Skip to main content

Surveillance: Technologies, Techniques and Ramifications

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ethics in Computing, Science, and Engineering
  • 309 Accesses

Abstract

Since the 1990s there has been a rapid growth in the proliferation of an increasingly diverse range of technologies which are often primarily intended to monitor human activity, and determine (or verify) the identity of the individual. Despite the intrusive nature of such systems and the ways in which they have impacted on a range of privacies, their large-scale deployment has raised little public concern. Here we focus on camera-based surveillance together with a range of biometric techniques (and include discussion on RFID technologies). Why, for example, has the British public (who have traditionally placed such value on privacy) been willing to accept (and often welcome) an endemic level of public space surveillance— whereas other European countries have been far more reluctant to follow this route? Similarly why have so many people been willing to provide biometric data to governments and other organisations? What are the risks of current approaches and the dangers that are associated with the ongoing development of sophisticated and automated surveillance systems?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Blundell, Q., ‘Collected Works’ (2020).

  2. 2.

    ‘Closed Circuit Television’, an acronym which dates back to the early days of camera-based surveillance systems.

  3. 3.

    Attributed to Edward Snowden (see Sect. 3.7).

  4. 4.

    The article quoted above solicited a large reader response—with one person amusingly commenting: ‘Who cares if GCHQ have been reading my emails. Meta data is no big deal. I have nothing to hide. It’s not like they’re peering into my home when I’m naked or anything…. Oh.

  5. 5.

    Attributed to Stephen Colbert.

  6. 6.

    Also quoted in the Berkman Center Report (2016).

  7. 7.

    Kafka (1925).

  8. 8.

    Attributed to Tony Porter UK Surveillance Watchdog. Quoted in BBC (2015).

  9. 9.

    These are indicative—see Barrett (2013) for further details.

  10. 10.

    Synectic Systems produce integrated end-to-end security solutions and are therefore involved in the deployment of CCTV systems.

  11. 11.

    Bradbury (1954).

  12. 12.

    In fact in passive mode, some body cameras still continuously record—but buffer content so that it is overwritten after a defined period (e.g. 30 seconds). When the camera is switched to active mode, the recording that is then made incorporates the recently buffered content (e.g. the previous 30 seconds).

  13. 13.

    Siddique (2009).

  14. 14.

    Satire VI, lines 347–348.

  15. 15.

    Also see Hern (2017) for brief summary discussion.

  16. 16.

    Attributed to Frederick Brooks and quoted in Burdea (1996).

  17. 17.

    The basic optical technique is also used in the Teleprompter (Autocue) system that was introduced in the 1950s.

  18. 18.

    In fact bomber-based IFF transponders posed a double peril—not only because the technology identified Allied aircraft to the Nazi’s, but also because of its non-ethical exploitation by Bomber Command. As early as 1941 they had been warned of the serious dangers that could be posed by IFF transmissions. Had logical argument prevailed, the IFF systems would only have been turned on during the final part of a mission—as returning Allied planes approached the British coastline. However in his book, ‘Most Secret War’ (1978), senior scientist of that era Professor R. V. Jones recalls a meeting that took place in September 1941 concerning this issue. He writes:

    To my amazement Cheshire and his fellow pilots stated their belief in the efficacy of using IFF to jam searchlights [which were assumed to be under radar control], and my rational arguments failed to prevail.’ (Jones 1978)

    Despite the strong warnings of a senior scientist involved in electronic warfare, Bomber Command decided not to discourage the practice of leaving IFF equipment turned on throughout bombing missions. Indeed they went further and required that additional circuitry be fitted to aircraft. This resulted in the so-called ‘J-switch’ (‘J’ for jamming) which was used to cause an IFF set to regularly broadcast a signal (every 12 seconds), even when no incoming radar signal had been detected. There was no scientific basis for the expectation that these regular transmissions could have any jamming effect, and as indicated above Bomber Command had been warned of the possible dangers posed by regular aircraft transmissions. Some may believe that their decision could be justified on the basis of the philosophy of Utilitarianism whereas others may view it as a callous and ethically unsound act:

    … in 1942 there was no sign that the Germans were utilizing our IFF transmissions. This conclusion was doubtless correct, but its implication was that although it was of no use, it encouraged crews to press home attacks in defended areas where the flak was so intense that they might otherwise have stopped short.’ (Jones 1978)

    At that time crews well appreciated that their survival was not necessarily based on skill; much depended on good luck. The constant question was how to beat the odds, and under such circumstances and when faced with extreme stress an element of superstition often came to the fore. To fly without a precious talisman or to break routine in the hours leading up to a mission was to court disaster. Anything that could raise the hope of personal survival became an essential part of daily life.

    And so it was with the J-switch – Bomber Command might have done better to distribute rabbits’ feet to all concerned. However by early 1944, intercepted German Enigma reports provided incontestable evidence that active IFF equipment on Allied bombers was being exploited by the Germans and that, as a result, significant losses were occurring:

    At first there was some disbelief in Bomber Command headquarters which I had accused of the immoral practice of encouraging brave men to clutch at false straws in their hour of greatest danger.’ (Jones 1978)

    Finally, and somewhat late in the day, the perils posed by active IFF equipment were acknowledged:

    At last Bomber Command headquarters was sufficiently convinced to issue orders that IFF should be switched off, and I was told that the Commander-in-Chief had sent a signal to all units flaying ‘those idiots who believe in the joss-like protection of IFF’’

    Ironically, for several years Bomber Command had been quite willing to capitalise on this superstition and by doing so exposed aircrew to extreme danger. The reality of what we would now refer to as a ‘sniffing attack’ is succinctly described by Rieback et al. (2006):

    …British Royal Air Force bomber crews mistakenly believed that their IFF systems had a jamming effect against the German Wurzburg-Riese radar system. Some bomber crews deliberately left their IFF turned on. The German air force then deployed the Freya Flamme system, which covertly interrogated the IFF transponders, to get range bearing and identification information for several RAF bombers at once.’

  19. 19.

    For related reading see, for example, Seelig (2006).

  20. 20.

    Subsequently known as the PositiveID Corporation.

  21. 21.

    For example, in 2004 some 160 people employed by Mexico’s Attorney General were implanted with VeriChip RFID’s in order to control access to secure areas (Weissert 2004).

  22. 22.

    Also see BBC (2017).

  23. 23.

    Back in 2005 the owner of a Mercedes S-class car had his index finger cut off by criminals who were intent on thwarting the car's fingerprint recognition system (BBC News 4396831).

  24. 24.

    Lebowitz (2000).

  25. 25.

    Researchers have demonstrated that even the presence of posters in public spaces depicting staring human eyes can impact on behavior—see for example, van der Linden (2011).

  26. 26.

    It is reported that the Kent Police Force who were the first in the UK to introduce this approach have now terminated its use. The BBC (2018) quoting one police source indicates that in terms of the system’s evaluation ‘What is more challenging is to show that we have been able to reduce crime with that information.

References

  • Ackerman, S., and Ball, J., ‘Optic Nerve: Millions of Yahoo Webcam Images Intercepted by GCHQ’, The Guardian (28th Feb. 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, C., ‘Google Glass: Is it a Threat to our Privacy’, The Guardian (6th Mar. 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacheldor, B., ‘Microsoft Partners with Implantable RFID Chip Maker VeriChip’, RFID Journal, www.rfidjournal.com/articles/view?4477 (2008) [Last accessed 25th Apr 2019].

  • Bamford, J., ‘The Shadow Factory’, Doubleday, (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Baraniuk, C., ‘Exclusive: UK Police Wants AI to Stop Violent Crime Before it Happens’, New Scientist (26th Nov. 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, D., ‘One Surveillance Camera for Every 11 People in Britain, says CCTV Survey’, The Telegraph (10th Jul 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • BBC, ‘Teachers Warned of ‘Permanent Surveillance’ from CCTV’, 27087936 (20th April 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • BBC, ‘CCTV: Too Many Cameras Useless, Warns Surveillance Watchdog Tony Porter’, 30978995 (26th Jan. 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • BBC, ‘Malaysia Car Thieves Steal Finger’, 4396831 (31st Mar. 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • BBC, ‘Winsconsin Company Three Square Market to Microchip Employees’, 40710051 (24th July 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • BBC, ‘Kent Police Stop Using Crime Predicting Software’, 46345717 (26th Nov. 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkman Center Report, ‘Don’t Panic, Making Progress on the ‘Going dark’ Debate’, Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Big Brother Watch Report, ‘The Price of Privacy: How Local Authorities Spent £515m on CCTV in Four Years’, (Feb. 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Big Brother Watch Report, ‘Class of 1984: The Extent of CCTV in Secondary Schools and Academies’, (Sep 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Birmingham City Council, ‘Project Champion: Scrutiny Review into ANPR and CCTV Cameras—A Report from Oversight to Scrutiny’, Birmingham City Council (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blundell, B. G. ‘3D Displays and Spatial Interaction, Exploring the Science, Art, Evolution and Use of 3D Technologies’, Volume 1, Walker & Wood Ltd (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, R., ‘Fahrenheit 451’, Rupert Hart-Davies Ltd (1954).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, B., ‘Prisoners ‘to be chipped like dogs’, The Independent (13th Jan. 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A., ‘ Smart Barbie Puts Child’s Play in the Cloud’, Information Week (4th May 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Burdea, G., ‘Force and Touch Feedback for Virtual Reality’, John Wiley & Sons Inc. (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, M., ‘Facial Recognition Tech Used by UK Police is Making a Ton of Mistakes’, Wired (4th May 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, C., ‘Using Facial Recognition to Activate Police Body Cameras Sparks Concern’, www.biometricupdate.com (5th Oct. 2018).

  • Cain, P., ‘Privacy Risks Lurk in DNA Tests, Experts Warn’, Globalnews.ca (15th Aug. 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Careerbuilder, ‘Number of Employers Using Social Media to screen Candidates has Increased 500% over the Last decade (28th April 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlini, N., Mishra, P., Vaidya, T., Zhang. Y., Sherr, M., Shields, C., Wagner, D., and Zhou, W., ‘Hidden Voice Commands’, Proc. 25th USENIX Security Symposium, Austin TX (10–12 Aug. 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Comey, J., ‘Going Dark: Are Technology, Privacy, and Public Safety on a Collision Course?’ Transcript of speech given at Brookings Institution (16th October 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornwell, J., ‘Hitler’s Scientists Science War and the Devil’s Pact’, Penguin (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dormehl, L., ‘Facial Recognition: Is Technology Taking Away Your Identity?’, The Guardian (4th May 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Erlanger, S., ‘London Attack Places Security and Civil Liberties at Center of U.K. Election’, The New York Times (5th June 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Forcinio, H., ‘The Business Value of RFID’, Microsoft Corporation, RFID Journal (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, R., ‘Privacy Concerns Raised as More Than One Million are Fingerprinted in Schools’, The Independent (2nd Jan. 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvie, C., and Frankle, J., ‘Facial-Recognition Software Might Have a Racial Bias’, The Atlantic (7th April 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Research, ‘Australia Becomes First Country to Begin Microchipping its Population. RFID Implants in the Human Body’, (4th Oct. 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenemeier, L., ‘Police Body Camera Use – Not a Pretty Picture’, Scientific American (4th Aug. 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggerty, K., ‘One Generation is all they Need: One Day we will all be Happily Implanted with Microchips’, Toronto Star (10th Dec. 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Halamka, J., Juels, A., Stubblefield, A., and Westhues, J., ‘The Security Implications of VeriChip Cloning’, J. Am. Med, Assoc. 13(6) pp. 601–607 (Nov–Dec 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Henley, J., ‘Sweden Scrambles to Tighten Data Security as scandal Claims Two Ministers’, The Guardian (1st August 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hern, A., ‘Hacker Fakes German Minister’s Fingerprints using Photo of her Hands’, The Guardian (30th Dec. 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hern, A., ‘Anti-Surveillance Clothing aims to Hide Wearers from Facial Recognition’, The Guardian, (4th Jan. 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Howitt, M., ‘The Spider and the Fly’ (1829).

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Police Database Threatens Privacy’, (15th May 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • IHS Report, ‘Top Video Surveillance Trends for 2016’, (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Isakjee, A., and Allen, C., ‘‘A Catastrophic lack of Inquisitiveness’: A Critical Study of the Impact and Narrative of the Project Champion Surveillance Project I Birmingham’, Ethnicities, 13(6) pp. 751–770 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, A., Ross, A., and Prabhakar, S., ‘An Introduction to Biometric Recognition’, IEEE Trans. On Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 14, No.1 (Jan. 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R.V., ‘Most Secret War’, Hamish Hamilton (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafka, F., ‘The Trial’, (1925).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennan, G., ‘George F. Kennan: Memoirs 1950–1963’, Pantheon (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, J., ‘Malaysian Car thieves Steal Finger’, BBC News, 4396831 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kille, L., and Maximino, ‘The Effect of CCTV on Public Safety: Research Roundup’, Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Klitou, D., ‘Privacy-Invading Technologies and Privacy by Design’, Asser Press (Springer), (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebowitz, J., ‘Physics and Human Rights: Reflections on the Past and the Present’, Physikalische Blätter, 56, Nr. 7/8, Wiley, (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S., ‘New AI can Guess Whether You’re Gay or Straight from a Photograph’, The Guardian (8th Sep. 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, P., ‘Police Surveillance of Muslims Set Up with “No Regard for Law”‘, The Guardian (30th Sep. 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, P., ‘“I Was Shocked it Was so Easy”, Meet the Professor who Says Facial Recognition can Tell if You’re Gay’, The Guardian (7th July 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, A.M., ‘Popular Scientific Recreations’, Ward, Lock and Co. (1933).

    Google Scholar 

  • MacAskill, E., ‘“Extreme Surveillance” becomes UK Law with barely a Whimper’, The Guardian (19th Nov. 2016)

    Google Scholar 

  • Magee, T., ‘Met Police Choose Microsoft Azure for storing Body-Worn Camera Data’, Computerworld (1st Dec. 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Manyika, J., Chui, M., Bisson, P., Woetzel, J., Dobbs, R., Bughin, J., and Aharon, D., ‘Unlocking the Potential of the Internet of Things’, McKinsey Global Institute Report (June 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Massoudi, A., and Bradshaw, T., ‘Magic Leap Confirms $400 Saudi Investment’, Financial Times (7th Mar. 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcardle, E., ‘The New Age of Surveillance’, Harvard Law Today (10th May 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meek, J., ‘Robo Cop’, The Guardian (13th June 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, R., ‘Anti-Surveillance Camouflage for your Face’, The Atlantic (24th July 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Minton, A., ‘CCTV Increases People’s Sense of Anxiety’, The Guardian (30th Oct. 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Minton, A., and Aked, J., ‘’Fortress Britain’: High Security, Insecurity and the Challenge of Preventing Harm’, New Economics Foundation (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mould, N., Regens, J., Jensen III, C., and Edger, D., ‘Video Surveillance and Counterterrorism: The Application of Suspicious Activity Recognition in Visual Surveillance Systems to Counterterrorism’, Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 9, No. 2, pp. 151–175 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, J., ‘Philippines: 55m Voters Exposed as Fingerprint and Passport Data Stolen’, ibtimes.co.uk (7th April 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E., ‘Kids, the Internet and the End of Privacy: The Greatest Generation Gap Since Rock and Roll’, New York Magazine (12th Feb. 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Okolosie, L., ‘I would Never Wear a Body Camera while Teaching in School. Here’s Why’, The Guardian (9th February 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oltermann, P., ‘German Parents Told to Destroy Doll that can Spy on Children’, The Guardian (17th Feb. 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Opray, M., ‘Cybersecurity: Is the Office Coffee Machine Watching You?’, The Guardian (28th April 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Orcutt, M., ‘If You Get Your Face Scanned the Next Time You Fly, Here’s What You Should Know’, MIT Technology Review (13th July 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Paton, G., ‘School Children “Routinely Monitored” by CCTV’, The Telegraph (15th Mar 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Paton, G., ‘Classrooms Put Under “Permanent Surveillance” by CCTV’, The Telegraph (20th Apr. 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peachey, P., ‘How the Police’s Body-Worn Camera Technology is Changing the Justice System’, The Independent (1st Mar. 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, A., ‘OPM Says 5.6 Million Fingerprints Stolen in Cyberattack, Five Times as many as Previously Thought’, (23rd Sep. 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Popular Science, ‘Why Did I Implant a Chip in my Hand?’, (May 24 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Priks, M., ‘The Effects of Surveillance Cameras on Crime: Evidence from the Stockholm Subway’, The Economic Journal 123, F289–F305 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieback, M.R., Crispo, B., ‘The Evolution of RFID Security’, IEEE Pervasive Computing (Jan.–Mar. 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Robb, G., ‘Police Use of CCTV Surveillance: Constitutional Implications and Proposed Regulations’, U. Mich. J. L. Reform, 571 (1979–1980).

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J., ‘Banks are using Biometrics to Detect Scammers’, Fortune.com (22nd Mar. 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, A., ‘Why do People Keep Giving Magic Leap Money?’, The Verge (22nd Oct. 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Seelig, R., ‘New Technology Provides Urgent Medical Information and Protects Privacy: Providing Important Information in Medical Situations for the Developmentally Disabled’, EP Magazine, pp. 47–51 (May 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharff, M., Bhagavatula, S., Bauer, L., and Reiter, M., ‘Accessorize to Crime: Real and Stealthy Attacks on State-of-the-Art Face Recognition’, CCS’16, Vienna (Oct 24th–28th 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shawcross, W., ‘Sideshow Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia’, Simon and Schuster (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • Siddique, H., ‘Police Force Stored DNA Samples in Fridge with Half-Eaten Takeaway’, The Guardian (4th Aug. 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Spicer, A., ‘Surveillance used to be a Bad Thing. Now we Happily let our Employers Spy on Us’, The Guardian (4th Aug. 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Synetics White Paper, ‘CCTV in the UK. What we can Learn from Public attitudes Towards Surveillance’, (March 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • The Campbell Collaboration, ‘Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) as a Crime Prevention Tool’, (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tillmann, G., ‘Opinion: Stolen Fingers: The Case Against Biometric Identity Theft Protection’, Computerworld (27th Oct. 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Hoogen, S., ‘Perceptions of Privacy and the Consequences of Apathy: Biometric Technologies in the 21st Century’, Dalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management, 4 (Spring 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Linden, S., ‘How the Illusion of Being Observed Can Make You a Better Person’, Scientific American (3rd May 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent, J., ‘The UK Now Wields Unprecedented Surveillance Powers – Here’s What It Means’, The Verge (29th Nov. 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, B., and Farrington, D., ‘Closed-Circuit Television Surveillance and Crime Prevention A Systematic Review’, Swedish Council for Crime Prevention (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, M., ‘UK Public must Wake Up to Risks of CCTV Says Surveillance Commissioner’, The Guardian (6th Jan. 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissert, W., ‘Mexican Attorney General Personally goes High-Tech for Security’, USA Today (14th July 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, J., ‘CCTV and Its Effectiveness in Tackling Crime’, House of Commons Library, Section Home Affairs, (2010).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barry G. Blundell .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Blundell, B.G. (2020). Surveillance: Technologies, Techniques and Ramifications. In: Ethics in Computing, Science, and Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27126-8_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics