Dear Clive:
You write: 'My point is that if we talk about about CCTV primarily in
relation to issues of privacy,and data protection, then we tend to
underemphasise
its social sorting effects.'
This is an empirical statement about discourse, not a statement of
what necessarily of logically has to happen. It depends on who 'we'
are and what 'we' choose to talk about. Some of us have tried to talk
about both, and maybe if more of us did so then the discourse will
change.
You also wrote (with wonderful spelling):
'social exclusion has proved an ellusive concept for the ICO to graple within
their data protection remit.'
I agree, up to a point. If you look carefully at written and oral
statements, you will find that the ICO in recent years has talked
about social effects and not just privacy effects. I won't credit
myself with having effected this change (if it's a real change) but
recent Commissioners did get the message and so did other ICO people.
But as you imply, they are constrained by a law that limits their
remit to individual privacy, so don't expect full discussions of
social sorting. Limits also come from a legal system in which class
actions play little, if any, part, although there are some glimmerings
from various quarters that this is opening up for debate and
reconsideration - a space that should be watched. Another interesting
thing is that the UK DPA 1998 eschews the term 'privacy' and
government refused to grant the Commissioner te title of 'Privacy
Commissioner', yet ICO Commissioners do overtly acknowledge that they
are in the privacy protection business. That may open gateways to
innovative approaches. It may depend partly on how that is reinforced.
Our SSN reports have, I believe, helped, and as you know they have ben
warmly endorsed by the current and previous ICO Commissioner.
You also wrote:
'In Britain, at least, it would appear that the data protection regime
has facilitated, rather than restricted the growth of camera based
surveillance.'
This needs evidence, and an indication of whether ? if it is so ? it
might be the effect of the law or the decisions of the ICO; or indeed,
whether their institutional position inhibits them from having an
influence on the policies that have stimulated CCTV growth.
I must end this message now because other tasks await me. But this
could be a fruitful dialogue.
Best wishes.
Charles
Quoting Clive Norris <[log in to unmask]>:
> Thanks Charles,
>
> My point is that if we talk about about CCTV primarily in relation
> to issues of privacy,and data protection, then we tend to
> underemphasise its social sorting effects. In Britain, at least, it
> would appear that the data protection regime has facilitated, rather
> than restricted the growth of camera based surveillance, and that
> social exclusion has proved an ellusive concept for the ICO to
> graple within their data protection remit.
>
> C
> On 04/03/2011 07:28, Charles Raab wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues:
>>
>> The Gerrard report on CCTV cameras (which I haven't yet read; where
>> can it be found?) was spun in different ways in the UK yesterday.
>> Gerrard himself didn't seek to rubbish the 4.2 million figure or
>> its provenance, and (I recall) said that a 'numbers game' was
>> beside the point. The BBC however was saying, in effect, 'new
>> research shows that it's not as bad as all that, and we aren't
>> quite so subject to surveillance as we had been led to believe'. I
>> think other media played up the excessive ubiquity of CCTV. Well,
>> we do still have media pluralism in the UK.
>>
>> As for privacy and/or discrimination, the issue is certainly both,
>> and an important key (but not the only key, for there needs to be a
>> separate analysis of the effects of surveillance on other values
>> besides privacy) to countering the latter is through the rules and
>> principles developed to protect the former. The Australian CCTV
>> document that Roger points to embodies principles that can't help
>> referring to the question of privacy, and in fact to a large extent
>> can be mapped onto, or be derived from, well-known privacy
>> principles. So, too, can a very large proportion of Gary Marx's
>> renowned 'ethics for the new surveillance' principles. We should
>> not suppose that any particular person probably doesn't care about
>> her privacy (this is also a non-empirical fallacy committed by
>> those who see little danger in social networking behaviour),
>> although it might not be the only thing she cares about with regard
>> to CCTV or other surveillance techniques.
>>
>> Moreover, privacy law doesn't only operate when the individual
>> 'cares about' privacy, else we wouldn't have rules and regulatory
>> agencies (for all their faults) that don't depend on whether you or
>> I happen to want our privacy protected in any given situation. It's
>> a matter of public policy, declaring that privacy should be
>> protected. We shouldn't throw the privacy regulatory baby out with
>> the bath-water, because ? for all its shortcomings in
>> implementation ? when linked to human rights law, it is one of the
>> main resources for safeguarding individuals and society in this
>> field. I am currently writing on this with regard to privacy impact
>> assessment, based on what was said in the SSN's 2006 SSN report to
>> the UK Information Commissioner, which I helped to write (see Part
>> D).
>>
>> The SSN 2006 report said there 'may be' 4.2 million cameras, rather
>> than declaring that there were in fact 4.2 million. The House of
>> Lords report on 'Surveillance: Citizens and the State' (2009), with
>> which I had something to do, was careful to say that it was
>> difficult to say how many cameras there were but pointed to the
>> estimate of over 4 million. I'm glad that both these reports
>> refrained from making definite assertions, and especially glad now
>> that we have Gerrard's figures (themselves an estimate but based on
>> what looks like better methods).
>>
>> Charles Raab
>>
>>
>> Quoting Roger Clarke <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>> 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
>>> ****************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
****************************************************
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
****************************************************
|