowing elected officials any more than strategic scrutiny over the actions their own officials take under RIPA. This matters because RIPA is just one of many ways in which law-enforcement is not spreading as a function to increasing numbers of agencies beyond the police and judiciary. This seems to be general position that New Labour has taken – although it hasn’t always got its way – does anyone remember the dropped proposals to allow any ‘responsible people’ to levy on the spot fines?

And the government response seems to take a bullish delight in attacking those who have criticized the surveillance society. They insist, for example – and despite all the evidence to suggest that such interventions have limited effectiveness – that Local Authorities should make more use of overt, mass surveillance, like CCTV, instead of using RIPA. They are creating a binary choice, which seems to say assume that some kind of surveillance should be used: which do you choose, overt or covert? But, of course, that shouldn’t be the choice at all. They are also trying to have their cake and eat it on CCTV: the response to the consultation dismisses those consultees who brought up the subject of CCTV – which is not covered by RIPA – but feel quite able themselves to recommend its extended use in their own response. This of course also ignores the perfectly legitimate feeling amongst many that it is about CCTV was brought under proper control and a reformed RIPA might well be the place to do it.

Then there are things missing: notably, the concentration on Local Authorities, which for the most part has completely obscured the use of covert surveillance by central government departments and arms-length agencies including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the NHS and the Environment Agency, all of which have been criticized in the past by the Surveillance Commissioner. Nothing seems to be proposed to increase the visibility of the RIPA Tribunal which is, just for now, in the news. The Lords described it as all but invisible and weak. Nor do the government propose to do anything to strengthen training or the Code of Practice, and in any case, there has been a huge over reliance on such self-regulation for matters which should have more formal control; this is also how CCTV and the security industry is largely – and incredibly ineffectively – regulated in the UK.

Pretty much anyone could have predicted this limp response from the Home Office to some rather serious problems. They don’t read their own research, they don’t do consultation in a meaningful manner, and then, surprise, surprise, they conclude that there really isn’t very much wrong after all. Jenny Paton and Tim Joyce may well disagree, and let us hope that the RIPA Tribunal do too.