--- begin forwarded text
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 15:08:12 -0400 To: Philodox Clips List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "R.A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Clips] Knowing me, knowing you Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5254923-103572,00.html> Guardian | Knowing me, knowing you George Orwell would be shocked at the popular support for the spread of surveillance technology, writes Victor Keegan Victor Keegan Thursday August 4, 2005 Guardian Unlimited There is not much doubt now that the world has entered the age of surveillance - with the UK at the leading edge. Britain now has over 4 million CCTV cameras in operation, the guardian angels of a secular society. If a referendum were to be held in the wake of the terrorists' attacks recommending cameras on every street it would probably be carried overwhelmingly. This is slightly surprising, not just because of the long-term implications for civil liberties, but because video cameras do not seem to have acted as a deterrent to terrorists, even though they have made it easier to identify them afterwards, whether dead or alive. The main means of tracking terrorist suspects down has been the monitoring of mobile phone conversations. Not only can operators pinpoint users to within yards of their location by "triangulating" the signals from three base stations, but - according to a report in the Financial Times - the operators (under instructions from the authorities) can remotely install software onto a handset to activate the microphone even when the user is not making a call. Who needs an ID card when they can do that already? On top of all this official scrutiny, there is a growing fashion for mutual personal surveillance from the millions of "smart" phones with built-in cameras and video functions that are getting more powerful by the week. It won't be long, doubtless, before miniaturised cameras will be embedded in spectacles enabling footage to be sent on the hoof to a remote website for archival purposes. Technology has undoubtedly helped terrorists get organised. The internet is a source for fundamentalist proselytising, information about activities such as bomb making and links to like-minded people, while mobile phones provide constant communication and, in some instances, detonators. Technology also offers unprecedented ways to track criminals down. But each advance in technological detection produces a counter-reaction from terrorists. Just as there has been a move away from laundering money through the international banking system (towards cash transactions) because of improved governmental monitoring, so the events of the past month could persuade terrorists to abandon mobile phones in favour of more primitive forms of communication such as one-to-one conversations. As technology continues to advance at a breathtaking pace, the future scope for finding out who we are is quite awesome. The current issue of Business Week lists the ways in which we can be uniquely identified from DNA and radio frequency identification tabs (RFID) to body odour, breath or saliva. There are even scientists working on "gait recognition" so future video cameras can pick us out from the way we walk in a crowd. The danger from all this is that few people will object as long as there is a serious threat of terrorism. But once (if?) the threat subsides, the infrastructure of surveillance will remain. Then it might not be the police reconstructing a fuzzy image from a crowd to catch a terrorist but an employee of the imaging company extorting money from someone found in a compromising position. As one Business Week contributor observed: "We get most of our security from liberty." If George Orwell were alive now (21 years after the London he depicted in 1984) he would be astonished by the fact that the sort of surveillance he feared is supported not by a government imposing it from above on an unwilling population but by a groundswell of popular support. That's not a problem at the moment. But it will be in future, either if we sign away civil liberties permanently in response to a temporary emergency or if the cost of installing the infrastructure becomes so huge that it erodes our personal prosperity. Either way, Bin Laden would have won. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' _______________________________________________ Clips mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]