Bakir, Vian

English

Bakir, V.

Bangor University: eBangor / Prifysgol Bangor

DATA-PSST! Debating and Assessing Transparency Arrangements – Privacy, Security, Sur/Sous/Veillance, Trust 
http://data-psst.bangor.ac.uk/index.php.en 
 
 
 
Transparency Today: 
Exploring the Adequacy of 
Sur/Sous/Veillance Theory 
and Practice  
6 January 2015 
 
 
 
 
Seminar Summary 
This summary is based on detailed seminar summaries provided by PhD students Abigail 
Blyth, Aberystwyth University; George Petry, University of South Wales; and Tiewtiwa 
Tanalekhapat, Aberystwyth University 
  
Introduction by Dr Vian Bakir and Dr Andrew McStay: The seminar began with an in-
depth discussion of three types of transparency; two originally identified by Bentham: 
Liberal and Radical Transparency, and one coined by McStay, that appears increasingly 
pertinent to today’s society: Forced Transparency, or transparency without consent or 
choice.  
 
Keynote 1: Professor Steve Mann, University of Toronto, introduced some key concepts, 
including sousveillance, surveillance, equiveillance, and priveillance. Mann argues that 
surveillance is hypocritical, centralised, secretive and corrupt whereas sousveillance has 
integrity, openness and is distributed. He predicted a time in the future when an 
‘equiveillance point’ will be reached with an equal number of cameras carrying out 
surveillance, and the same amount of cameras being used by the public as wearable 
media carrying out sousveillant activity. This will, he argues, in due course lead back to a 
situation where everyone is wearing cameras, thereby negating the need for, and 
legitimacy of, surveillance. Slides are available on: 
http://wearcam.org/html5/mannkeynotes/priveillance.htm 
 
In the lively Roundtable on Sousveillance that followed, the group discussed whether the 
continued focus on the visual aspects (i.e. the ‘veillance’ part) of surveillance was 
legitimate. Recent events such as the Edward Snowden revelations has shown that 
surveillance encompasses much more, including an examination of mass data – 
dataveillance – and sousveillance might not be able to fully counter that surveillance. The 
discussion then turned to the possibility of having sousveillant data transmigrate into 
surveillant data, if it falls into the wrong hands; the commodification of data, and the 
issues of ‘dark corners of power’ that fall beyond the reaches of sousveillance. The legal 
and technological aspects, including the law’s fairly limited interpretation of the right to 
privacy, and issues of encryption and ‘making sense’ of big data, were discussed at length. 
 
Keynote 2: Professor Kirstie Ball, Open University, highlighted the blurring of the lines 
between the state and the private sector in national security matters. To protect national 
security, the UK Border Agency created an obligation on airlines to provide a securitised 
DATA-PSST! Debating and Assessing Transparency Arrangements – Privacy, Security, Sur/Sous/Veillance, Trust 
http://data-psst.bangor.ac.uk/index.php.en 
data flow of passport information of those booked on planes, and taking flights. By 
reflecting on the concept of transparency from the research project, Ball addresses the 
notion of transparency veillance, in which transparency consequently has become 
multilayered and politicised.  She argues that to securitise something is to render it 
dangerous, and commercial activities are generally shot through with insecurities. 
 
The Roundtable on Surveillance began with a scintillating short presentation on the work 
of PlanetLabs - https://www.planet.com/ - a satellite imaging company. This further 
highlighted the role of the private sector in the collection and dissemination of data and 
how they interact with respective national legislation in this field. PlanetLabs is based in 
the USA and the US Government has the ability to access their satellite images and equally 
to stop them to photographing certain areas of the world. From an intelligence studies 
perspective, this continues to raise questions in relation to the interaction between 
governments and private companies when matters of national security are involved. It 
also highlights the problematical debate witnessed within the UK Intelligence and Security 
Committee’s Annual Reports on accountability over matters concerning national security. 
Some discussion ensued on whether the dichotomy between surveillance and 
sousveillance remains useful given the uncertainty of data flows regardless of their origin.  
 
Policy Recommendations 
1. There is a need for politics students, academics, and professionals to be 
technologically aware as well as for computer science and engineering students, 
academics, and professionals to be politically aware as disciplines continue to 
intersect. 
2. Those involved in data creation and storage need to be mindful of the possibility of 
that data being misused, intercepted, or commodified by others – with or without 
their consent. Users need to consider how data can be controlled and accessed, 
and what use can be made of data once created. 
3. Governments must be aware of the implications of outsourcing surveillance to 
private entities, both in terms of the negative impacts on competition that can 
result (as highlighted by Ball et al.) and more broadly of the fact that by securitising 
an activity, it is implicitly rendered dangerous. There are important implications for 
the private sector and customer relations, if private companies are co-opted into a 
policing function.  
4. A deeper engagement with the concept of privacy and what it means in today’s 
society needs to be undertaken, from political, journalistic, legal and philosophical 
perspectives, amongst others. Are technological tools to prevent surveillance 
sufficient to protect privacy or are we entering an arms’ race of technological 
techniques of surveillance and counterveillance (ie measures to block any type of 
watching)? 
5. The extent to which individuals can avoid interference with their privacy in an 
increasingly technological society, and the extent to which sousveillance can 
counteract surveillance, is worthy of further in-depth examination. In particular, is 
there value in sousveillance without meaningful evidence of accountability? 


Transparency Today: Exploring the Adequacy of Sur/Sous/Veillance Theory and Practice

Bangor University Research Portal

   PRIFYSGOL BANGOR / BANGOR UNIVERSITY  Transparency TodayBakir, VianPublished: 06/01/2015Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordCyswllt i'r cyhoeddiad / Link to publicationDyfyniad o'r fersiwn a gyhoeddwyd / Citation for published version (APA):Bakir, V. (2015). Transparency Today: Exploring the Adequacy of Sur/Sous/Veillance Theoryand Practice. Bangor University.Hawliau Cyffredinol / General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/orother copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legalrequirements associated with these rights.            • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of privatestudy or research.            • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain            • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access tothe work immediately and investigate your claim. 22. Jun. 2020DATA-PSST! Debating and Assessing Transparency Arrangements – Privacy, Security, Sur/Sous/Veillance, Trust http://data-psst.bangor.ac.uk/index.php.en    Transparency Today: Exploring the Adequacy of Sur/Sous/Veillance Theory and Practice  6 January 2015     Seminar Summary This summary is based on detailed seminar summaries provided by PhD students Abigail Blyth, Aberystwyth University; George Petry, University of South Wales; and Tiewtiwa Tanalekhapat, Aberystwyth University   Introduction by Dr Vian Bakir and Dr Andrew McStay: The seminar began with an in-depth discussion of three types of transparency; two originally identified by Bentham: Liberal and Radical Transparency, and one coined by McStay, that appears increasingly pertinent to today’s society: Forced Transparency, or transparency without consent or choice.   Keynote 1: Professor Steve Mann, University of Toronto, introduced some key concepts, including sousveillance, surveillance, equiveillance, and priveillance. Mann argues that surveillance is hypocritical, centralised, secretive and corrupt whereas sousveillance has integrity, openness and is distributed. He predicted a time in the future when an ‘equiveillance point’ will be reached with an equal number of cameras carrying out surveillance, and the same amount of cameras being used by the public as wearable media carrying out sousveillant activity. This will, he argues, in due course lead back to a situation where everyone is wearing cameras, thereby negating the need for, and legitimacy of, surveillance. Slides are available on: http://wearcam.org/html5/mannkeynotes/priveillance.htm  In the lively Roundtable on Sousveillance that followed, the group discussed whether the continued focus on the visual aspects (i.e. the ‘veillance’ part) of surveillance was legitimate. Recent events such as the Edward Snowden revelations has shown that surveillance encompasses much more, including an examination of mass data – dataveillance – and sousveillance might not be able to fully counter that surveillance. The discussion then turned to the possibility of having sousveillant data transmigrate into surveillant data, if it falls into the wrong hands; the commodification of data, and the issues of ‘dark corners of power’ that fall beyond the reaches of sousveillance. The legal and technological aspects, including the law’s fairly limited interpretation of the right to privacy, and issues of encryption and ‘making sense’ of big data, were discussed at length.  Keynote 2: Professor Kirstie Ball, Open University, highlighted the blurring of the lines between the state and the private sector in national security matters. To protect national security, the UK Border Agency created an obligation on airlines to provide a securitised DATA-PSST! Debating and Assessing Transparency Arrangements – Privacy, Security, Sur/Sous/Veillance, Trust http://data-psst.bangor.ac.uk/index.php.en data flow of passport information of those booked on planes, and taking flights. By reflecting on the concept of transparency from the research project, Ball addresses the notion of transparency veillance, in which transparency consequently has become multilayered and politicised.  She argues that to securitise something is to render it dangerous, and commercial activities are generally shot through with insecurities.  The Roundtable on Surveillance began with a scintillating short presentation on the work of PlanetLabs - https://www.planet.com/ - a satellite imaging company. This further highlighted the role of the private sector in the collection and dissemination of data and how they interact with respective national legislation in this field. PlanetLabs is based in the USA and the US Government has the ability to access their satellite images and equally to stop them to photographing certain areas of the world. From an intelligence studies perspective, this continues to raise questions in relation to the interaction between governments and private companies when matters of national security are involved. It also highlights the problematical debate witnessed within the UK Intelligence and Security Committee’s Annual Reports on accountability over matters concerning national security. Some discussion ensued on whether the dichotomy between surveillance and sousveillance remains useful given the uncertainty of data flows regardless of their origin.   Policy Recommendations 1. There is a need for politics students, academics, and professionals to be technologically aware as well as for computer science and engineering students, academics, and professionals to be politically aware as disciplines continue to intersect. 2. Those involved in data creation and storage need to be mindful of the possibility of that data being misused, intercepted, or commodified by others – with or without their consent. Users need to consider how data can be controlled and accessed, and what use can be made of data once created. 3. Governments must be aware of the implications of outsourcing surveillance to private entities, both in terms of the negative impacts on competition that can result (as highlighted by Ball et al.) and more broadly of the fact that by securitising an activity, it is implicitly rendered dangerous. There are important implications for the private sector and customer relations, if private companies are co-opted into a policing function.  4. A deeper engagement with the concept of privacy and what it means in today’s society needs to be undertaken, from political, journalistic, legal and philosophical perspectives, amongst others. Are technological tools to prevent surveillance sufficient to protect privacy or are we entering an arms’ race of technological techniques of surveillance and counterveillance (ie measures to block any type of watching)? 5. The extent to which individuals can avoid interference with their privacy in an increasingly technological society, and the extent to which sousveillance can counteract surveillance, is worthy of further in-depth examination. In particular, is there value in sousveillance without meaningful evidence of accountability? 

https://research.bangor.ac.uk/portal/files/7452407/PDB5481-00.pdf

Transparency Today: Exploring the Adequacy of Sur/Sous/Veillance Theory and Practice

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Bangor University: eBangor / Prifysgol Bangor

Bangor University Research Portal