Surveillance Studies Summer Seminar – deadline approaches!

Surveillance Studies Summer Seminar
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
16 – 21 May 2011
Application deadline: 11 February 2011
APPLY NOW

The Surveillance Studies Summer Seminar provides an intensive, multi-disciplinary learning experience that addresses key issues of surveillance studies in ways that enhance the participants’ own research projects, as well as providing a unique national and international networking opportunity.

“International and cross-cultural diversity of the participants is one of the strengths of the seminar. Because surveillance studies are related to social justice, equality, and power, it is crucial to have the perspectives from the world of non-English speaking people.” –2007 SSSS participant

“Quality of faculty and attendees was excellent; social events well planned and spaced; location and setting excellent; well-planned and organized throughout.” –2007 SSSS participant

CORE FACULTY:
David Lyon, FRSC, Professor and Queen’s Research Chair, Department of Sociology, and Director of the Surveillance Studies Centre, Queen’s University, Canada

Valerie Steeves, Associate Professor of Criminology, University of Ottawa, Canada

David Murakami Wood, Canada Research Chair (Tier II) in Surveillance Studies and Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Queen’s University

THE PROGRAMME:

The core of the seminar is group work, each facilitated by a member of seminar faculty. Groups will grapple with key issues in surveillance studies, including issues such as “The researcher as surveillance agent,” “Gaining entry into surveillance sites,” “Making international comparisons,” “Connecting social science with policy and legal fields” and so on. Participants are encouraged to comment, in their statement of interest, on what areas are of particular interest. The rest of the programme is devoted to theoretical, methodological and professional issues, and to open interaction with established scholars in the field. The idea is to “go behind” conference and book performances to discover how and why surveillance researchers do what they do.

There will be no assessed tasks and no credit for enrolling in the seminar, although a letter confirming your completion of the seminar will be provided.

FEES AND SUBSIDIES:

The fee for the 2011 SSSS is $700 CAD. Applicants should pursue funding opportunities before submitting their application.
The Surveillance Studies Centre (SCC) will award up to three Summer Seminar tuition subsidies to non-Queen’s graduate student registrants who can demonstrate financial need. Click here for more information.
The Surveillance Studies Network Global Scholar Award (SSN) will award up to three bursaries of £500 (500 GBP) each to SSSS participants from less developed or developing countries who are in need of financial assistance. Click here for more information.
The deadline to apply for both subsidies is 11 FEBRUARY 2011.


Joan Sharpe
Project Administrator
Surveillance Studies Centre
c/o Dept of Sociology
Queen’s University
Kingston, ON K7L 3N6
Canada
(613) 533-6000, ext. 78867
(613) 533-6499 FAX

Twitter @sscqueens
http://www.sscqueens.org
http://www.newtransparency.org

Surveillance and Empowerment

I’ve just spent my Saturday getting the new issue of Surveillance & Society out…

8(2): Surveillance and Empowerment
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/ojs/index.php/journal/issue/current

edited by Torin Monahan, David J. Phillips and David Murakami Wood

  • James P Walsh – From Border Control to Border Care: The Political and Ethical Potential of Surveillance.
  • Katie Shilton – Participatory Sensing: Building Empowering Surveillance
  • Priscilla M Regan and Valerie Steeves – Kids R Us: Online Social Networking and the Potential for Empowerment
  • Dean Wilson and Tanya Serisier – Video Activism and the ambiguities of counter-surveillance
  • Marko M Skoric, Jia Ping Esther Chua, Meiyan Angeline Liew, Keng Hui Wong, and Pei Jue Yeo – Online Shaming in the Asian Context: Community Empowerment or Civic Vigilantism?
  • Ariane Ellerbrok – Empowerment: Analyzing Technologies of Multiple Variable Visibility
  • Gwen Ottinger – Constructing Empowerment through Interpretations of Environmental Surveillance Data
  • Anders Albrechtslund and Louise Nørgaard Glud – Empowering Residents: A Theoretical Framework for Negotiating Surveillance Technologies

+ all the usual book reviews

Coming soon: our forthcoming issues on ‘Surveillance, Marketing and Consumption’, and our ‘Global Surveillance Society?’ Conference specials.

Surveillance & Society | the international journal of surveillance studies
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/ojs/index.php/

New Report on Social Control

There is an interesting new report out from the Geneva-based organisation, the International Council on Human Rights Policy (ICHRP)*, called Modes and Patterns of Social Control. It has a lot of overlap in content and analysis with the book I am writing at the moment, which is great in that it means I am not alone in what I am thinking. The authors include a fellow surveillance CRC, Stephane Leman-Langlois, and Clifford Shearing, one of the pioneering figures in our understanding of surveillance today.

*disclaimer: I am an advisor on another ICHRP project on Surveillance and Privacy that has just started.

New Report on UN ‘Blacklisting’

There is a new report out from the European Centre on Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) on blacklisting practices, particularly the UN’s , after 9/11. The report by Gavin Sullivan and Ben Hayes, suggests that the UN 1267 list of supposed Taliban and Al-Qaeda members and supporters in particular, which I have described as ‘kafkaesque’ in the past here, is:

“beyond the powers of the Security Council. While international terrorism remains an atrocious crime … it does not justify the exercise by the Security Council of supranational sanctioning powers over individuals and entities. “

The Internet Must Be Defended!

As I am just putting the finishing touches on a new issue of Surveillance & Society, on surveillance and empowerment, the furore over the Wikileaks website and it’s publication of secret cables from US diplomatic sources has been growing. Over the last few days, Julian Assange, the public face of the website and one of its founders has been arrested in London on supposedly unrelated charges as US right-wing critics call for his head, the site’s domain name has been withdrawn, Amazon has kicked the organization off its US cloud computing service, one of Assange’s bank accounts has been seized, and major companies involved in money transfer, Paypal, Visa and Mastercard, have all stopped serving Wikileaks claiming that Wikileaks had breached their terms of service.

At the same time, hundreds of mirror sites for Wikileaks have been set up around the world, and the leaks show no sign of slowing down. The revelations themselves are frequently mundane or confirm what informed analysts knew already, but it is not the content of these particular leaks that is important, it is the point at which they come in the struggle over information rights and the long-term future of the Internet.

The journal which I manage is presaged on open-access to knowledge. I support institutional transparency and accountability at the same time as I defend personal privacy. It is vital not to get the two mixed up. In the case of Wikileaks, the revelation of secret information is not a breach of anyone’s personal privacy, rather it is a massively important development in our ability to hold states to account in the information age. It is about equalization, democratization and the potential creation of a global polity to hold the already globalized economy and political elites accountable.

John Naughton, writing on The Guardian website, argues that western states who claim openness is part of freedom and democracy cannot have it both ways. We should, he says, ‘live with the Wikileakable world’. It is this view we accept, not the ambivalence of people like digital critic, Clay Shirky, who, despite being a long-term advocate of openness seemingly so long as the openness of the Internet remained safely confined to areas like economic innovation, cannot bring himself to defend this openness when its genuinely political potential is beginning to be realised.

The alternative to openness is closure, as Naughton argues. The Internet, created by the US military but long freed from their control, is now under thread of being recaptured, renationalized, sterilized and controlled. With multiple attacks on the net from everything from capitalist states’ redefinition of intellectual property and copyrights, through increasingly comprehensive surveillance of Internet traffic by almost all states, to totalitarian states’ censorship of sites, and now the two becoming increasingly indistinguishable over the case of Wikileaks, now is the time for all who support an open and liberatory Internet to stand up.

Over 30 years ago, between 1975 and 1976 at the Collège de France, Michel Foucault gave a powerful series of lectures entitled Society Must Be Defended. With so much that is social vested in these electronic chains of connection and communication, we must now argue clearly and forcefully that, nation-states and what they want be damned, “The Internet Must Be Defended!”

Surveillance Studies Summer Seminar 2011

If you’re a PhD student (or thereabouts) studying surveillance, you might be interested in the Surveillance Studies Summer Seminar that we run out of the Surveillance Studies Centre here at Queen’s every two years.

The SSSS is “an intensive, multi-disciplinary learning experience that addresses key issues of surveillance studies in ways that enhance the participants’ own research projects, as well as providing a unique national and international networking opportunity”.

The next one will be in from 16 – 21 May 2011, here in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The tutors will be Professer David Lyon, Professor Val Steeves, and myself. If you want to come, you need to get your application in by 11 February 2011. There are even some funding sources available both internally from the SSC and externally from the Surveillance Studies Network, for those in financial need. More details here

New Book – Surveillance and Control in Israel/Palestine

The Surveillance Studies Centre says: Congratulations to Elia Zureik, David Lyon, Yasmeen Abu-Laban and all the contributors on their new book Surveillance and Control in Israel/Palestine, now available from Routledge. The book is an edited collection of papers from the research workshop, States of Exception, Surveillance and Population Management: The Case of Israel/Palestine, organized by The New Transparency Project in Cyprus, December 2008.

ISBN: 978-0-415-58861-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface – Elia Zureik, David Lyon and Yasmeen Abu-Laban

Part I: Introduction

1. Colonialism, Surveillance and Population Control: Israel/Palestine – Elia Zureik

Part II: Theories of Surveillance in Conflict Zones

2. Identification, Colonialism and Control: Surveillant Sorting in Israel/Palestine – David Lyon

3. Making Place for the Palestinians in the Altneuland: Herzl, Anti-Semitism, and the Jewish State – Glenn Bowman

Part III: Civilian Surveillance

4. Ominous Designs: Israel’s Strategies and Tactics of Controlling the Palestinians during the First Two Decades – Ahmad Sa’di

5. The Matrix of Surveillance in Times of National Conflict: The Israeli-Palestinian Case – Hillel Cohen

6. The Changing Patterns of Disciplining Palestinian National Memory in Israel – Tamir Sorek

Part IV: Political Economy and Globalization of Surveillance

7. Laboratories of War: Surveillance and US-Israeli Collaboration in War and Security – Steven Graham

8. Israel’s Emergence as a Homeland Security Capital – Neve Gordon

9. From Tanks to Wheelchairs: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Zionist Battlefield Experiments, and the Transparency of the Civilian – Nick Denes

Part V: Citizenship Criteria and State Construction

10. Legal Analysis and Critique of Some Surveillance Methods Used by Israel – Usama Halabi

11. Orange, Green, and Blue: Colour-Coded Paperwork for Palestinian Population Control – Helga Tawil-Souri

12. “You Must Know Your Stock”: Census as Surveillance Practice in 1948 and 1967 – Anat E. Leibler

Part VI: Surveillance, Racialization, and Uncertainty

13. Exclusionary Surveillance and Spatial Uncertainty in the Occupied Palestinian Territories – Ariel Handel

14. “Israelization” of Social Sorting and the “Palestinianization” of the Racial Contract: Reframing Israel/Palestine and The War on Terror – Yasmeen Abu-Laban and Abigail B. Bakan

Part VII: Territory and Population Management in Conflict Zones

15. British and Zionist Data Gathering on Palestinian Arab Land Ownership and Population during the Mandate – Michael Fischbach

16. Surveillance and Spatial Flows in the Occupied Palestinian Territories – Nurhan Abujidi

17. Territorial Dispossession and Population Control of the Palestinians – Rassem Khamaisi

Part VIII: Social Ordering, Biopolitics and Profiling

18. The Palestinian Authority Security Apparatus: Biopolitics, Surveillance and Resistance in the Occupied Palestinian Territories – Nigel Parsons

19. Behavioural Profiling in Israeli Aviation Security as a Tool for Social Control – Reg Whitaker

“To destroy invisible government”

There was a really interesting piece posted this week on the blog, zunguzungu, which analyzes an early essay written by Wikileaks frontman, Julian Assange. The essay which is available on Cryptome (pdf) – itself a precursor of Wikileaks – is a very well-crafted and argued piece which reveals Assange as a radical idealist for a new transparent society, whose aim is ultimately to destroy the need for Wikileaks itself by making secretive government impossible. Very worth reading.

Border Security Market estimated at $16Bn

A marketing consultancy has estimated that the global border security market, including Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVS), Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) and perimeter surveillance is due to hit $15.8bn in 2010. Without any sense of irony whatsoever, the company calls the border security market “one of the most exciting emerging markets within the global defence and security marketplace.”

They ask questions like:

“Which regional border security marketplaces offer the most significant growth opportunities? What are the prospects for European and North American defence and security companies seeking business opportunities in the Middle East? How is spending on different types of border security technology likely to be affected as government budgets come under intense pressure? What is the status of the Secure Border Initiative Network (SBInet) or ‘virtual fence’ along the US-Mexico border? To what extent is public opinion driving government policy on border security? What effect is the economic downturn having on illegal immigration?”

To know their answers to these questions though, you’ll have to pay £1499.00 (or $2,418.00 US)! Clearly they believe that the market for reports on border security is also pretty ‘exciting’…

Campaigners uncover UK local government spending on CCTV

Using Freedom of Information requests, Big Brother Watch in the UK has managed to get hold of figures from many British local governments on how much they spend on CCTV surveillance systems.

According to the Press Association, the annual spend by 336 local councils on the installation and operation of CCTV cameras over a three year-period from 2007/08 and 2009/10 totalled £314,835,170.39 (around $400M US). That’s a large amount of money in an ‘age of austerity’… however it is still not complete as there are another 80 local governments who did not respond to the requests. Interestingly there were still some local governments, albeit only 15, who still did not operate public-area CCTV. That’s not to say that the local police forces in those areas did not, however. There are some cities in Britain, the exception rather than the rule, like Newcastle for instance, where police own and operate public CCTV cameras. I am not sure if these are the types of councils making the claims, and I will have to look at all the figures in greater detail.

The top ten spenders on CCTV over the three years were listed as:

  1. the city of Birmingham, Britain’s second-largest city, and controversial for its special scheme targeted at ‘Muslim’ areas, but also with a massively regenerated and semi-privatised city-centre. £10,476,874.00
  2. Sandwell metropolitan borough, a large urban area to the north-west of Birmingham £5,355,744.00
  3. the city of Leeds, in Yorkshire, whose downtown district is the epitome of the characterless, over-regenerated urban centre. £3,839,675.00,
  4. the city of Edinburgh, capital of Scotland, a wannabe global city, and former G8 meeting host, £3,600,560.00
  5. the borough of Hounslow, on the edge of urban and suburban west London, £3,573,186.45
  6. the borough of Lambeth, a diverse south London district, £3,431,301.00
  7. the city of Manchester, one of the cities we studied in our book on urban resilience, which put a huge amount in to CCTV in the downtown core the wake of a provisional IRA bombing, which has now also been gentrified out of recognition – it also has a signficant suburban gang problem, £3,347,310.00
  8. the borough of Enfield, a leafy north-east London suburb, £3,141,295.00
  9. the borough of Barnet, also in north London, £3,119,020.00
  10. the borough of Barking and Dagenham, in east London, on the borders with Essex, and another area of high racial tensions stoked by a strong local British National Party, £3,090,000.00.

Half of the top ten are London boroughs, outside of the centre of London, showing that CCTV is still diffusing outwards from the heavily surveilled core around the financial centre of the City of London and the government district of Westminster. Not surprisingly, the diffusion is also continuing primarily to the major urban centres beyond London, and the case of Sandwell perhaps shows that the greater Birmingham area is going through a similar process seen in London. In any case, public area video surveillance is not going away in the UK any time soon, and the new government will have to, at some time, demonstrate what it actually meant by introducing greater regulation of CCTV.