Anonymous subject identification and privacy information management in video surveillance

The widespread deployment of surveillance cameras has raised serious privacy concerns, and many privacy-enhancing schemes have been recently proposed to automatically redact images of selected individuals in the surveillance video for protection. Of equal importance are the privacy and efficiency of techniques to first, identify those individuals for privacy protection and second, provide access to original surveillance video contents for security analysis. In this paper, we propose an anonymous subject identification and privacy data management system to be used in privacy-aware video surveillance. The anonymous subject identification system uses iris patterns to identify individuals for privacy protection. Anonymity of the iris-matching process is guaranteed through the use of a garbled-circuit (GC)-based iris matching protocol. A novel GC complexity reduction scheme is proposed by simplifying the iris masking process in the protocol. A user-centric privacy information management system is also proposed that allows subjects to anonymously access their privacy information via their iris patterns. The system is composed of two encrypted-domain protocols: The privacy information encryption protocol encrypts the original video records using the iris pattern acquired during the subject identification phase; the privacy information retrieval protocol allows the video records to be anonymously retrieved through a GC-based iris pattern matching process. Experimental results on a public iris biometric database demonstrate the validity of our framework

Public Attitudes Towards Surveillance and Privacy in Croatia

This paper investigates public attitudes towards surveillance and privacy in Croatia. It segments the respondents based on their views on surveillance and privacy, and examines differences between them with regard to their demographic characteristics. The empirical analysis is based on data obtained from a public opinion survey. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, Cronbach alpha calculation, chi-square test, and cluster analysis. The factor analysis showed six distinct factors: (1) perceived surveillance effectiveness, (2) concern about being surveilled, (3) trust in privacy protection procedures, (4) concern about CCTV privacy intrusion, (5) concern about personal data manipulation, and (6) a need for surveillance enforcement. K-means cluster analysis indicated the following three groups of citizens: pro-surveillance oriented citizens, citizens concerned about being surveilled, and citizens concerned about data and privacy protection. Significant differences between the groups were found in age and education, while no significant differences exist in gender, employment status, and household income. The findings of this study support the existence of different groups of citizens regarding their attitudes towards surveillance and privacy.surveillance, privacy concern, public opinion, segmentation, demographic characteristics, Croatia

The challenge to privacy from ever increasing state surveillance: a comparative perspective

This article explores how internet surveillance in the name of counterterrorism challenges privacy. Introduction International terrorism poses serious threats to the societies it affects. The counter-terrorism measures adopted since 2001 have sought to limit the advance of terrorism but, in the process, also created enormous challenges for (transnational) constitutionalism. Long-held and cherished principles relating to democracy, the rule of law and the protection of a wide range of human rights have come under increasing strain. Legislative authority to shoot down hijacked aircrafts or to use lethal drones against suspected terrorists affect the right to life; waterboarding of prisoners and other inhumane practices contravene the prohibition of torture; extraordinary renditions and black sites circumvent constitutionally protected rights and processes, including the right to freedom and security, the right to a fair trial and due process for suspected terrorists; ill-defined terrorism offences undermine the rule of law and personal freedom; blanket suspicion of Muslims as terror sympathisers impacts on freedom of religion and leads to unfair discrimination; and mass surveillance of communication sweeps away the right to privacy. This article explores how internet surveillance in the name of counterterrorism challenges privacy. In Part II, the article analyses the international dimension of counter-terrorism measures and the conceptualisation of data protection and privacy in the European Union (‘EU’), the United States of America (‘US’) and Australia. Part III compares the different concepts of data protection and privacy, and explores the prospects of an international legal framework for the protection of privacy. Part IV concludes that work on international data protection and privacy standards, while urgently needed, remains a long-term vision with particularly uncertain prospects as far as antiterrorism and national security measures are concerned

Workplace surveillance, privacy protection, and efficiency wages

Consider an employer who wants her employee to work hard. As is well known from the e.ciency wage literature, the employer must pay the (wealth-constrained) employee a positive rent to provide incentives for exerting unobservable e.ort. Alternatively, the employer could make effort observable by costly workplace surveillance. It is argued that a privacy protection law preventing surveillance may increase the total surplus. While such a law reduces the employer’s profit, this loss can be overcompensated by the employee’s gain, because the employer invests in surveillance not only to implement higher effort, but also to reduce the employee’s rent.Privacy protection laws; workplace surveillance; moral hazard

Security v Privacy in the Context of Surveillance Measures – Creating “Glass Citizens”

During the last decades states have internationally increased their surveillance measures. Surveillance has become increasingly systematic and integrated in our everyday life. This development was intensified by several terror attacks, specifically the event of 9/11. Surveillance by the state always comes along with the intrusion of privacy rights of individuals. Both privacy and security are essential for a functioning society. To find the right balance between the two interests and to uphold the protection of privacy rights when the threat of terror seems to justify increasingly intrusive measures is difficult but of great importance. This paper looks at two examples of legislations that increased states possibilities for surveillance and how the balance between security and privacy was struck in those legislations. It compares the degree of protection given to privacy rights in a state with a codified constitution, Germany, and in a state with no codified constitution, New Zealand

Unlocking the “Virtual Cage” of Wildlife Surveillance

The electronic surveillance of wildlife has grown more extensive than ever. For instance, thousands of wolves wear collars transmitting signals to wildlife biologists. Some collars inject wolves with tranquilizers that allow for their immediate capture if they stray outside of the boundaries set by anthropocentric management policies. Hunters have intercepted the signals from surveillance collars and have used this information to track and slaughter the animals. While the ostensible reason for the surveillance programs is to facilitate the peaceful coexistence of humanity and wildlife, the reality is less benign—an outdoor version of Bentham’s Panopticon. This Article reconceptualizes the enterprise of wildlife surveillance. Without suggesting that animals have standing to assert constitutional rights, the Article posits a public interest in protecting the privacy of wildlife. The very notion of wildness implies privacy. The law already protects the bodily integrity of animals to some degree, and a protected zone of privacy is penumbral to this core protection, much the same way that human privacy emanates from narrower guarantees against government intrusion. Policy implications follow that are akin to the rules under the Fourth Amendment limiting the government’s encroachment on human privacy. Just as the police cannot install a wiretap without demonstrating a particularized investigative need for which all less intrusive methods would be insufficient, so too should surveillance of wildlife necessitate a specific showing of urgency. A detached, neutral authority should review all applications for electronic monitoring of wildlife. Violati ons of the rules should result in substantial sanctions. The Article concludes by considering—and refuting—foreseeable objections to heightened requirements for the surveillance of wildlife

Technology and the Right to Privacy: The Convergence of Surveillance and Information Privacy Concerns

While the privacy concerns raised by advances in surveillance and information technologies are widely recognized, recent developments have led to a convergence of these technologies in many situations, presenting new challenges to the right to privacy. This Note examines this convergence of surveillance and information technologies and its potential impact on individual privacy interests. The Note first discusses the right to privacy, personal information, and surveillance technology separately, noting ways that new technologies create privacy concerns. The Note then describes the merging of surveillance and information technologies and the resulting convergence of two formerly distinct privacy issues. Finally, the Note examines existing protections for privacy, considers why they are insufficient, and proposes measures to enhance the constitutional protection of privacy interests to address these new technologies

Efficient Anonymous Biometric Matching in Privacy-Aware Environments

Video surveillance is an important tool used in security and environmental monitoring, however, the widespread deployment of surveillance cameras has raised serious privacy concerns. Many privacy-enhancing schemes have been recently proposed to automatically redact images of selected individuals in the surveillance video for protection. To identify these individuals for protection, the most reliable approach is to use biometric signals as they are immutable and highly discriminative. If misused, these characteristics of biometrics can seriously defeat the goal of privacy protection. In this dissertation, an Anonymous Biometric Access Control (ABAC) procedure is proposed based on biometric signals for privacy-aware video surveillance. The ABAC procedure uses Secure Multi-party Computational (SMC) based protocols to verify membership of an incoming individual without knowing his/her true identity. To make SMC-based protocols scalable to large biometric databases, I introduce the k-Anonymous Quantization (kAQ) framework to provide an effective and secure tradeoff of privacy and complexity. kAQ limits systems knowledge of the incoming individual to k maximally dissimilar candidates in the database, where k is a design parameter that controls the amount of complexity-privacy tradeoff. The relationship between biometric similarity and privacy is experimentally validated using a twin iris database. The effectiveness of the entire system is demonstrated based on a public iris biometric database. To provide the protected subjects with full access to their privacy information in video surveillance system, I develop a novel privacy information management system that allows subjects to access their information via the same biometric signals used for ABAC. The system is composed of two encrypted-domain protocols: the privacy information encryption protocol encrypts the original video records using the iris pattern acquired during ABAC procedure; the privacy information retrieval protocol allows the video records to be anonymously retrieved through a GC-based iris pattern matching process. Experimental results on a public iris biometric database demonstrate the validity of my framework

Looking out for Your Employees: Employers\u27 Surreptitious Physical Surveillance of Employees and the Tort of Invasion of Privacy

The case included many of the classic issues involving the tort of invasion of privacy, such as: In which places does a person have a right of privacy? If a person is in an area that can be viewed by others, does he or she at least have the right to not be photographed or videotaped under certain circumstances? Does it matter that image-enhancing equipment, such as a telephoto lens, is used? Is the purpose of the surveillance relevant? This Article addresses such issues with respect to employers conducting surreptitious physical surveillance of employees. Although such surveillance might, under certain circumstances, be prohibited by any one of a hodgepodge of non-tort sources, including the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, federal legislation, state constitutions, state legislation, and contract law, such sources usually do not apply. The Fourth Amendment restricts only government actors, federal legislation prohibits only surveillance that interferes with employees\u27 self-organizing efforts and activities, state constitutional privacy provisions usually restrain only government actors, few states have enacted legislation prohibiting surveillance, and contract law offers little protection because most employees are employed on an at-will basis without employment contracts prohibiting surveillance. Thus, the tort of invasion of privacy remains the bedrock protection against unwarranted surveillance. In Part II of this Article, I address why an employer might want to conduct surreptitious physical surveillance of its employees. In Part III, I provide a brief history of the tort of invasion of privacy. In Part IV, I review cases involving the tort as applied to employers\u27 surreptitious physical surveillance of employees and distill bright-line rules from such cases. In Part V, in response to critics of existing law who seek to expand privacy rights (and, in particular, employee privacy rights), I argue that there are insufficient reasons for judicially modifying the rules currently being applied by the courts with respect to employers\u27 surreptitious physical surveillance of employees