The Internet and related information and communication technologies (ICTs) are being integrated into everyday life and work in a growing number of nations. Roughly a third of the world’s population has access to the Internet, with more than 80 percent of the global online population participating on one or more social networking sites. Mobile phones subscriptions worldwide, which are increasingly converging around Internet infrastructures and services, have almost reached the six billion mark. The consequences of these trends include growth in electronic commerce, which is rising at double-digit rates internationally, and changes in patterns of information consumption and creation.As a result of this, Internet stakeholders ranging from governments to civil organizations, to businesses and industries have become increasingly concerned about issues of online privacy, trust, security, and freedom on a more global scale. Much has been written about national policies around the world, but less is known about cross-national comparative differences from the perspective of Internet users. How are individuals experiencing change in their expectations and concerns surrounding such issues as their control over personal information, the credibility of information sources, the safety of their information, and their ability to expres
A tool that critical infrastructure protection specialist Michael Lisovich developed over the last year and a half in the basement of Lejeune Hall is now in use at Quantico Marine Corps base and generating interest across the Department of Defense.
The product is the web-based Installation Common Operational Picture, a sort of living “super map” that combines a slew of information about the base — from emergency dispatch and crime reports to potholes and the weather — and changes in real time, as conditions change on the ground.
In fact, while much eﬀort has been expended on analysing video surveillance as a tool of social sorting, there is a current lack of research regarding the spatial logics and characteristics of CCTV. Before targeting speciﬁc social groups or individuals, the installation points of the cameras, their technical features (zoom, angle of vision, etc.), their direction while unattended and the active manipulations of their position by camera operators are ﬁrst and foremost related to speciﬁc portions of space. Individuals or social groups are monitored once they enter the cameras’ gaze. Social behaviour is of interest only within the cameras’ premises. As a limited window to the city, video surveillance must thus above all be considered as ‘surveillance of space’.
The tech world has finally woken up to the safety and privacy risks in the app economy. Path’s silent address book mining sparked widespread outrage, and has had ripples for lots of web services and mobile apps that had, until now, seen as “industry best practice” the long-term retention and mining of customers’ contacts (UPDATE: more on Big Tech’s repeated privacy stumbles – including privacy-trashing kids’ apps – from the New York Times’ Nick Bilton). In the report I led for WITNESS last year, Cameras Everywhere, we pinpointed these practices as a massive potential vulnerability for human rights activists and for citizens and consumers more broadly (see p.27, Recommendation 2) . We specifically suggested that technology companies should take this stewardship seriously, and:
Follow the principle of privacy by design, and for products already in circulation, privacy by default. This is particularly important for products, apps and services that share this data with third parties that may not exercise the same diligence.
This might include revising the terms under which app developers can participate in App Stores for different platforms – for example, by issuing new guidelines requiring that third-party developers follow industry-class privacy practices – or it could even involve providing app developers with off-the-shelf privacy solutions directly. (WITNESS itself is a partner in ObscuraCam and InformaCam, Android apps that demonstrate privacy and human rights-sensitive ways to handle data, particularly visual data, generated by mobile phones.) Many app developers creating iOS, Android or other apps are small shops that have few staff, and no legal or privacy counsel to help them navigate tricky waters. What’s more, they are scattered in many jurisdictions that have extremely varied data protection laws and requirements. Frankly, it’s a no-brainer that they need help and guidance. (Update: I want to thank publicly Jules Polonetsky of the Future of Privacy Forum for pointing us along this path of inquiry during a research interview for Cameras Everywhere. Very exciting to see that he is involved in driving forward better industry-wide practices with the Application Privacy Summit in April 2012.)
We have made the argument for greater privacy protections in the app economy publicly and in private to the major technology companies, as well as app developers, VCs and policy-makers – we felt that it’s a central and intimate issue not just to activists, but to any and all users. We didn’t get much traction – we’re not technologists, and maybe the solutions we outline are inelegant or technically problematic, but that doesn’t mean the problem is a phantom one.
I hope that this recent upsurge in attention and scrutiny provides a window for companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, Twitter and Blackberry to realise that the concern is a real one (just as Apple did with mobile tracking data, for example), and to re-examine how their app ecosystems work. Ultimately, they need to take more responsibility for their app users’ privacy and safety, even if those apps are designed and built by third-parties elsewhere in the world – after all, only they really have the leverage, authority and know-how to make the app economy a safer place for us all.