At 1:58 +0000 4/3/11, Clive Norris wrote:
> ... Im less concerned with how these cameras undermine our privacy
>- but the extent they reinforce social exclusion. If im a young
>black male , I probably dont give a toss about might privacy rights
>- but I care deeply that the security guard says I can't enter the
>Mall.
Agreed. And there are quite a few bases for unreasonable
discrimination, including age, gender, age and gender combined (young
males), disability, religious garb (burqa, Hare Krishna outfits),
down-at-heel garb (itinerants, 'gypsies'), as well as specifically
racial factors.
Some aspects are not surveillance issues as such, e.g. if the
security guards are targeting without justification, indulging in
voyeurism, etc., then other controls are needed - and of course
sousveillance may be a useful countermeasure. (As a US poster to
another list pointed out, 3 Mar was 20 years to the day that the LAPD
was outed over the Rodney King incident).
To the extent that CCTV *is* the issue, however, I submit that the 10
Principles are as applicable to discrimination as to privacy:
[APF] Policy Statement re Visual Surveillance, incl. CCTV
http://www.privacy.org.au/Papers/CCTV-1001.html
Feedback on that proposition would be valued (on- or off-list of course).
It could be that we should be trying to float the 'ownership' of the
draft off into some broader context, rather than sitting it inside
just one organisation that's inherently limited by geography and by
human-value.
(Case Study: APF is currently arm-in-arm with a range of healthcare
consumer groups that are working for meaningful consumer advocacy
involvement in eHealth Records in Oz. So we have a sequence of
documents - written by various organisations - which deal with
Consumer Aspirations first, Consumer Concerns second, Privacy
Concerns third, and Governance Issues in a fourth chapter).
_______________________________________________________________________
>> Very large numbers of these installations resulted from knee-jerk
>>reactions to current security concerns, were not subject to careful
>>evaluation, lack the associated infrastructure and resources, and
>>demonstrably don't make significant contributions to security.
>>
>> Yet, whether or not they make much in the way of positive
>>contributions, they bring with them privacy threats that are both
>>specific (leakage of personal data, inconvenience and worse arising
>>from false positives) and generic (chilling effect); and in many
>>cases those privacy threats are subject to seriously inadequate
>>safeguards.
>>
>> Do we have a citizen / consumer / employee Standard in place that
>>can be used to assess existing installations and proposals for new
>>and changed installations, and to guide organisations undertaking
>>their own assessments?
>>
>> Here's one proposal for such a Standard:
>> APF Policy Statement re Visual Surveillance, incl. CCTV
>> http://www.privacy.org.au/Papers/CCTV-1001.html
--
Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:[log in to unmask] http://www.xamax.com.au/
Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre Uni of NSW
Visiting Professor in Computer Science Australian National University
****************************************************
This is a message from the SURVEILLANCE listserv
for research and teaching in surveillance studies.
To unsubscribe, please send the following message to
<[log in to unmask]>:
UNSUBSCRIBE SURVEILLANCE
For further help, please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help
****************************************************
|