Times Square bombings

There's a discussion article in the New york Times about the failed bombing attempt in Time Square the other day. It rapidly turns into an assessment of the value of video surveillance in counter-terrorism.

Richard Clarke is surprisingly stoic, suggesting that we shouldn't panic, or assume that this means counter-terrorist efforts are failing. Steve Simon falls into the 'even if CCTV doesn't prevent this, we should still have more of it' trap and then goes on to use the UK as a positive example of how the United States should deploy CCTV. His argument is based upon post-event investigation. The 7/7 bombing investigation, although it is frequently visualised with the images of bombers getting on a train to London, was much more reliant on other, less visual investigative techniques. Evidence from the UK also suggests that the evidence value of CCTV is pretty small. Other research suggests that if many CCTV cameras were people, they'd be legally blind. Michale Black and Paul Eckman get this somewhat, although the former is pre-occupied with calibrating cameras so that they can spot people who are already on some list or database of potential suspects. Noah Shactman highlights the ease with which camera surveillance can be avoided (by a potential terrorist - it's still pointing at the vast majority of innocent people moving through the city, who perhaps shouldn't have to hide their faces).

The effect of video surveillance is often taken as almost axiomatic by security policy-makers. Kevin Haggerty recently called this the 'post-justificatory moment' in surveillance - where there doesn't have to be an explanation or justification for how and why a surveillance technology will effect a social problem - it is obvious that it will. In this case, obvious that video surveillance with help to counter-terrorism. There is something about the spectacle of the visual that makes video surveillance particualrly strong in this 'moment' (although the database is almost equally powerfully accepted - as Oscar H. Gandy's most recent book shows). Schneier points out that video footage of the bombing attempt "make for exciting television, but their value to law enforcement officers is limited."

Schneier highlights the importance of focusing efforts on investigation and effective post-event response, rather than on trying to identify specific targets - this was a problem that emerges in attempts to build in resilience. Firstly, a strong case had to be made that a specific site was a target for terrorists, and that this risk was high enough to merit the extra costs of building in counter-terrorism resilience. This case could rarely be made, firstly because of the low incidence of terrorism (it rarely happens, the chances of it happening to particular given place are extremely low, outside of some very high profile exceptions) and secondly because of speed with with 'targets' can change. The worrying response here would be to attempt to secure all locations (which at times seemed to be on the agenda).

Update - this bombing attempting has already been called 'The NY FAILbomb' in part because it was rubbish; a 'Rube Goldberg contraption' made of propane tanks and fireworks, made by somebody with 'more desire than ability'.

facebook's eroding privacy timeline

from EFF an account of how facebook's privacy policy has changed over time

a better use for CCTV?

Designed by Dennis Nino Clasen, is the 'Wolfgang S. Birdhouse' available from SleekIdentity

A sneeky jab at our culture’s obsession with security cams, this birdhouse looks like it’s watching your every move. Hang it near your house and your neighbors won’t dare steal your garden hose! Deter burglars while keeping Tweety birds well-fed and happy! It’s a great gift with a goofy sense of humor for the bird lover in your life. The model is called 'Wolfgang S.' a reference to the hawkish German Minister of the Interior Wolfgang Schauble who likes spying on everyone in the name of security.

Thanks to Jason Pridmore for the link

Creative Disruption

I just came across the blog of the forthcoming book 'Creative Disruption' by Simon Waldman (Director of Digital Strategy for the Guardian Group). From the summary on the website, the book is looking at how established business interests are coping with, or engaging with new technologies. It's got a business focus, but the summary made me think about the potential implications for states, government departments, political parties, militaries etc. The 'established interests' of the pre-digital political world. (So this is a politics and technology post rather than a pure 'surveillance' one).

"Businesses that have to deal with the internet are fundamentally different
to those that are the products of it. It is great to look at Google; great to
admire Amazon, and Wikipedia is as fascinating a social and creative phenomena
as you can find. But if you are running a business that is profoundly
structurally challenged, you share very little of their corporate DNA.

Yes, everyone needs to know about their world, but thinking you can just
graft on the bits you like from them in a hope that you will ‘get digital’ is no
more likely to succeed than putting on a flashing bow tie and hoping everyone
thinks you have a sense of humour."

Waldman describes 'creative disruption' as being driven by three things, digital physics (digital files infinitely copiable, anything online is global, storage space cheaper and faster), changing consumer behaviour (desire to create, connect, challenge and control), and new entrants and entrepreneurs (where encumbants have little incentive to innovate, low barriers for entry, sparks for new ideas). He suggests that just tinkering around the edges is not enough, and that responding to these disruptions - which undeniably exist in the field of politics, will require creative thinking, agility and an ability to restructure in fundamental ways.

Govt requests to Google

Google is now publishing (with 'some limitations') the number of requests it recieves from national governments for information on users, or for removal of information.
It's available (on a map) here.

Digital Economy Act

The Digital Economy Bill recieved royal assent the other week, becoming the Digital Economy Act 2010. (pdf). The bill was passed during the 'wash-up' period at the end of the parliamentary session, meaning that it recieved limited scrutiny.

Particularly objectionable sections are the provisions in the Act for the disconnection from the internet of households where the connection has been accused of downloading material that infringes copyright. This has potentially servere implications for the digital inclusion agenda of the government. It also assumes that anybody who signs a contract with an ISP has the technical and social resources to police their family's internet useage (more info here) Writing for the Guardian, John Naughton argues:

How did this fiasco come about? Mainly because legislatures (both here and abroad) deal with intellectual-property issues in ways that are corrupt, irresponsible and inappropriate for modern technology.

The Act also appears to treat all 'internet service providers' equally in terms of measures to prevent copyright infringement. This is something that will be particularly onerous for the cafe on the corner with free wi-fi. To the point that they'll probably have to stop.

The Labour party had it's rebels: Tom Watson speaks to the Open Rights group about his opposition in Parliament to the Bill and the future discussions about online activity, rights, and copyright, and about how this is the beginning (video). "when an issue is debated in parliament, the argument has already been had". Mark Lazarowicz also voted against the bill, and gives his reasons here. He thinks that the campaign against the bill drew more attention to it from MPs, and exposed the flaws in the 'wash up' process.

What is interesting about this area is that it seems that a number of people without much exposure to the mechanics of the political process, but with IT/technology knowledge have paid attention to that process during the passage of the bill. It might be worth keeping an eye on this area - there are surely going to be further contestations over digital rights policy. This scrutiny seems to have generated a lot of anger and irritation. For example VoteThemOut.co.uk is a site where you can find out how your MP voted on the bill. There was also a fair amount of scorn poured on MP's for technological mistakes or ignorance. This letter from 'Science in the Open' sums up some of this concern. Cory Doctrow takes it as a declaration of war

From a political science perspective, most votes in the House of Commons are determined by party position, rather than by individual stances of MPs, and most of the time, the chamber is occupied by far from the majority of MPs. Furthermore, MPs are generalists, rather than specialists, and there's no requirement to know much about the policy area they vote upon. That said, technology policy is an area of concern, with some structural issues.

There's definately work to be done on the politics of expertise. It would be applicable to both technological policy, environmental policy, and security/terrorism policy. All three areas where the ability of the generalist politician (and especially the public) to have decent information about the policy area is limited. It's a problem for democratic systems, and leads to a reliance on experts. However the question then becomes - which experts, and under what structures of accountability and oversight. In CT policy, this often the preserve of 'security experts' or classified reports from intelligence agencies. In environmental policy, it's probably the best developed, the experts are public and decisions can be made on the basis of the scientific method and peer review. Digital copyright policy just got written by experts working for the big industry players.

Parliament of hypocrites

campaigning group 'Power 2010' has published a document entitled parliament of hypocrites in which they argue that UK politicians have been playing 'fast and loose' with the personal data of the public, whilst safeguarding their own by excemptions in freedom on information practice.

parliament of hypocrites (pdf)