Notes from… online at http://63.78.10.20/basis/DU/Geoslavery_event/ (download .pdf)
Geoslavery or Cyber-Liberation: Freedom and Privacy in the
Information Age
Bridges to the Future 2005-2006 Event
Wednesday, September 14, 2005, 7:00-9:00pm
University Of Denver Campus
…prepared by Joseph K. Berry
for follow-up discussion group,
Forum part of the “Science,
Technology and Values” program—what is the difference between “science” and
“technology”? Is the distinction
relevant to the issue of freedom and privacy?—and what is the difference
between these concepts
Dobson made several points in his opening remarks—
-
Geosalvery
and Cyber-Liberation are not mutually exclusive
-
“Electronic
Fence” and “Human Tracking”; imagine Ann Frank with a geo-positioning device
locked to her body
-
Governmental,
Corporate and Private as different levels of “watchers”; citizens, employees,
shoppers, children, spouse, animals and things as different levels of “watched”
-
Positive
tracking as Alzheimer’s patients, backcountry hikers/skiers, goods shipped,
onboard emergency tracking, stolen car, other?
-
Tradeoff
between privacy and freedom; what conditions modify the balance?
Haag made several points in his opening remarks—
-
Cyber-Liberations
contribute to a culture free independence; freely express opinions, level
playing field for dialog (blogs)
-
-
-
E470
electronic toll devices provide ease of travel/convenience but records
date/time/place of travel
-
Must
balance Benefits (Liberate) with Costs (Enslave)
-
Geotechnology
is like accepted previous technology; telephone, automobile, airplane,
etc.
Keating made several points in his opening remarks—
-
Personal
Privacy versus Public Security; call police (security violated) if there was
house break-in not the ACLU (privacy was violated)
-
Police
surveillance cameras require private citizen give up some privacy for some
security
-
“Mice
and Elephants” in my life; depends on the importance of the issue and the
amount of privacy or security that is involve; don’t fret over “mice”
Zimmermann made several points in his opening remarks—
-
-
The
ability to fuse and interpret disparate information is increasing at a
exponential rate; geographic position and time are very powerful “universal
codes” that can link databases; WHAT is WHERE and WHEN can couple previously
disparate databases (Capability)
-
Rapidly
developing technology is not guided by policy; opposite is the case (technology
drives policy (forces a reaction from)
-
After
911 it appears that policy is actively utilizing technology; Patriot Act as
long sought set of procedures underwriting increased surveillance (librarians’
objection of privacy rights lost for gain in security); 911 was the catalyst
for civil liberty “turn-back” that had long been sought by law enforcement
-
Technology
can be “used for things we did not intend”
-
Analogy
of submarine (civil liberties) constantly exposed to the relentless pressure of
the sea (erosion of privacy/freedom); mentioned Seinfeld episode of and overdue
library book from 1971 (technology and ability to merge datasets)
Moderator Sterett saw
several threads in the opening remarks for follow-up—
-
What
are some “practical” things that can be done to protect privacy and strike an
appropriate balance between Privacy/Cyber-Liberation and Security/Surveillance
(subclass Geoslavery issue was lost)
-
How
do we maintain an appropriate amount of “Wiggle Room”; “right to do the wrong
thing” without harming others (e.g., Stanley vs.
-
Internet
(and other electronic mediums) makes it much easier for surveillance of
citizens ; loss of wiggle room
Zimmermann
response—
-
Most
countries have a privacy commission (
-
Put
a limit on the retention of privacy sensitive records (e.g., phone records
destroyed after bill is paid)
Keating
Response—
-
Credit
card companies simply pass through losses incurred by identity theft; no
marketplace incentive to strengthen identify theft policies
Haag
responses—
-
Instilling
core values in children (K-12); respect privacy and take responsibility
-
Recognize
that privacy is a dynamic process and must be thought of as relative so
continually evolving (not an absolute); requires constant policy focus on
identifying new threats created by technology and be in a position to have
policy lead (instead of react) to advancing technological developments
Dobson
response—
-
Doesn’t
hear a current groundswell of concern; Roberts hearing focused on “flash”
issues (e.g., abortion) not endemic social issues (e.g., privacy); a public
debate needs to be initiated and be energized enough to get on the public’s and
policy maker’s radar
Zimmermann
response—
-
Robert’s
thought there was a right to privacy in the constitution; legal question
if it is an implicit or explicit ‘right”
Dobson
response—
-
Difference
between privacy in a private place and privacy in a public place; is there a
right to privacy in a public space …how much?
Zimmermann
response—
-
There
is an expectation of privacy; telephone clip[per-chip as backdoor for wire taps
…if implemented then there shouldn’t be an expectation for phone conversation
privacy
-
Triangulation
on gunfire (sound) for positioning and surveillance cameras seem to be
encroaching on the expectation of privacy in a public place
-
As
technology advances it erodes implicit privacy expectations; giving ground with
each unintended (or overt) use of technology for surveillance
Moderator Sterett
additional question of “How do you think the Internet will be used?” (with
respect to the balance between privacy and security)—
Zimmermann
response—noted
Keating
response—
Haag
response—education economic, digital, monetary, health divides are recognized
…beginning the Information Divide; you know about what you know; information is
power …rich vs. poor relative advantages aggravates the divides
Dobson
response—not an “Us vs. Them” issue; top
Moderator Sterett closing
question of “”Is technology Opening or Closing Privacy?” …is it possible it is
opening?—
Zimmermann
response—encryption technology used in e-commerce can indirectly be used to
increase privacy in computer dialog; voice over Internet as secure phone
conversations (allows encryption)
Keating
response—if everything is known then there is need for privacy
Zimmermann
response—we now have ability to “see” inside the police station (Rodney King
situation); if encryption is employed then lose ability to track criminal
activity for convictions; is there good/bad privacy flavors? …or is privacy
always good?
Hag
response—privacy and Security are not mutually exclusive …comes in a package
that balances them as reflected by social values
Dobson
response—to be geoslavery it must beyond surveillance; involve coercion and
control
Technology Trends
Brave new world?
JONATHAN RAPER conjures up Orwellian visions but admits to a professional interest in their realisation
'They are always
watching you. Use cash. Do not give your phone number, social security number or
address. Do not fill in questionnaires. Demand that credit firms remove you
from marketing lists. Check your medical records often. Keep your telephone
number unlisted. Never leave your mobile phone on. Do not use credit or
discount cards. If you must use the Internet, use someone else's computer.
Assume that all calls, voice mail, email and computer use are monitored.'
- The Economist, 1 May 1999
Like all good parody, this invitation
to paranoia contains an essential truth: privacy is not what it was. In the
information society, we have created a vast new capacity to store personal
details, log transactions, intercept digital communications and engage in video
surveillance. In many cases, the information thus obtained is intended to
facilitate new freedoms, such as online credit purchasing, or to tackle social
problems such as crime.
Faustian pact
While governments regulate
this process through provisions such as data protection legislation, perhaps
collectively we have made a Faustian pact with this information bazaar in the
belief that privacy resides in anonymity. There is a sense that many people
regard the information held on them as reflecting a public persona without
prejudice to their private one - at least, until credit refusals or junk mail
overload spoil the illusion.
Another dimension to this
debate will shortly emerge, this one focussed on the geolocation capabilities
of the mobile phone. Many people already subscribe to cellular tariffs that
offer roving 'local' call rates dependent on one's current location. Mobile
phones on this tariff can be made to display location information (or 'cell
info') and which, in many countries, is the telephone dialing code for the area
in which they are physically located.
Jonathan Raper
Cellular network operators
can achieve a higher level of locational precision by identifying the nearest
transmitter mast to the phone according to signal strength. Generally, these
transmitter cells are several kilometres in area, but shrink to hundreds of
metres in city centres. Locating phones according to their dialling code area
is easy but imprecise. Only occasionally are cellular operators required to
forensically analyse their records to pin-point a mobile 'phone to assist
criminal investigations. However, all this is about to change.
No hiding place
With the arrival of
technologies that allow operators to locate cellular subscribers to within an
accuracy of 10-25m has come the promise of 'location-based services'. It will
become possible to deliver information to you through your phone based on where
you are at any point in time. The 'where' will, in future, place you in a
particular building or on a specific street. With the arrival of larger screens
in 'smartphones' and personal digital assistants (PDA's), and with the delivery
of 'always-on' mobile Internet connectivity, a number of attractive new
services will be offered. A moving map on screen wherever you go; the ability
to find nearby cash machines or petrol stations (that are open and hopefully
stocked with fuel ;and the delivery of alerts based on your location- a weather
warning if walking in the mountains, for example. You may, indeed, find the new
information services attractive, but you might also have some concern over
'locational' privacy.
As yet there are few
explicit principles to govern locational privacy. I put a question on this
issue to the UK Data Protection Registrar, Elisabeth France, at the Association
for Geographic Information conference in September 2000. In her response, she
said that personal location held in a computer system was 'personal
information' within the meaning of the 1998 UK Data Protection Act, no matter
what the spatial and temporal resolution.
Caught in the Act?
The gist of this would
appear to mean that anyone merely recording the fact that I am in the
Perhaps location should be added
to this list, for while there are many potential social and economic benefits
to be derived from location-based services, public support for them may be
undermined if constraints are not seen to be placed on network operators to
safeguard locational privacy. The design of these services and their supporting
systems must give users a measure of control over their own locational
profiles; allow them to delete or generalise those profiles, and set a minimum
resolution or time delay.
Personally, I am hooked,
not least as
developer of a location-based service in the
EU funded Hypergeo project (http://www.hypergeo.org/). Here, I have been
carrying a prototype device with
JONATHAN RAPER is with the Department of
Information Science, City University,
_______________________________
Will
Tracking technology gives access to dangerous power
CNN,
Devices currently on the market, for
example, use satellites to locate and track people anywhere on the planet.
One company sells a device
that can record a vehicle's location so employers can keep track of every move
their drivers make.
Sounding an alarm
Another company makes
implanted chips to keep track of livestock or pets, and a device that looks
like a digital wristwatch that can pinpoint the wearer's location and sound an
alarm.
Dobson knows the good these
devices do, but he also worries that they may be abused. He hopes his fearful
vision will create debate and perhaps legislation or safeguards around the
technology that will keep it from being misused.
Already the technologies
are sparking debates regarding privacy. Add a transponder to a locked device,
he said, and the punitive possibilities are endless.
"What we are suggesting,"
Dobson said, "is that we are only one technological step from placing a
transponder in there that burns or stings a person if they step off a
prescribed path by a meter. Or if they stay too long in one place. Or cross the
path of another person they are prohibited from seeing, or if they congregate
with other people.
"I can confine you to
a place. You can't go there. Or you must go there. And I can control it."
Avoiding abuses
In the hands of repressive
governmental regimes, the devices could be devastating, Dobson said, just as
they could be in people's personal lives.
Before going to
"We may avoid the most
serious abuses of this technology in the
_______________________________
http://www.ur.ku.edu/News/03N/MarchNews/March5/dobson.html
March 5, 2003
KU
researcher warns against potential threat of 'geoslavery'
LAWRENCE -- Jerome Dobson
wants to make sure his field of research doesn't aid the greatest threat to
personal freedom.
As a pioneer of geographic information systems (
Since 1975, Dobson has used
Unfortunately, the same technology that has so many beneficial uses also has
the potential to create a highly sophisticated form of slavery, or
"geoslavery," as Dobson calls it. What worries Dobson is that
"It concerns me that something I thought was wonderful has a downside that
may lead to geoslavery -- the greatest threat to freedom we've ever experienced
in human history," he said.
By combining
Sound like something from a bad sci-fi movie? Actually, several products
currently on the market make this scenario possible.
"In many ways that's what we're doing with prisoners right now, but
they've been through a legal process," he said.
In fact, many of the existing products are marketed to parents as a way to
protect their children from kidnappers. Dobson, however, said parents should
think twice before using such products.
"A lot of people think this is a way to protect their children," he
said. "But most kidnappers won't have any compunction about cutting the
child to remove an implant or bracelet."
Furthermore, these products rely on wireless networks, which are notoriously
easy for hackers to break into, potentially turning the very products meant to
protect children into fodder for tech-savvy child predators.
Dobson outlined the dangers of geoslavery in an article that appears in the
most recent issue of the
One of the greatest dangers of geoslavery is that it doesn't apply just to
governments. For example, individuals could use the technology to perpetuate
various forms of slavery, from child laborers to sex slaves to a simple case of
someone controlling the whereabouts of his or her spouse, Dobson said.
"Many people have concerns today about privacy but they haven't put all
the pieces together and realized this means someone can actually control them
-- not just know about them, but control them," Dobson said.
As the price of these products gets cheaper and cheaper, the likelihood rises
that the technology will be abused, he said. To prevent this, Dobson's paper
outlines a number of actions that should be taken, including revising national
and international laws on incarceration, slavery, stalking and branding, and
developing encryption systems that prevent criminals or countries with bad
human rights records from accessing
Still, the first step is making people aware of the very real threat that
geoslavery poses. The potential for harm is even greater in less developed
nations without strong traditions of personal freedom, he said.
"We need a national dialogue on this if we're going to go into something
so different from our traditional values of privacy and freedom," Dobson
said. "We need to think about it very carefully and decide if this is a
direction we as a society want to go."
Dobson said he doesn't consider himself a crusader. Instead, he is a scientist
who is working diligently to ensure that people really understand the good and
bad sides of the technology he helped create.
"There certainly are many, many good uses for the technology -- that's not
the issue -- the issue is that it can be so easily misused," he said.
"My role as a university professor is to alert people and make sure there
is an informed debate."
____________________
Posted
on
KU professor has nightmare vision of
global positioning technology
The
The first
thing to know: Jerome Dobson is not joking.
The
This
new threat, Dobson says, is "geoslavery" -- a form of technological
human control that could make "George Orwell's `Big Brother'
nightmare...look amateurish."
His
vision would use the same manner of electronic devices some parents use to keep
track of their children and police use to restrict the movement of criminals. He's
talking about pimps electronically monitoring their prostitutes. He's talking
about overlords electronically punishing errant workers.
He's
talking about the possibility of people hooked to, tracked by, and potentially
shocked or burned using inexpensive electronic bracelets, manacles or implants
under the eyes of global positioning satellites.
Weird?
Perhaps. But it is this scenario that Dobson is scheduled to present this
afternoon in
What
gives Dobson's speech heft is his background. Before going to KU less than two
years ago, Dobson worked for 26 years at
In
the most recent issue of IEEE, the journal published by the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, a paper titled "Geoslavery" is
co-written by Dobson and Peter F. Fisher, British editor of the International
Journal of Geographical Information Science.
"Human
tracking systems, currently sold commercially without restrictions, already
empower those who would be masters, and safeguards have not yet evolved to protect
those destined to be slaves," they wrote.
"I've
spoken about this at academic conferences," Dobson said by phone from
Even
those experts who view Dobson's vision as exaggerated concede that his notions
are within the realm of reality.
"Technically,
it is possible," said Glen Gibbons, editor of
To
Dobson, the point is to address the threat before it is too late.
Numerous
companies produce devices that, using satellites, are able to locate and track
people anywhere on the planet:
• Advanced Tracking Technologies Inc. of
• Digital Angel Corp. of
• In
Dobson
said that in creating these products, none of the companies was thinking of
anything nefarious. He absolutely knows the good they do.
Like all
the electronic monitoring devices, Whereify comes with 911 alert and locator
features that can be triggered in case of an emergency. It even can be
triggered automatically if someone tries to remove the device from a child's
wrist.
___________________________
Based on lecture notes by
Michael Goodchild, USSB, Geography
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~good/176b/n14.html
SOCIAL ISSUES Surrounding Geotechnology
Do we have a right to
location privacy?
Who has the right to know where we are?
Do we have a right to sell our location privacy? …in return for store
discounts?
US law: E911 calls from cell phones;
Wireless Communication and Public Safety Act of 1999…
-
``(4)
to provide call location information concerning the user of a commercial mobile
service (as such term is defined in section 332(d))_
-
``(A)
to a public safety answering point, emergency medical service provider or
emergency dispatch provider, public safety, fire service, or law enforcement
official, or hospital emergency or trauma care facility, in order to respond to
the user's call for emergency services;
-
``(B)
to inform the user's legal guardian or members of the user's immediate family
of the user's location in an emergency situation that involves the risk of
death or serious physical harm; or
-
``(C)
to providers of information or database management services solely for purposes
of assisting in the delivery of emergency services in response to an
emergency.''.
Regulation
of Investigatory Powers Act 2001 can require recovery of location known from
mobile phones (when this is part of traffic data) for intelligence purposes.
Is there
adequate regulatory protection for the use of location in traffic data?
Who has
access to the location?
How long should it be kept?
What geographic resolution is available?
Do users
have control over their location information?
What is
privacy? …relates to individuals; guards against intrusion, appropriation,
breach of confidence
Economist
Location
privacy:
-
Protection
of information about your current or home location in space or cyberspace;
currently no explicit regulation of locational privacy
-
Raper
essay in
January 2001 GeoEurope http://www.geoplace.com/ge/2001/0101/0101tt.asp
-
Private
persona - should be absolutely protected
-
Public
persona - tradable by consent, disconnected from the private persona
_________________________________