Goverment gives personal data to private companies

It has been revealed that the British government has been passing information gathered by the police on citizens to private companies. The Guardian todayshowed that data on climate change protestors found its way from the police to the ridiculously-renamed Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) to power company, E-ON.

Now, of course the government can argue that electricity supply is a matter of  ‘resilience’, ‘contingency planning’ and ‘national security’, but then how can they justify it being in private corporate hands in the first place? How exactly can companies whose primary aim is to provide ‘shareholder value’ at all costs, many of whom are transnationals that have no commitment to the UK, be treated as if they were state organisations, and be given data from state databases? The boundaries between public and private are being increasingly eroded, and once, again it is the relationship between citizen and state which suffers.

The government cannot just give data, especially data which was collected in very questionable ways for highly dubious reasons in the first place, to whoever it thinks might find it useful. This kind of action shows that the the state is now quite often simply the servant of private enterprise, and the police no better than an adjunct to private security. It makes a mockery of regulation of surveillance power and data protection, and does nothing for our already-weakened trust in the state’s ability to protect our rights or or information.

J.G.Ballard is dead

Anticipating academics like Baudrillard and Marc Auge by some years, he saw the future in what Nairn called subtopia: suburbs, industrial ruins, traffic islands, gated communities. He once said that the airport departure lounge was the apotheosis of western civlisation and its ultimate destination.

There’s only one piece of news that matters today: J.G. Ballard is dead.

Along with fellow ‘new wave’ science fiction writers like Brian Aldiss and Michael Moorcock, Ballard revolutionised the way British people saw ourselves, our present and our futures. He recognised that the real danger to society was not some distant dystopia, but a current and ongoing nightmare of consumer-driven ennui, a lethargic cultureless space of casual selfishness and lost ideals. Anticipating academics like Baudrillard and Marc Auge by some years, he saw the future in what Nairn called ‘subtopia’: suburbs, industrial ruins, traffic islands, gated communities. He once said that the airport departure lounge was the apotheosis of western civilisation and its ultimate destination.

Some of the obits would give you the impression that Ballard disliked being classified as a science fiction writer. But it is probably truer to say that mainstream critics disliked having to heap praise on a man who was so obviously writing science fiction, a genre that attracts nothing but disdain by many rather ignorant commentators. What he did might now be classed as ‘slipstream’ or put in the same box as the great experimental mid-century European writers like Italo Calvino. Anything but SF. Those critics did not, and still do not, realise that science fiction, as Ballard himself put it, was the most authentic literature of the Twentieth Century. What Ballard disliked was being classified by people who understood what he was doing less than him, who perceived what was happening less insightfully than he did.

That said, Ballard was not a traditional British writer of what Brian Stableford called ‘scientific romance.’ Like many writers who grew up during the mid-century, he was instead informed by the experience of war, in his case being a child in China during the Japanese invasion and occupation. However, like Aldiss, he also drew on the legacy of experimental political / artistic movements like surrealism. His early disaster novels, The Drowned World (1962), The Drought (1965), The Crystal World (1966) and so on, demonstrate this quite clearly, although the high point of his modern fantasy is probably the quite wonderful The Unlimited Dream Company of 1979 in which his native Shepperton is transformed into feathery tropical colours by the arrival of a birdman.

He could be quite terrifyingly acute about the moral vacuum in contemporary consumer capitalism. Before Bauman and Baudrillard were producing their sociological and semiotic takes, in the more optimistic climes generated by MacLuhan’s ‘global village’, Ballard was writing The Atrocity Exhibition (1969), Crash (1973), Concrete Island (1974) and High Rise(1975), four of the most uncompromising, bleak portrayals of the decline of western civilisation in any language or any genre. Although the mood of these novels was shared by other contemporary ‘new wave’ SF writers like Samuel Delaney (Dhalgren), Philip K. Dick (A Scanner Darkly), Brian Aldiss (Barefoot in the Head) and John Brunner (The Sheep Look Up), nothing quite so tellingly vicious and dark was produced by mainstream writers until some thirty years later when Cormac McCarthy wrote The Road.

At the same time however, for most of his career, Ballard’s imagination was never dominated by a single approach. His conceptions and his writing were often beautiful and elegiac, especially in his short-stories, a form central to the development of SF but over which he showed a uniquely total mastery. The collections that became Vermilion Sands (1971) and Memories of the Space Age (1988) have an atmosphere of decline, abandonment and loss of memory, that is at once frightening and liberating. The amnesiac astronauts who inhabit the ruins of Cape Canaveral are all of us, lost, looking for roots in the remains of life, yet somehow living a dream from which they cannot, and would not, want to wake.

Ballard’s later writing did become more mainstream and more accessible, both less acute in many ways and more obviously reflective of now: the world, in other words, gradually caught up with him. Thus novels like Cocaine Nights (1996), Super-Cannes (2000), and Kingdom Come(2006), are no longer SF, partly by design, but partly because we have arrived. The departure lounge is all around us. With all the paranoia, the obsession with security and surveillance, the petty micro-authoritarianism, the gated, golf-playing, consumer utopias, we live in Ballard’s world now; in what Mike Davis and Daniel Bertrand Monk recently termed the ‘evil paradises’ of neo-liberalism.

For me, Ballard reached a high point of his craft in this vein with 1988’s Running Wild, his taut, economically-written novella of a middle-class spree-killing in a private estate, a work which drew on the reality of the Hungerford Massacre, one of Britain’s worst spree killings. In the 1980s, he gradually became more intensely self-reflective and his best works were autobiographical: Empire of the Sun (1984), The Kindness of Women (1991) and most recently, Miracles of Life (2006). It was also welcome, in 1996 to see his selected essays published as A User’s Guide to the Millennium – the title was not in any way egotistical. Ballard was probably the only person alive who could justifiably claim to be able to have written such a thing. Ballard could have been Britain’s Philip K. Dick but whereas Dick was driven wild-eyed and ragged in the effort to understand what he saw and was as out-of-control as his words, Ballard remained clear-sighted, level-headed and produced disciplined, considered prose.

He will be much missed.

J.G. Ballard (1930-2009) – writer, thinker, intellectual freedom-fighter.

The War on Photographers (continued…)

In the latest dispatch in the British state’s ongoing war on photographers (or was that supposed to be terrorists?), a father and son from Austria have been ‘ordered’ by two policemen to delete pictures of bus and tube stations from their digital camera. Klaus and Loris Matzka were told that it was ‘strictly forbidden’ to take such pictures and the police took their personal details including passport numbers and the addresses of the hotel where they were staying.

This is harassment and intimidation, pure and simple.  Later The Guardian quotes the Metropolitan Police as sating that they “had no knowledge of any ban on photographing public transport in the capital.” This is a curious way to put it. It is not a question of the police’s knowledge of a ban. There is no ban. The police are well aware of this.

The Met in particular, are currently way out at the edge of their powers and pushing the envelope rather too far, but it seems with relative impunity. As I have written before, they seem to think it is suspicious to be interested in CCTV. It is also apparently suspicious (if not ‘strictly forbidden’) to take pictures of almost anything. But there’s much more. This is also the same force that invaded Parliament mob-handed to arrest Conservative MP, Damien Green, for it now seems, entirely political reasons. This is the same force whose officers have been captured on camera beating protestors – and who may have caused a passer-by to die of a heart-attack. This is the same force that keeps tabs on law-abiding protestors nationwide in case they might break the law, and that provides offices to private organisations running their own intelligence operations (ACPO). And, let us not forget, this is the same force whose incompetent surveillance operation resulted in the shooting of an innocent Brazilian man in the mistaken belief that he was a terrorist.

The Metropolitan Police needs to have a serious lesson in the liberties that they are supposed to be protecting, not restricting. Rather than learning the lessons of inquiry after inquiry, officers (and whether it is more than indvidual officers, one cannot say) appear to be out of control and making de facto policy by intimidation. Surely, this cannot be allowed to continue?

Back from Brazil

I’m back from Brazil now. It was an exhausting time towards the end as Paola and I packed so many visits and interviews into the last few weeks. I still have things to write up here on that, especially on Dave and I cheekily collaring Major Vargas, the Commander of BOPE outside his HQ – resulting in an hour-and-a-half long interview! There are also some others things I want to write about surveillance, community and music and the city. So there will still be some belated reports on research and experiences in Rio over the next couple of weeks in, amongst all the other things.

My PhD student, Fashie has come back from Malaysia just about simultaneously and it turns out that what we have been doing and discovering is remarkably parrallel and comparable. I am very pleased with her work. We’re planning a joint seminar to explore some of the similarities and differences in terms of crime, community and control.

I have an insane schedule over the next few weeks. I have to speak to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on security and individual freedoms on Tuesday, then it will straight on to Brussels the next day for our inaugural ‘Living in Surveillance Societies’ ESF-COST network management meeting. The week after I will be in Glasgow for a special invitational seminar on surveillance in Glasgow and on the island of Jura – I can stay with my sister who lives in Glasgow which will be lovely. After that I am having a few days cycling break before the next SSN/ESRC ‘Everyday Life of Surveillance’ seminar in Edinburgh. Then, the week after, I am supposed to be going to Vienna for a conference of a project in which I am no longer involved but to which I still have some left-over obligations.

By the end of May, I should also know something more about what I am doing and where I will be in the future, both professionally and personally, as the results of tests and applications of various kinds start to filter back. Can’t say more yet, but I hope it’s going to be an exciting couple of months!

RIPA Reform

I’ve been looking over the government’s proposals for consultation on the reform on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), officially published on Friday. There’s actually very little that they suggest, apart from some minor and largely voluntary controls on the use of RIPA for trivial purposes by Local Authorities. The Times rang me up and asked me to knock off 500 words (in about an hour!) for a comment on the proposals… which I did… and here it is, unedited*:

Reforming RIPA

Back in the year 2000, opposition was developing to a new piece of legislation, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. But the controversy over the Bill which became the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) was all about provisions to bring electronic communications (e-mail) under the same regulatory regime as telephone and telex, and to demand encryption keys.

What was relatively uncontroversial then were the provision for the regulation of covert surveillance by Local Authorities. Now, councils are accused of abusing the RIPA for trivial purposes, such as dog fouling or littering, or using oppressive or intrusive methods that are not proportional or appropriate to the alleged offences, such as covert monitoring of children to establish where parents involved in an application for school places lived. And much seems to have been inefficient too: a survey of Britain’s 182 Local Authorities found that they have used RIPA surveillance on over 10,000 occasions, yet only 9% resulted in prosecution or enforcement action. But it is not just local government. The Surveillance Commissioner has criticized national ministries like DEFRA and agencies including Ofcom and the Charities Commission over their misuse of RIPA**.

Officials respond that RIPA merely restricts and records what organisations were already doing. Most of the surveillance, they argue, is of the level of two men in a car watching a known fly-tipping site, and that even this requires onerous form-filling – four pages for each request. And even the statistics mislead, because there simply were no statistics on surveillance by these organisations before RIPA.

If RIPA has enabled us to see both the levels and abuse of surveillance powers, it has done us this favour at least. But the Surveillance Commissioner found generalized lax practice, a lack of proper justifications and proportionality, and little training or accountability: RIPA is being used because the powers exist, not because there is any pressing justification to use surveillance in this manner.

RIPA was always expansionary in that it allowed more than was intended. It was also a rag-bag; even the original e-mail surveillance provisions were cut and pasted from another bill. Like so much of the legislation from this government, it was poorly drafted and justified in parliament at the time by reference to issues (like national security) which little relevance to what most of the Act was about. And its appeals body, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, is practically invisible, as the House of Lords Constitution Committee report on surveillance argued recently.

The Constitution Committee went a lot further than the government in this consultation document, arguing that surveillance powers should be reserved for the investigation of serious criminal offences and that should judicial oversight for all surveillance carried out by public authorities. Instead here, the government merely suggests moving sign-off powers higher up within the organizations. The Lords also suggested that there should have been proper provision for public accountability and post-legislative scrutiny in RIPA. Instead, this review is taking place due largely to government embarrassment over the constant stream of revelations.

Yet the government seems intent on extending surveillance and other powers still further; there has been a proliferation of databases, agencies, laws, and quasi-police. The new Communications Bill will extend surveillance powers over the Internet still further. The consultation document also reminds us in one section that there is still no meaningful regulation of the now ubiquitous CCTV cameras: they are outside of RIPA and, it seems, out of control. RIPA is merely one aspect of a very British tendency to manage things through surveillance before other means – which is a good working definition of a ‘surveillance society’. This has to be controlled, and in a rather more thoughtful and systematic way than these knee-jerk reviews in response to media concern.

*The edited version has now been published by The Times as ‘A very British tendency…’ They have just trimmed the attempt to broaden the argument at the end!

**This is what you get for writing something very quickly – in the editing, I compressed stuff that had originally said that Ofcom and the Charities Commission were using RIPA and that various organisations had been criticised into one sentence that implied that they were the organisations being criticised. Neither have been so criticised by the Surveillance Commissioner and I apologise to both for suggesting that they were.

UK’s first MA in Surveillance Studies

The Department of Sociology at City University in London is offering the UK’s first Masters in Surveillance Studies. The MA is being run by up-and-coming scholar, Gavin Smith, in a department that also has some top people in the general area like Frank Webster. Definitely worth a look!

City University MA in Surveillance Studies

Update: Gavin had a comment piece published by The Guardian‘s website on this. You can read it here.

New report on facial recognition out now

There is an excellent new report on facial recognition now available for free download. The report is written by my one-time co-author on the subject, Lucas Introna of Lancaster University, and new Surveillance & Society advisory board member, Helen Nissenbaum of New York University.

The report is aimed primarily at people who developing policy on, or thinking of commissioning or even using facial recognition and therefore concentrates on the practical questions (does it work? what are its limitations?) however it does not neglect the moral and political issues of both overt and covert use. What is quite interesting for me is how little the technical problems with the systems have changed since Lucas and I wrote our piece back in 2004; the ability of facial recognition to work in real-world situations as opposed to controlled environments still appears limited by environmental and systemic variables like lighting, the size of the gallery of faces and so on.

The report is probably the best non-technical summary available and is perfect for non-specialists who want to understand what is the state-of-the-art in facial recognition and the range of issues associated with the technology. Very much recommended.

Is sousveillance the answer?

Marina Hyde in the Guardian last week wrote a very interesting piece on the ongoing fallout from the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in London. She argued that the appearance of mobile telephone camera foogtage, which revealed more about the way the police treated the passerby, showed that this kind of inverse surveillance (or what Steve Mann calls ‘sousveillance’) was the way to fight the increase of surveillance in British society.

I’ve been suggesting this as one possible strategy for many years too, however what Hyde didn’t really deal with is the other side of the coin: the fact that the authotorities in Britain already know that this is a potential response and are trying to cut down on the use of photographic equipment in public places. Anti-terrorism laws already make it illegal to photograph members of the armed forces, and in the new Counter-Terrorism Act, there is a provision to allow the police to isue an order preventing photography in particular circumstances. Further, it is now regarded as suspicious by police to be seen taking an interest in surveillance cameras.

The bigger issue here is the fight for control of the means of visibility, and the legitimate production of images. The British state is slowly trying to restrict the definition of what is considered to be ‘normal’ behaviour with regards to video and photography. In the new normality, state video is for the public good, but video by the public is potential terrorism; police photographing demonstrators is important for public order, but demonstrators photographing police is gathering material potentially of use in the preparation of a terrorist act.

However, I am not 100% in favour of the proliferation of cameras, whoever is wielding them. I think it’s essential that we, at this moment in time, turn our cameras on an overintrusive and controlling state. However a society in which we all constantly film each other is not one in which I would feel comfortable living either. A mutual surveillance society in which cameras substitute for richer social interactions and social negotiation, is still a surveillance society and still a society of diminished privacy and dignity. I worry that sousveillance, rather than leading to a reduction in the intrusiveness of the state, will merely generate more cameras and more watchers, and merely help reinforce a new normality of being constantly observed and recorded.

In a society of ubiquitous telecoms surveillance, not having a mobile phone is now suspicious

Contemporary social sorting techniques look for abnormality, but the norms are increasingly defined by reference to the methods of sorting themselves. Thus not wanting to be under mass surveillance makes you suspicious and a subject of targeted surveillance; research into, or resistance or opposition to surveillance also makes you a suspect…

There is a really good article by David Mery in The Register, which provides a nice summary of the current situation regarding the mass surveillance of mobile telecommunications in the EU and the UK specifically.

One particularly interesting point he makes is that the combination of the ubiquity of the mobile phone – there are more phones than people across most of Europe now – with the routine nature of mass state surveillance of telecommunications traffic and mobile phone location, means that not carrying a mobile phone is now grounds for suspicions. One item in the ridiculous German anti-terrorism case against the academic, Andrej Holm, was “the fact that he – allegedly intentionally – did not take his mobile phone with him to a meeting is considered as ‘conspiratorial behavior.'” In te similarly ridiculous arrest of a load of back-to-the-land communards at Tarnac in France, their lack of mobile phones was also considered to be suspicious and evidence of ‘clandestinity.’

This is a key indication of living in a ubiquitous surveillance society – when the norms of surveillance practice start to be seen by the state (or indeed people) as a more general societal norm, and nonconformity is grounds for suspicion. The surveillance society is a self-referential, self-reinforcing one. Contemporary social sorting techniques look for abnormality, but the norms are increasingly defined by the methods of sorting themselves. Thus not wanting to be under mass surveillance makes you suspicious and a subject of targeted surveillance; research into, or resistance or opposition to surveillance also makes you a suspect (as the current London Met poster campaign also shows). The normalisation of surveillance potentially makes suspicious anything that we do that makes state surveillance of more difficult. It is no longer a case of a passive ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’, but that not volunteering to be under surveillance makes us ‘abnormal’.

This seriously affects our civil liberties, but it has the potential to affect something more fundamental too – our autonomy, that is the ability to define ourselves as indviduals. Contemporary surveillance societies have started to impose categorisations and indentifications onto people that have nothing to do with how we feel about our identities. These categorisations not only stand for us in specific negotiations with the state (as they always have done in the past), they appear increasingly designed to erase identity (or even the potential for the self-construction of identity) and replace it with an identificatiton, by reinscribing the state categorisation, derived from surveillance, back onto the person and their behaviour.

SIVAM and Brazilian extremist nationalism

A Brazilian nationalist street stall in Rio
A Brazilian nationalist street stall in Rio

Whilst finishing up my work in Rio de Janeiro yesterday, I came across this interesting bunch of people, mv-brasil, who appear to be a Brazilian nationalist movement, with much in common with organisations like the British National Party or the various right-wing groups in the USA. Their website contains the usual odd mixture of anti-globalisation, evangelical Christian (they campaign against Halloween) and anti-United Nations / New World Order stuff with the added anti-Americanism. There of course is the usual rather uncomfortable fact of the ‘Brazilian Christian’ nationalist being a representative of a colonial power that invaded the country and took it from the indigenous people, but they roll over this one with some nods to Indian rights when it suits their cause, most notably when it comes to the Amazon.

A t-shirt with anti-internationalisation and privatisation of the Amazon slogan
A t-shirt with anti-internationalisation and privatisation of the Amazon slogan

One of the T-shirts for sale makes reference to this, being against ‘internationalisation and privatisation’ of the Amazon by the USA. It is a conspiracy theory I’ve come across before when I was doing some research on the SIVAM program – which provides some actual evidence for contentions that there is a secret American program to control the rainforest. I had someone tell me here in complete good faith that it was a ‘fact’ that several Amazonian tribes already thought that they were part of the USA and flew the US flag! This is combined with the fact the UN and international environmental organisations are very concerned about the destruction of the rainforest and the perceived lack of effort by successive Brazilian administrations to stop it. Put all this together and you have the ingredients for nationalist paranoia.

sivam_logoSo what is SIVAM? And why would I be interested in it anyway? The reason is that SIVAM is a surveillance system. Announced at the Earth Summit in 1992, and finally completed in 2002 and fully operationial from 2004, the Sistema de Vigilância da Amazônia (SIVAM) is a multipurpose, multi-agency network of satellite, aerial and ground surveillance and response that aims to monitor the illegal traffic of drugs and forest animals and plants, control national borders and those of indigenous peoples’ lands, and prevent the further destruction of protected areas of forest. A good technical account in English can be found in Aviation Today from 2002, and there is an interesting article on its construction here.

Donald Rumsefld visits the SIVAM control centre, 23 March 2005 (Wikimeda Commons)
Donald Rumsefld visits the SIVAM control centre, 23 March 2005 (Wikimeda Commons)

The problem is that, although an initiative of various Brazilian government agencies including the environment and Indian affairs ministries, the federal police and the army, SIVAM is supported and funded by the USA – most of the initial $1.39Bn US cost came through a grant from the U.S. Export-Import Bank, and the consortium that supplies the equipment includes giant US military supplier, Raytheon – amongst many others from Brazil to Sweden. The visit of former President George W. Bush’s right-hand man and then Secretary of State for Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to the SIVAM control centre in 2005, was widely reported in Bazil. It was of course interpreted by many as further evidence of Brazil’s ceding of control of the Amazon to the USA, or even presaging a US invasion of the Amazon, as Senator Norm Coleman discovered on a fact-finding mission later that year.

Latin American countries have every right to be suspicious of US motives: the Monroe Doctrine; George Kennan’s Cold War ‘grand area’ vision; the support for dictators like Augosto Pinochet; the invasions of Panama and Grenada; Plan Columbia and the widespread use of military ‘advisors’… the list goes on. And it is certainly the case that US strategic surveillance plans for ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ and the like, have have long included ‘leveraging’ any system in which they are involved from the International Space Station to things like SIVAM. So of course they will have a strategic interest, and no doubt SIVAM data will find its way to US military C4ISR centres, but this does not amount to a plan to invade Brazil or take control of the Amazon.