Tag Archives: surveillance society

Introducing drones – the new age threat to private life

* DARPA’s 1.8 Gigapixel Drone Camera Could See You Waving at it from 15.000 Feet

Source: theatlantic.com

Word of DARPA’s experimental 1.8-gigapixel surveillance video camera, ARGUS-IS, first surfaced in 2009. And now that they probably have something better hidden, more details continue to emerge.

A PBS video got to look at the actual video feeds — and they are stunning. Take a look. Watch for the arm waving guy at about 1:55 or so:

One thing to note is that a drone can just hang out at 15,000 feet over a small city-sized area (roughly, half of Manhattan) and provide video surveillance of the whole thing. The other thing to note is that they are running machine vision on the moving objects, which means they are generating structured data out of the video, not just displaying the pictures.

Read more about this topic HERE.

CPDP2013 Programme • Wednesday 23 January 2013


9.00 Registration

CPDP2013 Panels at Grande Halle

10.00 Welcome and introduction by Paul De Hert (VUB-Tilburg University)

Keynote speech: Françoise Le Bail, Director General DG Justice (EC)

10.30 The European Data Protection Framework Under Review: The Proposed Regulation

hosted by Cécile de Terwangne (CRIDS-Namur University) & Giovanni Buttarelli (EDPS)

panel Jan Philipp Albrecht, Member of the European Parliament – Green (EU), speaker from DPA, speaker from BEUC, speaker from EP, speaker from DG Connect

The panel will present a state of play of the key debates surrounding the proposed data protection regulation, as well as different perspectives on the draft report currently discussed in the European Parliament.

11.45 The European Data Protection Framework Under Review: The Proposed Directive

hosted by Emilio De Capitani (Orientale University – FREE Group) and Diana Alonso Blas (EUROJUST)

panel Dimitrios Droutsas, Member of the European Parliament – S&D (EU), Anne-Christine Lacoste, EDPS (EU), speaker from DPA, speaker from EDRI

The panel will present a state of play of the key debates surrounding the proposed data protection directive, and will provide a wide ranging debate on the key disputed aspects of the proposal.

13.00 Lunch


organised by Sophie In’t Veld (MEP) & CPDP

hosted by Sophie In’t Veld (Member of the European Parliament – ALDE)

panel Axel Arnbak, Bits of Freedom (NL), Bart Jacobs, Radboud University Nijmegen (NL), Troels Oerting, EUROPOL-European Cybercrime Centre (EU), Marc Rotenberg, EPIC (US)

This edition of the Privacy Platform concerns the different dimensions of Cyber Security. Troels Oerting, director of the new Europol Cybercrime Center, and experts Bart Jacobs, Marc Rotenberg and Axel Arnbak will present the offensive and defensive aspects of Cyber Crime.

15.15 Coffee break

15.30 US And Transatlantic Debates: A New Direction For US Online Consumer Rights

co-organised by the Computers, Freedom and Privacy (CFP) and CPDP

hosted by Lillie Coney (EPIC) & Kristina Irion (Central European University)

panel Susan Grant, Consumer Federation of America (US), Peter Swire, Moritz College of Law of Ohio State University (US), Julie Brill, Commissioner FTC (US), John B. Morris, Jr., Associate Administrator (Acting) and Director of Internet Policy (US) [tbc], EU Perspective on Multi-stakeholder Processes [tbc]

This panel on consumer protection will review the post release of the Obama Administration’s white paper “Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World: A Framework for Protecting Privacy and Promoting Innovation in the Global Digital Economy.” The panel will explore the consequences for consumers should the EU and US fail to reach an agreement on how to best protect online consumers. President Obama’s administration is working to create a new mechanism that involves a multi-stakeholder process managed by the Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce first multi-stakeholder process, now underway, addresses mobile application transparency. The force of regulation for the work done by the Department of Commerce would come from the Federal Trade Commission.

Key points to be discussed:

  • The US work to create new online consumer privacy protections through expansion of the current sector based approach.
  • Is there an unresolvable US and EU mismatch on how privacy is defined in a digital global economy?
  • How can we measure whether the EU legislative effort and the Obama Administration effort will resolve conflicts in how online consumer privacy will be seamlessly protected?

16.45 US and Transatlantic Debates:Ggovernment and law enforcement use of data (till 18.00)

co-organised by the Computers, Freedom and Privacy (CFP) and CPDP

hosted by Barry Steinhardt, Friends of Privacy (US)

panel Anna Fielder, Privacy International (UK), Bruno Gencarelli, European Commission (EU), Speaker from the US Administration [tbc], Ben Wizner or Jay Stanley, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (US)

The common understanding is that the US and Europe have very different privacy regimes. But are they really so different on law enforcement and National Security matters? Or is there an emerging ‘transatlantic approach’ that some argue values the interests of the State over personal liberty and jeopardizes fundamental European principles?

A transatlantic panel of government and NGO representatives will discuss:

  • Whether the draft European Privacy Directive tilts too far to law enforcement and the National Security institutions and how does the US view the directive.
  • Whether our privacy can be protected by the overarching agreement on the exchange of personal data that the EU and the US are negotiating;
  • How freely does our personal data flow across the Atlantic and how can European personal data be protected when it is in the hands of American law enforcement and national security agencies?

18.00 Cocktail Offered By The International Association Of Privacy Professionals (IAPP)(till 20.00)

CPDP2013 Panels at Petite Halle

10.15 Coffee break

10.30 Binding Corporate Rules

hosted by Lokke Moerel (De Brauw) & Tanguy Van Overstraeten (Linklaters)

panel Terry McQuay, Nymity (CA), Daniel Pradelles, HP (BE), Florence Raynal (CNIL)

This panel will focus particularly on the following issues:

  • How are BCRs regulated under the Proposed Regulation? What are potential improvements?
  • The latest on BCRs for Processor and Business Corporate Rules
  • Recognition of BCR outside the EEA
  • How do BCRs compare to BCPR under the APEC Privacy rules?
  • Which companies have opted for BCRs and why?
  • Practical experiences of companies when introducing BCRs
  • Discussion of research study on BCRs by HiiL and Nymity showing that companies having introduced BCR have doubled their material data protection compliance

11.45 The Rise and Rise of the Privacy Profession: CPOs Meet DPOs

co-organised by IAPP and CPDP

hosted by Rita Di Antonio (IAPP) & Omer Tene (College of Management School of Law, Rishon Le Zion)

panel Kasey Chapelle, Vodafone (UK), Christoph Klug, CEDPO (DE), Sophie Louveaux, EDPS (EU), Katherine Tassi, Facebook (IE)

The privacy profession has grown from the ground up, not mandated by legislation but rather a response to fundamental business needs.

Personal data have become an increasingly valuable asset class, fueling the new economy and presenting businesses with unprecedented opportunities and challenges.

Privacy and data protection are now board level issues. Management has realised that privacy is distinct from data security and must be dealt with by dedicated individuals who have strategic, policy, compliance and technical competence.

The draft EU Data Protection Regulation is set to mandate the appointment of a data protection officer for businesses that do not yet have one.

This panel will feature some of the leaders of the privacy profession from both sides of the Atlantic. They will discuss the past, present and future of the privacy profession and draw lessons from the experience of U.S. CPOs for EU DPOs, and vice versa.

13.00 Lunch

14.00 Privacy Impact Assessments: Beyond Data Protection

co-organised by EU FP7 projects SAPIENT & PRESCIENT and CPDP

hosted by Raphaël Gellert (VUB) & Roger Clarke (Xamax Consultancy)

panel Bojana Bellamy, Accenture (UK), John Morijn, Ministry of interior (NL), Kjetil Rommetveit, University of Bergen (NO), David Wright, Trilateral Research and Consulting (UK)

Privacy Impact Assessments are definitely high on the EU agenda. After the endorsement of the RFID PIA Framework by the Article Working Party Group and the smart grids PIA Framework, Art. 33 of the EC Proposed General Data Protection Regulation enshrines the tool in the EU data protection legal framework.

This panel envisages tackling the following PIA-related challenges:

  • Integration: Can PIA address other fundamental rights than privacy and data protection (the right not to be discriminated against for instance)? Can these tools also take additional non-legal issues into consideration such as ethical or surveillance issues? Is it possible to integrate such diverse considerations within one single instrument?
  • Implementation: If integrated PIAs are the way forward, what level of complexity can firms of public bodies handle concerning impact assessment? How many impact assessments should be conducted in the course of the preparation of a project? How much time is required to carry out an integrated PIA?
  • Standardisation: Is the current diversity of PIA methodologies something to be welcomed or, on the contrary, a threat to unified, standardised and integrated PIAs ? If the EU adopts a policy or standards on PIA, what are the key elements in an “integrated” PIA?

15.15 Coffee break

15.30 Data Protection Accountabiliy – Who creates the account?

co-organised by the Human Technology Lab at Technical University Berlin, the EU FP7 project SIAM and CPDP

hosted by Leon Hempel (Techniche Universität Berlin) and Carla Ilten (University of Illinois at Chicago)

panel Tobias Bräutigam, Nokia (FI) [tbc], Denis Butin, INRIA (FR), Peter Schaar, Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (DE), Brendan Van Alsenoy, KU Leuven (BE)

The principle of accountability in the context of data protection formulates a way to bridge the gap between theory and practice of data protection. Binding Corporate Rules and Impact Assessments enhance the commitment to and demonstrability of effective data protection measures, but in the end the open question remains: What is and who creates the account that demonstrates effective data protection and makes it visible for the user?

A number of questions emerge from this perspective. For example, how the technology-oriented process can be made transparent and reflexive. How can diverging interests be negotiated along the path of development? How can “Privacy by Design” be advanced to “render an account” as well? How can data protection accountability be implemented within organizations and made visible to the data subjects?

CPDP2013 Health, Privacy and Data Protection Sessions (till 20.15)

16.45 Health Data Processing and the Proposed Regulation on Data Protection (till 18.15)

co-organized by KNMG and CPDP

hosted by Ann-Katrin Habbig (VUB) and Sjaak Nouwt (KNMG)

panel Per Johansson, EDPS (EU), Frank Robben, Crossroads Bank for Social Security, Belgian eHealth-platform (BE), Annabel Seebohm, Deutsche Bundsärztekammer (DE), Kirsten van Gossum (BE)

Since the publication of the Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation in January 2012, there have been many different opinions on the effectiveness of this new tool and on its impact. One year later we want to draw some first conclusions and discuss the influence that the proposed regulation could have on health data processing.

Whereas a category for sensitive data will remain to exist and also provides for derogations for health data in the future, there are many changes which will impact the processing of health data. There is a concern about the definition of consent, the possible existence of a “significant imbalance” in the doctor-patient relationship, an administrative burden for small clinics as a result of Impact Assessments and data protection officers. New rights, like the right to be forgotten, might change the way how health data have to be handled in future. Currently, many open questions remain and problems like the relationship between the proposed right to be forgotten and the right to have one’s health data erased have to be clarified.

Therefore, it will be discussed which changes can be expected for health data processing and for healthcare professionals if the proposal will be implemented, which advantages and disadvantages this will bring for the privacy of patients and if the proposed regulation responds to the changing needs in health data processing.

To register for the health panels only: click here

18.45 Medical Confidentiality and Privacy (till 20.15)

co-organised by KNMG and CPDP

hosted by Lode Wigersma (Royal Dutch Medical Association) and Tom Goffin (Ordomedic) [tbc]

panel Bernard Maillet, CPME (BE)

Medical confidentiality is one of the essential features of the different professions in healthcare and crucial for the protection of a patient’s privacy and trust in healthcare. Nowadays, however, healthcare professionals are often facing conflicts of medical confidentiality and recent developments in society.

Knowledge of possible child abuse brings doctors in a conflict of interests: protecting confidentiality or preventing physical damage to patients or others? Violent events like rampages in schools, shopping centres and most prominently in the Norwegian capital Oslo and at the island Utoya confront healthcare professionals with the demand to breach medical confidentiality when public safety could be at stake.

Furthermore, technological innovations in healthcare might also challenge medical confidentiality. Never before, it has been so easy to exchange patient data between different actors in healthcare, by means of electronic networks or even by social media. It is therefore important to elaborate to what extent these new ways of data exchange threatens patients’ privacy and conflicts with the traditional understanding of medical confidentiality.

To register for the health panels only: click here

CPDP2013 Workshops at La Cave

10.15 Coffee break

10.30 Data Protection in Financial and Consumers’ Services

hosted by Monique Altheim (The Law Office of Monique Altheim) & Rita Balogh (APCO)

panel Lindsay Cox, Barclaycard (US), Andy Roth, partner at SNR Denton (US), speaker from the European Commission

This panel will examine the effects of big data, mobile and the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) proposal on data protection in the Financial sector.

11.45 From ‘Solidarity’ To The Surveillance Society. Privacy Protection Dilemmas In Poland

hosted by Dr. Wojciech R. Wiewiórowski, Inspector General for the Protection of Personal Data (GIODO) & Dariusz Kloza, VUB-LSTS (BE)

panel Prof. Andrzej Dziech and Dr Piotr Derkacz, AGH University of Science and Technology, INDECT Project (PL), Dr. Arwid Mednis, Wierzbowski Eversheds (PL), Prof. Grażyna Szpor, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw (PL), Katarzyna Szymielewicz, Panoptykon Foundation (PL)

Every year, CPDP puts under the spotlight an EU Member State. This year it is the turn of Poland as 2012 marked the 15th anniversary of constitutional and statutory protection of personal data therein. The new Constitution and the Personal Data Protection Act (both 1997) constitute one of the hallmarks of the democratic change in Poland. This panel will offer a critical analysis on how public authorities use personal data and will focus on surveillance, data retention and data subject’s rights. Special attention will be given to issues such as balancing security and privacy in the (controversial) research project ‘INDECT’ and processing of personal data for religious purposes.

13.00 Lunch

14.00 Gamifying citizenship: behavior, policy and privacy co-organised by JRC-IPTS and CPDP

hosted by Shara Monteleone (JRC-IPTS) and Aaron Martin (OECD)

panel Alessandro Acquisti, Carnegie Mellon University (US), Norberto Andrade, JRC-IPTS (EU), Sebastian Deterding, Hans-Bredow-Institut für Medienforschung (DE), Kevin Werbach, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania (US)

The concept of ‘gamification’ – referring to the use of game elements, designs and strategies to encourage certain desired actions in non-game contexts – is currently all the rage. This panel explores the use of these techniques in policy-making (for example to reduce energy consumption or to ameliorate urban transportation systems), paying special attention to the privacy and reputational risks that may emerge from these applications. The panel will also explore gamification as a mechanism for improving privacy and information security decision making, and in particular the following issues:

  • How can gamification be applied to improve policy outcomes?
  • What are the emergent privacy risks in gamified contexts?
  • How can gamification help to overcome the divergence between the existing legal rules on data protection and the actual behaviour of users?
  • How can we use gamification as a privacy policy tool?

15.15 Coffee break

15.30 What are the key prerequisites for successful self-regulation?

hosted by Nicolas Dubois (DG JUST, European Commission) and Dennis Hirsch (Capital University Law School)

panel Gwendal Le Grand, CNIL (FR), Sarah Spiekermann, Vienna University of Economics and Business (AT), Speaker from EDRi, Speaker from the Vodafone Privacy Team

Is a technology neutral and harmonised legal baseline a prerequisite for successful self-regulation?

16.45 Privacy by design with or without information security?

co-organised by ENISA and CPDP

hosted by Rodica Tirtea (ENISA) & Patrick Van Eecke (DLA Piper)

panel Giuseppe Abbamonte, EC DG CONNECT (EU), Ronny Bjones, Microsoft (BE), Kirsten Bock, EuroPriSe (DE), Frank Dawson, NOKIA (US), Siani Pearson, HP (UK), Melanie Volkamer, CASED, Darmstadt University (DE)

In synergy with regulation, information security technology is expected to play a critical role in enforcing the right for privacy and data protection. In this panel

session we will discuss the role of security in privacy by design and by default. Standardisation and certification issues for security and privacy will be also covered. The focus is on technological means to support privacy and data protection.

Topics to be discussed include:

  • Privacy by default embedded in technology, first examples
  • Certification, accreditation and the use of emblems for enhancing privacy by default
  • The role of standardization in reaching the privacy by design and privacy by default principles
  • New ideas and suggestions for promoting privacy principles in design stage

CPDP2013 side events first day

20.00 Book presentation of ‘LIQUID SURVEILLANCE: A CONVERSATION’ by David Lyon with roundtable discussion @ De Markten

drinks from 19.30

organised by the Living in Surveillance Societies – LiSS-COST Action and LSTS-VUB, and in cooperation with deBuren, De Markten and Polity Press,

hosted by William Webster (University of Stirling/COST-LISS)

panel Didier Bigo, King’s College London (UK), David Lyon, Queen’s University (CA), Ann Rudinow Sætnan, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO), Stanza, independent artist (UK) [tbc], Kristin Veel, University of Copenhagen (DK)

Surveillance is a product of the modern world and as this world has become liquefied so too has surveillance. Why do people so willingly comply with surveillance and how does this liquidity suck everyone into is stream as participants?

Professor David Lyon, Director of the Surveillance Studies Centre at Queens University, Canada will give a presentation about his new book Liquid Surveillance: A Conversation which he has written together with Zygmunt Bauman (Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Leeds).

The presentation will be followed by a roundtable discussion.

20.20 Pecha Kucha (till 22.20) at La Cave (Les Halles), Rue Royale-Sainte-Marie 22, 1030 Brussels

organised by VUB (LSTS), Crosstalks and Alok Nandi

13 speakers, each speaker has 6 minutes 40 sec. for a presentation in 20 images. Each image is on screen for only 20 seconds. No more, no less.

20 images x 20 seconds each. Tempo, story, tension, show-and-tell. The Brussels format includes designers, architects, artists, scientists, fashion designers, photographers, musicians, and creative entrepreneurs. Many will discuss technology and its implications. Some will not.

registration http://pechakucha.architempo.net/

Ample Study On Surveillance in Ex-Soviet States

A diagram of the SORM surveillance system. Illustration: MFI-Soft

A diagram of the SORM surveillance system. Illustration: MFI-Soft

A joint investigation by Agentura.RuCitizenLab and Privacy International with the title “In Ex-Soviet States, Russian Spy Tech Still Watches You” was recently published in Wired magazine. It explains how the SORM surveillance system, initiated in the mid 1980s’, is still working not only in Russia, but also in former USSR states, like Ukraine and Belarus. It also explains why the SORM surveillance mechanisms are different than the mechanisms used by Western societies. It is definitely worth reading for those curious about the Surveillance Society. I am not extremely convinced that the difference between surveillance techniques associated with SORM and surveillance techniques associated with Western mechanisms is a consistent one, but perhaps it is just me.

On November 12, the Russian Supreme Court okayed the wiretapping of an opposition activist. The Court ruled that spying on Maxim Petlin, a regional opposition leader in Yekaterinburg, was lawful, since he had taken part in rallies where calls against extending the powers of Russia’s security services were heard. The court decided that these were demands for “extremist actions” and approved surveillance carried out by the national interception system, known as SORM.

Manned by the country’s main security service, the FSB, this ”System of Operative Search Measures” has been in use for more than two decades. But recently, SORM has been upgraded. It is ingesting new types of data. It is being used as Moscow’s main tool for spying on the country’s political protesters. And it has become extremely useful in the quest to make sure that the Kremlin’s influence in the former Soviet Union continues long into the second regime of Vladimir Putin.

Meet the New Boss

When the Soviet Union collapsed, many of the KGB’s regional branches became the security services of the newly independent states. But they didn’t stray far from the Kremlin’s lead. They modeled their governing laws after Moscow’s, and used similar technology, too. Namely, SORM — Russia’s nationwide system of automated and remote legal interception on all kinds of communications.

SORM’s tactical and technical foundations were developed by a KGB research institute in the mid-1980s. Initially SORM was installed on analogue telephone lines. As new technologies developed, SORM did, as well.


Today SORM-1 intercepts telephone traffic, including mobile networks, while SORM-2 is responsible for intercepting internet traffic, including VoIP. SORM-3 gathers information from all communication media, and offers long-term storage (three years), providing access to all data on subscribers. In addition, SORM enables the use of mobile control points, a laptop that can be plugged directly into communication hubs and immediately intercept and record the operator’s traffic.

SORM also proved essential to spy on social networks based in Russia. “We can use SORM to take stuff off their servers behind their backs,” an FSB official told us. According to figures published by Russia’s Supreme Court, over the last five years the number of legal telephone intercepts alone has almost doubled, from 265,937 intercepts and recordings of phone calls and e-mails to 466,152 in 2011.

Read the whole study HERE.

Embrace your surveilled persona





Source: /www.adcet.edu.au

I’ve made a note a few days ago about an article I stumbled upon, which is called “Should we do away with privacy?”, so I decided to finally post about it. Its main idea is that the surveillance society reached a point in which, in order to be free, the individual should embrace his surveilled persona.

The basic line is stop fighting the process of giving up your privacy and start using in your favor the results of you being watched and transformed in data.

This idea is very interesting. I am currently writing a paper about how literature anticipated the emergence of the surveillance society and I’ve been reading a lot about this topic. I strongly feel that there is no way of putting an end to the surveillance society, no way of tempering it and it occurred to me that, possibly, the emergence of the surveillance society is as natural as the evolution of humankind.

Cindy Gallop’s idea is that “If you identify exactly who you are and what you stand for, what you believe in, what you value, and if you then only ever behave, act and communicate in a way that is true to you, then you never have to worry about where anybody comes across you or what you’re found doing.

Now, this is something to think about. As far as the social reality goes, this statement cannot be countered. As far as the philosophy of human rights goes, it is obvious that such an attitude would be exactly what Bentham was looking for in his Panopticon theory: correct behaviors due to permanent surveillance. The discussion can be endless, and it doesn’t suit a blog. Therefore, I invite you to read the article and make your own opinion about it: