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

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

Big Data\u27s Other Privacy Problem

Big Data has not one privacy problem, but two. We are accustomed to talking about surveillance of data subjects. But Big Data also enables disconcertingly close surveillance of its users. The questions we ask of Big Data can be intensely revealing, but, paradoxically, protecting subjects\u27 privacy can require spying on users. Big Data is an ideology of technology, used to justify the centralization of information and power in data barons, pushing both subjects and users into a kind of feudal subordination. This short and polemical essay uses the Bloomberg Terminal scandal as a window to illuminate Big Data\u27s other privacy problem

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

Searching Eyes: Privacy, the State, and Disease Surveillance in America – By Amy L. Fairchild, Ronald Bayer, and James Colgrove

Review of Searching Eyes: Privacy, the State, and Disease Surveillance in America – By Amy L. Fairchild, Ronald Bayer, and James Colgrov

Being private in the surveillance society : the concept of privacy in the age of terror, CCTV and electronic surveillance

Abstract: Defending the right to privacy is a growing concern in modern society as surveillance, as a formidable weapon in the “war on terror”, becomes more intrusive with every passing year. In order to effectively defend the right to privacy one must know what privacy actually is. Privacy does not have one universal definition, but is a concept that has evolved though varied socio-cultural and historical circumstances, and is constantly being re-contextualised. This paper aims to discuss and compare various conceptions of privacy, and the right to privacy, with a focus on challenges brought about by technological developments and surveillance. In addition it aims to analyse the implications of surveillance on the right to privacy, with a particular emphasis on video surveillance. In order to reach these goals the paper compares and discusses various academic conceptualisations of privacy, and analyses the discourse surrounding two examples of video surveillance, CCTV coverage of London and the use of covert video surveillance against Arne Treholt, a former bureau chief of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Many varied aspects of privacy are considered, with emphasis placed onto two distinct conceptions of privacy; an inherent-value based conception which views privacy as a goal in itself, which is necessary for full human development, and an exchange based conception which views privacy in terms of an exchange, where personal data is disclosed in return for societal goods and benefits. Privacy is conceived as the control of one’s own personal data at the most basic level, while surveillance is the process of recording private data; they are antagonistic contradictions. Using the examples, the paper attempts to reconcile surveillance with privacy; an exchange conception of privacy can accept derogations to the right to privacy in return for more security, although only if based upon a fair exchange, something the video surveillance regimes in the example likely do not provide. The paper concludes with some policy recommendations regarding increased regulation and transparency of surveillance

Legal Archetypes and Metadata Collection

In discussions of state surveillance, the values of privacy and security are often set against one another, and people often ask whether privacy is more important than national security.2 I will argue that in one sense privacy is more important than national security. Just what more important means is its own question, though, so I will be more precise. I will argue that national security rationales cannot by themselves justify some kinds of encroachments on individual privacy (including some kinds that the United States has conducted). Specifically, I turn my attention to a recent, well publicized, and recently amended statute (section 215 of the USA Patriot Act3), a surveillance program based on that statute (the National Security Agency’s bulk metadata collection program), and a recent change to that statute that addresses some of the public controversy surrounding the surveillance program (the USA Freedom Act).4 That process (a statute enabling surveillance, a program abiding by that statute, a public controversy, and a change in the law) looks like a paradigm case of law working as it should; but I am not so sure. While the program was plausibly legal, I will argue that it was morally and legally unjustifiable. Specifically, I will argue that the interpretations of section 215 that supported the program violate what Jeremy Waldron calls “legal archetypes,”5 and that changes to the law illustrate one of the central features of legal archetypes and violation of legal archetypes. The paper proceeds as follows: I begin in Part 1 by setting out what I call the “basic argument” in favor of surveillance programs. This is strictly a moral argument about the conditions under which surveillance in the service of national security can be justified. In Part 2, I turn to section 215 and the bulk metadata surveillance program based on that section. I will argue that the program was plausibly legal, though based on an aggressive, envelope-pushing interpretation of the statute. I conclude Part 2 by describing the USA Freedom Act, which amends section 215 in important ways. In Part 3, I change tack. Rather than offering an argument for the conditions under which surveillance is justified (as in Part 1), I use the discussion of the legal interpretations underlying the metadata program to describe a key ambiguity in the basic argument, and to explain a distinct concern in the program. Specifically that it undermines a legal archetype. Moreover, while the USA Freedom Act does not violate legal archetypes, and hence meets a condition for justifiability, it helps illustrate why the bulk metadata program did violate archetypes

Surveillance and Privacy

The right to privacy has been central to democratic society since its inception. In turbulent times, the desire for enhanced national security is often seen to trump an individual\u27s right to privacy. Along with laws permitting expanded government control over the lives of its people, technology has increased the potential for surveillance of the average citizen. This project reviews the concept of privacy rights and the history of privacy. Secondly, it examines the changes to privacy rights that have occurred due to recent events, and evaluate if any significant enhancement to security is thereby achieved. Finally, it provides recommendations on how personal and public security can be enhanced while remaining sensitive to privacy considerations