Beneath the Shadows: Private Surveillance in Public Spaces | IGF 2023

Report

During the discussion, various topics related to technology and data were explored, including the use of blockchain technology for collecting biometric data. An audience member asked for opinions on this matter. The sentiment towards this question was neutral, with no specific arguments or evidence provided for or against using blockchain for biometric data collection.

However, it was mentioned that blockchain might be beneficial in controlling access to data, suggesting a potential advantage in using this technology for biometrics.

Another concern raised by an audience member was the issue of real-time surveillance in India.

The sentiment expressed was negative, with the argument focusing on the lack of protection and rights for users in the face of such surveillance. The audience member questioned whether individuals are adequately informed when their data is being processed and if they are aware of being under surveillance in public areas.

Unfortunately, no supporting facts or evidence were provided to further substantiate these concerns.

Furthermore, an audience member from Australia discussed the increasing use of advanced technology in accumulating data and enhancing private surveillance. This sentiment was negative, and the argument emphasized the implications this has for user privacy.

It was highlighted that developed nations are acquiring wealth and control through the collection of data using advanced technologies. However, no specific evidence or examples were provided to support this claim.

In conclusion, the discussions surrounding blockchain technology, data security, biometric collection, and surveillance touched upon important implications for data protection and user rights.

While the use of blockchain for biometric data collection was not extensively debated, the potential of blockchain in controlling data access was acknowledged. The concerns raised about real-time surveillance in India and the increasing use of advanced technology in data accumulation and private surveillance highlighted the need for protections and solutions to safeguard user privacy.

Nonetheless, the lack of concrete evidence and specific supporting facts weakened the arguments presented.

Report

Private surveillance companies in Brazil, such as Gabriel and Yellow Cam, are providing readily accessible 24/7 surveillance solutions to neighborhoods without oversight or accountability. This poses major risks for privacy, human rights, transparency, and data sharing. The lack of sufficient information and oversight surrounding these surveillance practices is of particular concern, potentially impacting historically marginalized groups and leading to exclusion.

Additionally, the demand for private surveillance solutions highlights a lack of trust in public government solutions. The regulatory gaps in Brazil regarding the use of technology and data for public security contribute to the lack of oversight and accountability. Users should be informed about the risks, legal grounds, and potential access to their data.

Moreover, more legal guarantees and safeguards need to be developed to regulate the activities of private surveillance companies. Overall, greater transparency, public awareness, and comprehensive regulatory frameworks are essential to protect privacy and individual rights in the context of private surveillance in Brazil.

Report

The rapid increase in network surveillance of physical spaces, alongside traditional digital surveillance, has become a growing concern. It exposes individuals to potential targeting by both public and private entities. By 2021, it was predicted that the number of surveillance cameras globally would exceed 1 billion, blurring the lines between public and private surveillance.

Emerging technologies such as biometric surveillance and ’emotion recognition’ are giving those who control cameras in public spaces new capabilities.

Facial recognition technologies are being sold as part of the surveillance package, enabling the identification of individuals in real time. Emotion recognition technology is also being used in different countries to monitor students, drivers, and criminal suspects. These new developments raise ethical and privacy concerns as they can be intrusive and have significant implications for personal freedom and autonomy.

The involvement of private companies in surveillance poses challenges to transparency and accountability.

Private entities are inclined to protect their intellectual property, making it difficult for citizens and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to understand how surveillance systems operate. Additionally, contracts between public and private partners often lack specific provisions on how private entities can utilise the resulting data.

This lack of clear guidelines raises the risk of misuse and potential violation of privacy rights.

While biometric identification has its controversies, it also has legitimate uses that should not be overlooked. It distinguishes itself from biometric surveillance, which involves the monitoring and tracking of individuals without their explicit consent.

Biometric identification allows users to intentionally use their physical attributes, such as fingerprints or facial recognition, to access a space or account. However, appropriate safeguards are needed to ensure that biometric data is properly protected and not misused by unauthorised entities.

The integration of sensitive data with blockchain technology is met with scepticism.

Storing sensitive data in a system designed to be unerasable raises concerns about data security and privacy. The immutability of blockchain can be seen as both a benefit and a risk, as any potential breaches or unauthorised access may have long-lasting consequences.

European digital rights groups argue for a ban on real-time surveillance in public spaces.

They believe that real-time surveillance is difficult to control and regulate, which can lead to potential abuses of power. Striking a balance between security and privacy is crucial to maintain public trust.

Furthermore, public awareness and understanding of surveillance systems and the information possessed by the government are vital.

In countries like Estonia, where elaborate e-government systems are in place, public awareness is a key safeguard to ensure trust in surveillance practices.

In conclusion, the rapid expansion of network surveillance in physical spaces, coupled with emerging technologies, raises significant concerns regarding privacy, transparency, and accountability.

The involvement of private companies, appropriate safeguards in biometric identification, scepticism towards integrating blockchain with sensitive data, and the need for public awareness and trust all play crucial roles in shaping the future of surveillance systems. Striking a balance between security and individual rights is essential for the responsible development and use of surveillance technologies.

Report

The session titled “Beneath the Shadows: Private Surveillance in Public Spaces” focused on exploring the involvement of the private sector in surveillance and public security solutions, highlighting the associated risks, implications, and necessary safeguards. Despite Estela Aranha, the on-site speaker, being unable to attend, the session featured three online speakers, including Bárbara Simão, the Head of Research in Privacy and Surveillance at Internet Lab.

Bárbara Simão provided an overview of the topic, emphasising the role of the private sector in surveillance solutions and public security.

Internet Lab, a think tank based in Brazil, specialises in digital rights and Internet policy. Bárbara holds a Master’s Degree in Law and Development and has extensive experience in digital rights research.

Beth Curley, a programme officer with the National Endowment for Democracy’s International Forum for Democracy, contributed to the session.

Beth, who has a background in history and foreign services, discussed the challenges associated with private surveillance in public spaces. She offered insights based on her experience as the former associate editor of the Journal of Democracy.

Swati Punia, a technology policy researcher based in New Delhi, India, focused on the intersection of technology, law, and policy in society.

With her legal background and expertise in privacy, data protection, and emerging technologies, she highlighted the importance of addressing these issues, particularly in developing countries. Swati’s current research involves exploring the potential of non-crypto blockchain in India and its implications for socio-economic challenges and privacy in the global South.

Representing the private sector’s perspective, Iezodara Córdova, the principal privacy researcher at Unico Idetec, a biometric identity company, shared valuable insights.

With a history of collaborating with esteemed organizations such as the World Bank, the United Nations, Harvard University, and TikTok, Iezodara has worked on projects concerning digital citizenship, online security, and civic engagement.

During the session, questions from the audience were addressed, allowing for engaging discussions.

The speakers also shared their final thoughts on the importance of regulation and policy to tackle the concerns surrounding private surveillance in public spaces.

Overall, the session provided a valuable contribution to the ongoing discourse surrounding the role of the private sector in surveillance and public security.

The speakers’ diverse backgrounds and expertise added depth and richness to the discussion, offering attendees and online participants valuable insights to consider in this ever-evolving domain.

Report

Swati Punia raises concerns about surveillance automation and its approach to crime and criminality. She argues that current surveillance practices tend to focus on handling petty crimes, while larger, structural crimes like financial crimes are often overlooked. Swati emphasises the need to reassess our conceptions of crime and criminality to address these systemic issues more effectively.

Swati highlights the importance of an interdisciplinary approach in civil society to tackle surveillance-related challenges.

She believes that conversation and collaboration among academics, lawyers, and NGOs are crucial in effectively addressing these issues. Swati points out that working in silos can limit the effectiveness of addressing systemic problems, and therefore, calls for shared learning and interdisciplinary efforts.

Furthermore, Swati stresses the need for collaboration and shared learning among the global majority to address surveillance-related challenges.

She suggests that conferences and discussions can provide platforms for stakeholders from different parts of the world to engage in dialogue and share their experiences. Understanding shared experiences within similar socio-political and cultural contexts can lead to more effective solutions and responses.

Another aspect Swati discusses is the importance of digital literacy and empowerment.

She notes that even educated individuals may lack digital literacy skills, such as understanding financial matters online. Swati suggests that the government should do more in terms of digital empowerment, ensuring that individuals have the necessary skills and knowledge to navigate the digital landscape.

In terms of technology, Swati argues that it should focus on building privacy and security by design.

She proposes that with the lack of digital literacy, there should be technologies that inherently secure and respect the user’s privacy. Swati believes that prioritising privacy and security in technological developments can mitigate potential harms and protect individuals’ rights.

Swati also highlights the role of civil society organisations (CSOs) in capacity building.

She mentions that her organisation, the Center for Communication Governance, actively works on initiatives such as the privacy law library, regional high court tracker, and professional training. Swati believes that CSOs play a vital role in enhancing understanding and expertise in surveillance-related matters.

Lastly, Swati suggests that countries like India should not simply copy-paste solutions from Europe or other developed countries.

Instead, they should consider their own social, cultural, and political environments when implementing digital solutions. Swati notes that many developing nations are rapidly adopting advanced privacy norms without sufficient preparation, which may not be suitable given their unique contexts.

In conclusion, Swati Punia’s discussion on surveillance automation highlights the need to reassess our approach to crime and criminality.

She advocates for an interdisciplinary approach in civil society, collaboration and shared learning among the global majority, digital literacy and empowerment, privacy and security by design in technology, and the role of civil society organisations in capacity building. Swati encourages countries like India to consider their own context when implementing digital solutions in order to better address surveillance-related challenges.

Report

The debate centres around the issue of control and consent regarding users’ biometric and personal data. One perspective in the debate argues that user control is vital in order to prevent the misuse of data and protect privacy. They suggest implementing rules and ethical frameworks that increase user awareness of data collection.

This approach emphasises the importance of separating different types of identification technologies to improve user control and promote data privacy.

Another viewpoint suggests that the control over sensitive biometric data should be entrusted to a neutral third-party or citizens’ counsel.

The proponents of this argument raise concerns about law enforcement having access to and retaining the ability to edit videos, as this encroaches on personal freedom and raises privacy concerns. They caution against potential abuse of data by law enforcement agencies.

Furthermore, it is argued that user control over their data is essential not only for privacy but also to prevent potential misuse.

The introduction of new rules and ethical frameworks is proposed to enhance user awareness of data collection practices. By doing so, users would have more control over their personal information and be able to protect their privacy more effectively.

A related point that arises in the debate is the need for user control in data privacy.

It is observed that both industries and governments are collecting data indiscriminately. The cost of maintaining the integrity of personally identifiable information is said to be increasing. Therefore, it is suggested that obtaining permission or consent for the use of a dataset is crucial, ensuring that the dataset belongs to the person it represents.

Transparency and ethical considerations in data handling are also highlighted as significant concerns.

It is noted that structuring and cleaning data are among the most expensive activities in the machine learning process. The demand for transparency through regulation is seen as a potential driver for governments and industries to clarify their data practices.

Transparency is seen as the foundation upon which user control can be built.

In conclusion, the debate surrounding user control and consent over biometric and personal data highlights the importance of protecting privacy and preventing data misuse. Various arguments propose different ways to achieve this, including implementing rules and ethical frameworks, entrusting control to neutral parties or citizens’ counsels, and promoting transparency in data handling.

These discussions aim to establish a balance between leveraging the benefits of technology and safeguarding individuals’ rights and privacy in the digital age.