Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:09 pm
Time: 8:09 pm
Results for privacy
24 results foundAuthor: Robinson, Neil Title: Security, At What Cost? Quantifying People's Trade-Offs Across Liberty, Privacy and Security Summary: To understand the real privacy, liberty, and security trade-offs individuals are willing to make, and so policy makers can be beter informed about citizen's true preferences in this domain, this study surveyed British citizens on the issues of privacy and security for three activities: applying for a passport, traveling on the national rail network, and attending a major public event such as the opening ceremony of the Olympics. Data from the survey was analysed and individuals were found to be willing to pay for advanced CCTV cameras with facial recognition technology, X-Ray machines and body scanners and various forms of security personnel. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2010. 99p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: International URL: Shelf Number: 118730 Keywords: Crime PreventionNational SecurityPrivacySecurity |
Author: Victorian Law Reform Commission Title: Surveillance in Public Places: Final Report 18 Summary: This report completes a two-stage inquiry into the widespread use of privacy invasive technologies. The first stage of our inquiry dealt with workplace privacy, while this report deals with the growing use of surveillance in public places. Public place surveillance is so extensive that it now affects the lives of nearly all Victorians. It is highly likely that our image will be captured by camera, and recorded, whenever we are walking down city streets, travelling on public transport, driving on freeways, visiting shopping centres or attending a major sporting event. People should know about these activities and appreciate that it is becoming increasingly difficult to remain anonymous in public places. The notion of blending in with the crowd is fast disappearing. The Attorney-General asked the commission to consider the interests of users of surveillance in protecting their property and providing safe places, and to balance these against the protection of privacy, autonomy and the dignity of individuals. The commission has been guided by these concerns and this report reflects the diversity of opinion regarding the use of surveillance in public places. We must seek to reap the many benefits of modern surveillance equipment while also ensuring that it is not used oppressively and unnecessarily in public places. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Law Reform Commission, 2010. 180p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 14, 2010 at: Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 119791 Keywords: Crime PreventionPrivacyPublic SpacesVideo Surveillance |
Author: Sanchez, Julian Title: Leashing the Surveillance State: How to Reform Patriot Act Surveillance Authorities Summary: Congress recently approved a temporary extension of three controversial surveillance provisions of the USA Patriot Act and successor legislation, which had previously been set to expire at the end of February. In the coming weeks, lawmakers have an opportunity to review the sweeping expansion of domestic counter-terror powers since 9/11 and, with the benefit of a decade’s perspective, strengthen crucial civil-liberties safeguards without unduly burdening legitimate intelligence gathering. Two of the provisions slated for sunset—roving wiretap authority and the socalled “Section 215” orders for the production of records — should be narrowed to mitigate the risk of overcollection of sensitive information about innocent Americans. A third—authority to employ the broad investigative powers of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act against “lone wolf” suspects who lack ties to any foreign terror group — does not appear to be necessary at all. More urgent than any of these, however, is the need to review and substantially modify the statutes authorizing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to secretly demand records, without any prior court approval, using National Security Letters. Though not slated to sunset with the other three Patriot provisions, NSLs were the focus of multiple proposed legislative reforms during the 2009 reauthorization debates, and are also addressed in at least one bill already introduced this year. Federal courts have already held parts of the current NSL statutes unconstitutional, and the government’s own internal audits have uncovered widespread, systematic misuse of expanded NSL powers. Congress should resist recent Justice Department pressure to further broaden the scope of NSL authority — and, indeed, should significantly curtail it. In light of this history of misuse, as well as the uncertain constitutional status of NSLs, a sunset should be imposed along with more robust reporting and oversight requirements. Details: Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2011. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Analysis No. 675: Accessed August 1, 2011 at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA675.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA675.pdf Shelf Number: 122241 Keywords: Counter-TerrorismPatriot ActPrivacySurveillance (U.S.) |
Author: The Constitution Project Title: Recommendations for Fusion Centers: Preserving Privacy & Civil Liberties while Protecting Against Crime & Terrorism Summary: In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the federal and state governments embarked on a far-ranging effort to detect and defend against potential terrorist threats. One of the central components of this effort has been the creation of a network of state and regionally-based fusion centers that share information among law enforcement and some intelligence agencies. Today at least 77 fusion centers are active in the United States. While these state entities have received substantial support from Congress and the Executive Branch, their roles and missions vary widely and are still being developed. Run properly, fusion centers could play an important role in addressing terrorist and other criminal threats. Yet fusion centers can also pose serious risks to civil liberties, including rights of free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, racial and religious equality, privacy, and the right to be free from unnecessary government intrusion. Several fusion centers have issued bulletins that characterize a wide variety of religious and political groups as threats to national security. In some instances, state law enforcement agencies that funnel information to fusion centers have improperly monitored and infiltrated anti-war and environmental organizations. Moreover, the manner in which fusion centers amass and distribute personal information raises the concern that they are keeping files—perhaps containing information that is sensitive or concerns constitutionally protected activities—on people in the United States without proper justification. For these reasons, we, the members of The Constitution Project’s Liberty and Security Committee endorsing this report, have undertaken this examination of fusion centers, and offer a set of recommendations to assist policymakers to ensure that fusion centers operate effectively while respecting civil liberties and constitutional values. Part II of this report provides an overview of the structure of fusion centers and the institutional framework within which they operate. Parts III, IV and V identify specific concerns raised by fusion center data collection, data storage and use, and accountability and governance mechanisms. Part VI outlines our specific recommendations for reforms that address civil liberties concerns. We hope that these recommendations will facilitate the development of sound rules and best practices to ensure respect for constitutional rights and values. Indeed, fusion centers themselves seek concrete guidance on the practical application of constitutional principles to daily threat assessment. We also hope that they will encourage further consideration of the proper role and mission of fusion centers within the nation’s law enforcement and anti-terrorism framework. Details: Washington, DC: The Constitution Project, 2012. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2012 at http://www.constitutionproject.org/pdf/fusioncenterreport.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.constitutionproject.org/pdf/fusioncenterreport.pdf Shelf Number: 126403 Keywords: Civil LibertiesCriminal IntelligenceFusion CentersInformation SharingPrivacyTerrorism |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: You Are Being Tracked: How License Plate Readers Are Being Used to Record Americans' Movements Summary: If you’ve never seen an automatic license plate reader, it’s probably because you didn’t know what to look for. The devices have been proliferating around the country at worrying speed. Mounted on patrol cars or placed on bridges or overpasses, license plate readers combine high-speed cameras that capture photographs of every passing license plate with software that analyzes those photographs to identify the plate number. License plate reader systems typically check each plate number against “hot lists” of plates that have been uploaded to the system and provide an instant alert to a law enforcement agent when a match or “hit” appears. License plate readers would pose few civil liberties risks if they only checked plates against hot lists and these hot lists were implemented soundly. But these systems are configured to store the photograph, the license plate number, and the date, time, and location where all vehicles are seen — not just the data of vehicles that generate hits. All of this information is being placed into databases, and is sometimes pooled into regional sharing systems. As a result, enormous databases of motorists’ location information are being created. All too frequently, these data are retained permanently and shared widely with few or no restrictions on how they can be used. The implementation of automatic license plate readers poses serious privacy and other civil liberties threats. More and more cameras, longer retention periods, and widespread sharing allow law enforcement agents to assemble the individual puzzle pieces of where we have been over time into a single, high-resolution image of our lives. The knowledge that one is subject to constant monitoring can chill the exercise of our cherished rights to free speech and association. Databases of license plate reader information create opportunities for institutional abuse, such as using them to identify protest attendees merely because these individuals have exercised their First Amendment-protected right to free speech. If not properly secured, license plate reader databases open the door to abusive tracking, enabling anyone with access to pry into the lives of his boss, his exwife, or his romantic, political, or workplace rivals. In July 2012, American Civil Liberties Union affiliates in 38 states and Washington, D.C., sent 587 public records act requests to local police departments and state agencies to obtain information on how these agencies use license plate readers. We also filed requests with the U.S. Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Transportation to learn how the federal government has used grants to encourage the widespread adoption of license plate readers, as well as how it is using the technology itself. We received over 26,000 pages of documents from the law enforcement agencies that responded to our requests, about their policies, procedures, and practices for using license plate readers. This report provides an overview of what we have learned about license plate readers: what their capabilities are, how they are being used, and why they raise privacy issues of critical importance. We close by offering specific recommendations designed to allow law enforcement agencies to use license plate readers for legitimate purposes without subjecting Americans to the permanent recording of their every movement. Details: New York: ACLU, 2013. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2013 at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/071613-aclu-alprreport-opt-v05.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/071613-aclu-alprreport-opt-v05.pdf Shelf Number: 129438 Keywords: Automatic Number Plate Recognition (U.S.)License Place Recognition SystemPolice SurveillancePrivacy |
Author: Gierlack, Keith Title: License Plate Readers for Law Enforcement: Opportunities and Obstacles Summary: Since the use of license plate reader (LPR) technology is relatively new in the United States, opportunities and obstacles in its use in law enforcement are still under exploration. As the technology spreads, however, law-enforcement agencies, particularly those considering investing in an LPR system and other organizations focused on the information technology needs of law enforcement, may find the material in this report helpful. It provides an in-depth examination of the range of ways in which license plate scanners are used; the benefits and limits of LPR systems; and emerging practices for system operation. The RAND Corporation's research approach, exploratory interviews with law-enforcement personnel, sought to gather information not just from police officers but also from the diverse people responsible for installing, maintaining, and operating the systems. This method allowed RAND to thoroughly characterize and examine license plate scanner issues to add to the knowledge base. The interviews explored salient issues concerning system implementation, funding, case uses, field procedures, technology issues, data retention policies, and privacy concerns. RAND believes these findings overall will add value to the discussion on this technology's utility. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2014. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 7, 2014 at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR467/RAND_RR467.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR467/RAND_RR467.pdf Shelf Number: 132623 Keywords: Automatic Number Plate Recognition (U.S.)License Place Recognition SystemPolice SurveillancePolice TechnologyPrivacy |
Author: Cavoukian, Ann Title: Surveillance, then and now: securing privacy in public spaces Summary: Surveillance is growing, as are the technologies that extend its reach. But surveillance that facilitates the sustained monitoring of people engaged in everyday activities in public is, in Justice Gerard La Forest's unforgettable words, "an unthinkable prospect in a free and open society such as ours." Unthinkable as it may be, the prospect of close and continuous surveillance is no longer simply the stuff of science fiction. Governments now have access to precise and a ffordable technologies capable of facilitating broad programs of indiscriminate monitoring. Th e unfettered use of these technologies raises the spectre of a true surveillance state. To freedom-loving people, that is an unacceptable prospect. The purpose of this paper is to assist law enforcement, lawmakers, and the broader public in understanding and protecting our fundamental right to privacy with respect to surveillance by the state of our activities in public spaces through the use of ever-growing new technologies. Details: Toronto: Information and Privacy Commissioner, 2013. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2015 at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcs-plcng/cn29826-eng.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Canada URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcs-plcng/cn29826-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 135520 Keywords: Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV)DronesElectronic SurveillancePrivacyPublic SpacesVideo Surveillance (Canada) |
Author: Miethe, Terance D. Title: Public Attitudes about Aerial Drone Activities: Results of a National Survey Summary: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), commonly known as "drones," collect information and provide visual monitoring of activities in a variety of public and private settings. These free-flying aircraft are controlled by remote and digital technology. Six states (Alaska, New York, Nevada, North Dakota, Texas, and Virginia) have been federally designated as test sites for identifying operational and safety issues associated with drone technology. Although several national opinion polls have been conducted over the last several years on drone use for military purposes, less is known about public attitudes and support for drone usage in other contexts. These additional contexts for drone applications include land use patterns, geographical/climatic photo mapping, crowd management, and specific areas within criminal justice (e.g., border patrols, detecting traffic violators, home and business security). Due to the recent and dramatic growth in media attention to drone technology, it is important to establish an empirical baseline of the current level of public knowledge and attitudes about aerial drone usage to track future changes in the public's acceptance of this emerging technology. This Research in Brief summarizes the results of multiple national surveys of public knowledge and support of the use of aerial drone technology in a variety of public and private settings. It is based on samples of 636 U.S. adult citizens who completed internet surveys in the first week of June 2014. A summary of the results, demographic factors associated with levels of awareness and support for drone usage, the public policy implications of these findings, and limitations of this study are described. Details: Las Vegas: University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Center for Crime and Justice Policy, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Research in Brief: Accessed May 21, 2015 at: http://www.unlv.edu/sites/default/files/page_files/3/Public-Attitudes-About-Aerial.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.unlv.edu/sites/default/files/page_files/3/Public-Attitudes-About-Aerial.pdf Shelf Number: 135753 Keywords: Aerial DronesDrones PrivacyPublic OpinionSurveillance |
Author: Lieberman, Joel D. Title: Aerial Drones, Domestic Surveillance, and Public Opinion of Adults in the United States Summary: HIGHLIGHTS - Over 95% of U.S. adults in this survey are opposed to using drones to monitor people's daily activities around their home. The majority of respondents are also opposed to drones monitoring people at work (77%) and in their daily activities in open public places (63%). - Public attitudes about using drones for domestic surveillance vary across different social groups. For surveillance in both public and private places, opposition to drone use is highest among persons with lower incomes and those who emphasize individualism (i.e., prefer a government that focuses on individual rights over public safety). - A strong majority of respondents agreed that drone surveillance is an invasion of privacy, especially when it occurs around the home (88%) or at work (79%). High levels of agreement across context were also found in people's views of drones as "excessive surveillance." These two concerns were the major reasons for opposition to domestic surveillance by drones. - A belief that drones increase public safety is the primary reason given by respondents who support their use for domestic surveillance. This is especially true for public opinion about the government's use of drones in open public places. - Respondents were most supportive of drone use for surveillance in open public places when it was being conducted by a federal government agency (33% supported this activity), followed by state and local police (28%), mass media (18%), commercial business (14%), and private citizens (13%). Details: Las Vegas: University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Center for Crime and Justice Policy, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 21, 2015 at: http://www.unlv.edu/sites/default/files/page_files/3/Aerial-Drones.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.unlv.edu/sites/default/files/page_files/3/Aerial-Drones.pdf Shelf Number: 135754 Keywords: Aerial Drones Privacy Public Opinion Public PlacesSurveillance |
Author: Cortes, Carlos Title: Communications Surveillance in Colombia: The Chasm between Technological Capacity and the Legal Framework Summary: Last year, media outlets revealed that the National Police of Colombia would operationalize the Single Platform for Monitoring and Analysis (Plataforma Uinica de Monitoreo y Anailisis, or PUMA), through which it would be able to intercept "what is spoken, written or sent from e-mails, Facebook, Twitter, Line, Viber, Skype, and, in short, any type of communication undertaken via the internet." More recently, last February, Semana magazine revealed that the military was reviewing e-mails and chats of those involved in the peace talks in Havana, Cuba. In both cases, the government put its spin on the news. In the first case, the government presented PUMA as nothing more than the replacement of an older system, and stressed that it would be subject to legal controls. In the second, the Colombian president quickly announced the formation of a commission to develop the country's policy on cybersecurity and cyberdefense. Nonetheless, the underlying issues remain unsolved. What is, in the end, the technical capacity of PUMA? Is it possible to review anyone's e-mails? Can the military access someone's chat history? Is intercepting a phone call the same thing as intercepting internet traffic? Although new scandals regarding state intelligence emerge periodically in Colombia, the state never clarifies how intelligence works in practice or what controls exist for its exercise. Meanwhile, as time moves on, intelligence schemes grow more sophisticated along with our cell phones and computers. An analog rotary-dial telephone is as obsolete as "crocodile cables" used to intercept calls. Nonetheless, as the market facilitates the process of obsolescence and the incorporation of new massive technologies, it tells us little about the devices that are simultaneously developed to monitor individuals. Technological changes tend to alter long-established assumptions regarding the reach of specific rights. Privacy is arguably the right that faces the most challenges in the digital environment. Yet regulatory and jurisprudential lacunae persist in terms of how technology affects the exercise of fundamental rights. The cases of PUMA and the military's spying on peace negotiators occurred soon after Colombia's adoption of its new Intelligence Law, which, in theory, corrects previous irregularities and aligns with modern surveillance. But is this truly the case? Do we have a regulation that preserves national security without compromising citizens' privacy and freedom of expression, among other rights? The goal of this book is to examine the Colombian legal and jurisprudential framework regarding communications surveillance in light of today's technologies. Phrased in the form of a hypothesis, the purpose is to demonstrate how intelligence-related laws and jurisprudence fail to ensure that potentially affected rights remain intact. To test this hypothesis, I address several aspects of the country's Intelligence Law that I selected somewhat arbitrarily: the interception of communications, surveillance of the electromagnetic spectrum, and access to user data. This last point, which alone merits its own study, is developed as a complement to the first two. The book is divided as follows: The first chapter explains, from a technical point of view, the technologies that we use to communicate and that are used to monitor us. The second chapter explores the normative framework for communications surveillance. The third offers a comparative look at communications interception. Finally, the fourth chapter synthesizes the findings of the first three chapters in an effort to offer several conclusions. Details: Bogota: Centro de Estudios de Derecho, Justicia y Sociedad, 2015. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper 3: Accessed May 23, 2015 at: http://www.dejusticia.org/files/r2_actividades_recursos/fi_name_recurso.683.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Colombia URL: http://www.dejusticia.org/files/r2_actividades_recursos/fi_name_recurso.683.pdf Shelf Number: 135766 Keywords: CommunicationsCyber-securityIntelligence GatheringNational SecurityPrivacySurveillance |
Author: Statewatch Title: Countering Terrorism or Constraining Civil Society? The impact of Financial Action Task Force recommendations on non-profit organisations in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia Summary: The Arab uprisings that began in late 2010 galvanised 'pro-democracy- governments in the West into a reaffirmation of their commitment to supporting civil society organisations (CSOs) working under repressive and authoritarian regimes. The US State Department launched a Strategic Dialogue with Civil Society in 2011, and two years later President Obama launched the Stand with Civil Society campaign, "a global call to action to support, defend, and sustain civil society amid a rising tide of restrictions on its operations globally". The European Union (EU) established the European Endowment for Democracy and committed to "a more strategic engagement with CSOs" and the mainstreaming of CSO dialogue across "all external instruments and programmes and in all areas of cooperation". The United Nations is also committed to the "enabling environment for civil society" which it views as central to the realisation of its Millennium Development Goals. Running counter to (and part of the reason for) this recent affirmation of support for the "enabling environment" is the spread of restrictive civil society laws around the world. These laws can prohibit or impede the formation of CSOs, restrict their access to domestic and international funding and hinder their day-to-day operations. The trend toward restriction is demonstrated by reports from the International Centre for Non-profit Law (among others), which has documented the introduction of such laws in more than 50 countries, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. It is a trend that the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently described as "global", "lasting" and intimately related to "fundamental changes in international politics". Paradoxically, the changes in international politics cited by Carnegie include international counter-terrorism standards, devised by democratic states after 9/11, which provide a justification for less democratic and repressive governments to introduce restrictive laws and regulatory environments for CSOs. The standards in question, which are explained in the following section, advance the hypothesis that non-profit organisations are particularly vulnerable to abuse or exploitation by terrorist groups. Concomitant to this perceived risk is the requirement that all states ensure that they have robust laws and procedures in place to combat the "threat". This problem was first examined in detail in a report we published in 2012 entitled "Legalising Surveillance, Regulating Civil Society". In this follow-up report we revisit the report's core assumption - that these standards are a vehicle for the imposition of restrictive CSO laws - by examining their implementation in 17 countries in central and eastern Europe and central Asia. Details: London: Statewatch, 2015. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 20, 2015 at: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/aug/fatf-countering-terrorism-or-constraining-civil-society.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/aug/fatf-countering-terrorism-or-constraining-civil-society.pdf Shelf Number: 136498 Keywords: PrivacySurveillanceTerrorismTerrorist Financing |
Author: European Commission Title: Profiling: Protecting citizens' rights, fighting illicit profiling Summary: One of the biggest challenges posed by the global technological evolution to the right of data protection is the processing of such data in the context of profiling. UNICRI is leading a consortium of partners in the implementation of a new project which seeks to outline the main risks to human rights involved in profiling practices. The PROFILING project has been funded by the European Commission, DG Justice, under the Fundamental Rights and Citizens programme. It is focused on identifying and tackling the challenges posed by technology to the fundamental right to data protection. Main objectives -Identifying the risks related to the extensive use of profiling -Identifying the level of awareness of the responsible authorities of the Member States on the risks deriving from the use of profiling -Identifying the level of awareness of a selected sample/group of interviewers in testing partner countries -Identifying the countermeasures adopted in all EU Member States. Main activities: 1.A background analysis on profiling and its impact on fundamental rights 2.A risk assessment based on the results of the background analysis 3.A series of questionnaires elaborated and tested with the national Data Protection Authorities of the 28 EU Member States and Switzerland, to assess the present European legal framework 4.Fieldwork in three selected countries - Romania, Germany and Italy - exploring automated profiling in different domains of applications: political activism (Germany), border control (Italy) and e-commerce (Romania). Details: Brussels: European Commission, 2014. 205p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 24, 2016 at: http://profiling-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Profiling_final_report_20141.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: http://profiling-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Profiling_final_report_20141.pdf Shelf Number: 137959 Keywords: Data ProtectionPrivacyProfilingRights |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Unleashed and Unaccountable: The FBI's Unchecked Abuse of Authority Summary: The Federal Bureau of Investigation serves a crucial role in securing the United States from criminals, terrorists, and hostile foreign agents. Just as importantly, the FBI also protects civil rights and civil liberties, ensures honest government, and defends the rule of law. Its agents serve around the country and around the world with a high degree of professionalism and competence, often under difficult and dangerous conditions. But throughout its history, the FBI has also regularly overstepped the law, infringing on Americans' constitutional rights while overzealously pursuing its domestic security mission. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress and successive attorneys general loosened many of the legal and internal controls that a previous generation had placed on the FBI to protect Americans' constitutional rights. As a result, the FBI is repeating mistakes of the past and is again unfairly targeting immigrants, racial and religious minorities, and political dissidents for surveillance, infiltration, investigation, and "disruption strategies." But modern technological innovations have significantly increased the threat to American liberty by giving today's FBI the capability to collect, store, and analyze data about millions of innocent Americans. The excessive secrecy with which it cloaks these domestic intelligence gathering operations has crippled constitutional oversight mechanisms. Courts have been reticent to challenge government secrecy demands and, despite years of debate in Congress regarding the proper scope of domestic surveillance, it took unauthorized leaks by a whistleblower to finally reveal the government's secret interpretations of these laws and the Orwellian scope of its domestic surveillance programs. There is evidence the FBI's increased intelligence collection powers have harmed, rather than aided,its terrorism prevention efforts by overwhelming agents with a flood of irrelevant data and false alarms. Former FBI Director William Webster evaluated the FBI's investigation of Maj. Nadal Hasan prior to the Ft. Hood shooting and cited the "relentless" workload resulting from a "data explosion" within the FBI as an impediment to proper intelligence analysis. And members of Congress questioned several other incidents in which the FBI investigated but failed to interdict individuals who later committed murderous terrorist attacks, including the Boston Marathon bombing. While preventing every possible act of terrorismis an impossible goal, an examination of these cases raise serious questions regardingthe efficacy of FBI methods. FBI data showing that more than half of the violent crimes, including over a third of the murders in the U.S. ,go unsolved each year calls for a broader analysis of the proper distribution of law enforcement resources. With the appointment of Director James Comey, the FBI has seen its first change in leadership sincethe 9/11 attacks, which provides an opportunity for Congress, the president, and the attorney general to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the FBI's policies and programs. This report highlights areas in which the FBI has abused its authority and recommends reforms to ensure the FBI fulfills its law enforcement and security mi ssions with proper public oversight and respect for constitutional rights and democratic ideals. The report describes major changes to law and policy that unleashed the FBI from its traditional restraints and opened the door to abuse. Congress enhanced many of the FBI's surveillance powers after 9/11, primarily through the USA Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments. Therecent revelations regarding the FBI'suse of Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act to track all U.S. telephone calls is only the latest in a long line of abuse. Five Justice Department Inspector General audits documented widespread FBI misuse of Patriot Act authorities in 2007 and 2008. Congress and the American public deserve to know the full scope of the FBI's spying on Americ ans under the Patriot Act and all other surveillance authorities. Details: New York: ACLU, 2013. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2016 at: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/unleashed-and-unaccountable-fbi-report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/unleashed-and-unaccountable-fbi-report.pdf Shelf Number: 130020 Keywords: Domestic TerrorismFBIFederal Bureau of InvestigationPatriot ActPolice AccountabilityPrivacySurveillance |
Author: Big Brother Watch Title: Are They Still Watching: The cost of CCTV in an era of cuts Summary: CCTV has been a mainstay of our streets and public spaces for over 20 years. 10 years ago the enthusiasm for CCTV led to the UK being classified as the most watched nation on earth. As ever where we lead, others follow, countless countries around the world are now installing cameras and surveilling their citizens. But what now for the UK, where are we currently at with this technology? Are we still rampantly installing CCTV or have we reached saturation point , and if not what might the future of street surveillance bring? Public space CCTV is maintained by a number of different bodies; the police, local authorities, private businesses and increasingly by private individuals. Local authorities use CCTV for crime detection and prevention, including watching pubs, clubs and bars at night, as well as monitoring the flow of people and traffic. Local authorities have historically been enthusiastic at installing CCTV on our streets. Between 1999 and 2012 the number of cameras installed by local authorities across the country jumped from 21,000 to over 51,000. In response to this Big Brother Watch used Freedom of Information requests to determine how much money was being spent on these systems. The report Price of Privacy (2012) revealed that between 2007 and 2011 local authorities spent $515 million installing, maintaining and monitoring CCTV cameras. A staggering sum. Five years on we present Are They Still Watching? an update of the figures outlining the money spent by local authorities on the CCTV systems between 2012 to 2015. Our findings show that nationally there has been a decrease in the money spent on the installation, maintenance and monitoring of CCTV. Whilst some parts of the country have scrapped their CCTV schemes altogether, other areas, notably London have reported over a 71% increase in CCTV coverage. Whilst we are pleased to see a reduction in spending on CCTV, we have to understand that the rationale behind the figures is not ideological. Local authorities have not suddenly woken up to privacy and acknowledged the intrusion CCTV causes. It is vital that we consider the financial pressures on local authorities during this period. It has been noted that in the 2015/2016 financial year alone, local authorities have been instructed to find $2.6 billion of savings2 we suspect therefore that our findings highlight the budgetary constraints and cuts in council coffers since 2010. Details: London: Big Brother Watch, 2016. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 14, 2016 at: https://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Are-They-Still-Watching.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Are-They-Still-Watching.pdf Shelf Number: 147876 Keywords: Closed Circuit TelevisionCosts of Criminal JusticePrivacySurveillanceSurveillance CamerasVideo Technology |
Author: Feeney, Matthew Title: Surveillance Takes Wing: Privacy in the Age of Police Drones Summary: Unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly referred to as "drones," are being used in a range of industries, including conservation, journalism, archeaology, and policing. (In this paper I will use the word "drone" to apply to unmanned aerial vehicles, excluding unmanned aquatic vehicles and terrestrial robots.) Law enforcement drones have clear benefits: allowing police to more easily find missing persons, suspects, and accident victims, for example. They also allow police to investigate dangerous situations such as bomb threats and toxic spills. Yet without strict controls on their use, drones could present a very serious threat to citizens' privacy. Regrettably, while the Supreme Court has tackled privacy issues amid the emergence of new technologies, the Court's rulings on aerial surveillance are not well suited for today, now that police are using drones. Fortunately, lawmakers at the state and federal levels can implement policies that allow police to take advantage of drones while protecting privacy. These policies should not only address familiar issues associated with searches, such as warrant requirements, but also relatively new concerns involving weaponization, biometric software, and surveillance technology. Such controls and regulations will allow police to do their job and prevent drones from being used as tools for secretive and needlessly intrusive surveillance Details: Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2016. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Analysis No. 807: Accessed February 7, 2017 at: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa807_1.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa807_1.pdf Shelf Number: 146014 Keywords: Criminal InvestigationsDronesPolice SurveillancePolice TechnologyPrivacy |
Author: Big Brother Watch Title: Smile you are on Body Worn Camera, Part 1 -- Local Authorities. How Councils are Using Body Worn Cameras Summary: Big Brother Watch has a long history of exposing the over-zealous use of surveillance powers by local authorities. Over the past 8 years we have found that local authorities have used counter terrorism powers to spy on dog owners, suspected fly tippers and even members of staff they employ to spot crime. We have revealed the thousands of officials able to enter our homes; often without a warrant, and we have lain bare the financial burden of CCTV on council coffers. Now in Smile you are on Body Worn Camera, Part 1 "Local Authorities, we reveal for the first time that: 54% of all local authorities across the UK are equipping members of staff or contractors with body worn cameras at a cost of £1,791,960.81. 66% of local authorities are failing to completing Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) before deploying the technology and 21% of councils are holding non-evidential footage for longer than 31 days; the time limit adhered to by police forces. Body worn cameras are the new tool in the surveillance arsenal. They can be deployed for multiple purposes often with little to no evidence that they are the right tool to solve the particular problem. Big Brother Watch is concerned that the rush to use body worn cameras by local authorities is not being scrutinised closely enough. When we consider that many councils have a poor track record of using heavy handed surveillance tactics and are often lackadaisical with their approach to protecting personal data, scrutiny of new capabilities should be a number one priority. We understand that deploying body worn cameras in order to protect staff from verbal or physical abuse may have validity; no member of staff should feel unsafe at work. But the decision by some councils to equip staff with the cameras in order to film people dropping litter, walking dogs, parking or to monitor people's recycling, in order to use the "evidence" to issue a fine, we would argue is a disproportionate use of an intrusive surveillance capability and a potential breach of the privacy of law abiding citizens. The privacy concerns which accompany the use of body worn cameras are two-fold. Firstly, the initial filming of people in a public space and secondly the retention of footage showing direct engagement between official and citizen, which includes a record of the citizens' face, voice, mannerisms and behaviours. Local authorities must ensure the technology is only deployed when proven to be absolutely necessary and completely proportionate to the problem they are trying to solve. Officials must then ensure the retention of any data adheres to the strongest safeguards in light of the potential sensitivity of the data being handled. If they fail to properly engage on the issue of privacy, if citizens feel as though they are being filmed for no good reason by unnecessarily intrusive officials or if stories are published which reveal poor data security, loss, breach or misuse of the footage then councils will face inevitable criticism and a public backlash. Details: London: Big Brother Watch, 2017. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2017 at: https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Smile-you-are-on-Body-Worn-Camera-Part-1-1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Smile-you-are-on-Body-Worn-Camera-Part-1-1.pdf Shelf Number: 141298 Keywords: Body-Worn CamerasCamerasPrivacySurveillance |
Author: Balkovich, Edward Title: Helping Law Enforcement Use Data from Mobile Applications A Guide to the Prototype Mobile Information and Knowledge Ecosystem (MIKE) Tool Summary: Consumer devices that automatically and unobtrusively collect data about their users, including cell phones and other mobile devices, are spreading. While these devices gather much data that is potentially helpful to law enforcement, they also complicate the interpretation of surveillance law and raise questions about privacy. Moreover, facilitating law enforcement understanding of and access to metadata may help law enforcement adjust practices as increased use of encryption decreases the availability of content information, even with appropriate legal permission. This report documents a prototype tool called MIKE (the Mobile Information and Knowledge Ecosystem) created to help interested stakeholders - law enforcement, commercial enterprises, regulators, legislators, and the public (including advocacy groups) - better understand the mobile app ecosystem and the relationships among the data, its sources, and applicable legal constraints. This volume describes the prototype, explains how it was developed, provides a manual for those who are interested in using it, and discusses how the prototype might be updated and extended. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2017. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2017 at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1482.html Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1482.html Shelf Number: 135335 Keywords: Information PrivacyInternetLaw EnforcementMobile DevicesMobile PhonesPolice TechnologyPrivacy |
Author: Newell, Bryce Clayton Title: Transparent Lives and the Surveillance State: Policing, New Visibility, and Information Policy Summary: In this dissertation, I utilize conceptual and legal analyses to explore the tensions between personal information privacy and public access to information implicated by government surveillance and citizen-initiated inverse surveillance efforts designed to cast the gaze back at the government, and ask what implications these conclusions have for individual freedom (defined as the absence of domination). I focus on police use of body-worn cameras (BWCs) and automated license plate recognition (ALPR) technologies, on one hand, and citizen-initiated recordings of police officers and freedom of information (FOI) requests for data collected by police BWCs and ALPR systems, on the other. My analysis draws upon republican political theory, philosophical and legal theories of privacy and free speech, the concept of "policing's new visibility" (Goldsmith, 2010), and various other theories of surveillance and reciprocal/inverse surveillance within the surveillance studies literature. I conduct doctrinal and descriptive legal research into relevant privacy and disclosure laws applicable within Washington State (USA); utilize legal and philosophical theories of privacy, freedom, and free speech to conduct an analysis of the values and value tensions implicated in these situations; and apply elements of Value Sensitive Design for similar conceptual and analytic purposes. Ultimately, I develop a theory of information policy that that accounts for tensions between personal information privacy rights and government disclosure of personally-identifiable information under state FOI law in Washington State, and I propose normative recommendations for improving law, public policy, and police department surveillance and disclosure policies related to these privacy and access concerns. Details: Seattle: University of Washington, 2015. 207p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed September 16, 2017 at: https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/33984/Newell_washington_0250E_14460.pdf?sequence=1 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/33984/Newell_washington_0250E_14460.pdf?sequence=1 Shelf Number: 147362 Keywords: Automated License Plate RecognitionBody-Worn CamerasCamerasPolice SurveillancePolice TechnologyPrivacy |
Author: Privacy International Title: Digital stop and search: how the UK police can secretly download everything from your mobile phone Summary: The 'Digital stop and search' report examines the use of 'mobile phone extraction' tools by the UK police, enabling them to download all of the content and data from people's phones. Privacy International have exposed a potentially unlawful regime operating with UK police forces, who are confused about the legal basis for the technology they are using. The police are acting without clear safeguards for the public, and no independent oversight to identify abuse and misuse of sensitive personal information. Seen in the light of ongoing issues of discrimination within the criminal justice system, this presents a serious cause for concern. Key statistics: 26 out of 47 police forces (55%) that we submitted Freedom of Information requests to admitted they are using mobile phone extraction technology. Out of the remaining 21 police forces (45%): Eight police forces (17%) have trialed or intend to trial this technology Thirteen police forces (28%) either failed to respond to our questions or stated they hold no information on the use of this technology The 'Digital Stop and Search' report includes eleven key recommendations including: There needs to be an urgent independent review into this widespread, intrusive but secretive practice; There should be a requirement for police to obtain a warrant for searching the contents of a mobile phone, issued on the basis of reasonable suspicion; The Home Office must publish guidance for the public, regarding their rights if the police want to search their mobile phone. Details: London: Privacy International, 2018. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2018 at: https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/Digital%20Stop%20and%20Search%20Report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/Digital%20Stop%20and%20Search%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 149746 Keywords: Digital PrivacyMobile PhonesPolice SurveillancePrivacy |
Author: Schwartz, David Title: Harnessing Power: Exploring Citizen's Use of Networked Technologies to Promote Police Accountability Summary: In this examination of citizen surveillance, I engage with Foucaultian and Deleuzian conceptualizations of surveillance, power, resistance, control, and desire, to explore the motivation(s) of community members who film and disseminate footage of the police. Methodologically, I conducted semi-structured interviews with community stakeholders to study the latent thematic ideas embedded in their responses. These themes represent the underlying motivational factors a citizen surveiller may have when filming the police. In my analysis of these themes, I explore: citizen surveillers' logic for resisting power; citizen surveillers' understandings of power; and, citizen surveillers' reported approaches to both passive and active forms of resistance. Subsequently, there appears to be an underlying desire for power and a resistance to power when filming the police. However, given the exploratory nature of this study, there is a need to continue investigating the theoretical and under substantiated claims about citizen surveillance and its association with race, gender and socio-economic status. Details: Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 2016. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed April 19, 2018 at: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/35338/1/Schwartz_David_2016_thesis.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/35338/1/Schwartz_David_2016_thesis.pdf Shelf Number: 149852 Keywords: Police AccountabilityPolice LegitimacyPolice TechnologyPrivacyVideo Surveillance |
Author: Hollywood, John Title: Emerging Technology Trends and Their Impact on Criminal Justice Summary: Key Findings The criminal-justice arena faces an abundance of information technology opportunities. However, important barriers, including a lack of business cases; a lack of implementation plans and procedures; and a lack of security, privacy, and civil-rights protections, hinder its ability to take advantage of those opportunities. Agencies need to develop business cases and common processes for implementing new technologies. Research is needed to improve sharing of criminal-justice technology among practitioners and researchers. To prevent misuse of new technologies, security, privacy, and civil-rights protections need to be incorporated into common processes for implementing those technologies. Materials need to be developed to educate the public about emerging criminal-justice technologies. Research is needed on changing organizational cultures to better support field-wide information-sharing and safeguarding. The technologies and practices with the most potential for improving both public safety and community relations need to be identified. Unintended consequences of new technologies must be assessed. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2018. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 25, 2018 at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9996.html Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9996.html Shelf Number: 150364 Keywords: Big Data Civil Rights Communications Law Enforcement Technology Police Technology Privacy |
Author: Big Brother Watch Title: Face Off: The lawless growth of facial recognition in UK policing Summary: Facial recognition has long been feared as a feature of a future authoritarian society, with its potential to turn CCTV cameras into identity checkpoints, creating a world where citizens are intensively watched and tracked. However, facial recognition is now a reality in the UK - despite the lack of any legal basis or parliamentary scrutiny, and despite the significant concerns raised by rights and race equality groups. This new technology poses an unprecedented threat to citizens' privacy and civil liberties, and could fundamentally undermine the rights we enjoy in public spaces. Police forces in the UK have rolled out automatic facial recognition at a pace unlike any other democratic nation in the world. Leicestershire Police, South Wales Police and the Metropolitan Police have deployed this technology at shopping centres, festivals, sports events, concerts, community events - and even a peaceful demonstration. One police force even used the surveillance tool to keep innocent people with mental health issues away from a public event. In this report, we explain how facial recognition technology works, how it is being used by police in the UK, and how it risks reshaping our rights. We are seeking to raise awareness of this growing issue with parliamentarians and inform the wider public about what is happening behind the cameras. In this report, we: - Reveal new statistics following a series of freedom of information requests, exposing the shocking inaccuracy and likely unlawful practices within a number of police forces using automated facial recognition; - Analyse the legal and human rights implications of the police's use of facial recognition in the UK; - Review the evidence that facial recognition algorithms often disproportionately misidentify minority ethnic groups and women; - Present guest contributions from allies worldwide warning about the impact of facial recognition on rights, including contributions from representatives of American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Georgetown Privacy Centre, and the Race Equality Foundation; We conclude by launching our campaign against the lawless growth of facial recognition in the UK, supported by rights groups, race equality groups, technologists, lawyers and parliamentarians. Details: London: Big Brother Watch, 2018. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2018 at: https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Face-Off-final-digital-1.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Face-Off-final-digital-1.pdf Shelf Number: 150405 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceCriminal IdentificationFacial RecognitionHuman Rights AbusesPolice TechnologyPrivacy |
Author: Smith, Gwen Chisholm Title: Legal Implications of Video Surveillance on Transit Systems Summary: TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Legal Research Digest 52: Legal Implications of Video Surveillance on Transit Systems explores the use of video surveilance systems on buses, trains, and stations. The widespread use of such video surveillance systems has generated numerous legal issues, such as a system's ability to utilize video to discipline union and non-union employees, safety issues associated with such use, public access to such video, and retention policies regarding video, among others. This digest explores federal and state laws to address these issues, along with the current practices employed by transit agencies to comply with those laws. Details: Washington, DC: Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2018. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Legal Research Digest 52: Accessed June 30, 2018 at: https://www.nap.edu/download/25055 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.nap.edu/download/25055 Shelf Number: 1500747 Keywords: PrivacyTransit CrimeTransit SystemsTransportationTransportation Safety Transportation SecurityVideo Surveillance |
Author: Bier, David J. Title: Drones on the Border: Efficacy and Privacy Implications Summary: In response to President Donald Trumps call for a border wall, some members of Congress have instead offered a "virtual wall"-ocean-to-ocean border surveillance with technology, especially unmanned aircraft known as drones. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) already operates a fleet of nine unmanned aircraft. Although drones have been widely used in foreign battlefields, they have failed to help CBP apprehend illegal border crossers and seize drugs. Drones have led to only 0.5 percent of apprehensions at a cost of $32,000 per arrest. At the same time, drones undermine Americans' privacy. Their surveillance records the daily lives of Americans living along the border, and because CBP regularly uses its drones to support the operations of other federal agencies as well as state and local police, its drones allow for government surveillance nationwide with minimal oversight and without warrants. CBP should wind down its drone program and, in the meantime, establish more robust privacy protections. Details: Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2018. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 9, 2018 at: https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/drones-border-efficacy-privacy-implications Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irpb_5.pdf Shelf Number: 151453 Keywords: Border Control Customs and Border Protection Drones Drug Control Illegal Immigration Immigration Privacy |