29.5 Applications
30.1.13 Human Microchips
Main Article
A human microchip implant is an identifying integrated circuit device or RFID transponder encased in silicate glass and implanted in the body of a human being. A subdermal implant typically contains a unique ID num- ber that can be linked to information contained in an ex- ternal database, such as personal identification, medical history, medications, allergies, and contact information. Several types of microchips have been developed in order to control and monitor certain individuals such as crim- inals, political figures and spies, a “killer” tracking chip patent was filed at the German Patent and Trademark Of- fice(DPMA) around May 2009.
30.1.14 Devices
See also:United States v. Spy Factory, Inc.
Covert listening devices and video devices, or “bugs”, are hidden electronic devices which are used to capture, record, and/or transmit data to a receiving party such as a law enforcement agency.
The U.S. has run numerous domestic intelligence oper- ations, such asCOINTELPRO, which have bugged the homes, offices, and vehicles of thousands of U.S. citizens, usuallypolitical activists,subversives, andcriminals.[115] Law enforcement and intelligence services in the U.K. and the United States possess technology to remotely ac- tivate the microphones in cell phones, by accessing the phone’s diagnostic/maintenance features, in order to lis- ten to conversations that take place nearby the person who holds the phone.[24][25][26]
166 CHAPTER 30. SURVEILLANCE
30.1.15
Postal services
As more people use faxes and e-mail the significance of surveilling the postal system is decreasing, in favor of Internet and telephone surveillance. But interception of post is still an available option for law enforcement and intelligence agencies, in certain circumstances.
The U.S.Central Intelligence AgencyandFederal Bureau of Investigation have performed twelve separate mail- opening campaigns targeted towards U.S. citizens. In one of these programs, more than 215,000 communications were intercepted, opened, and photographed.[116][117]
30.2 Controversy
Graffiti expressing concern about proliferation of video surveil- lance
30.2.1
Support
Some supporters of surveillance systems believe that these tools protect society fromterroristsandcriminals. Supporters argue surveillance can reduce crime by three means: by deterrence, by observation, and by reconstruc- tion. Surveillance can deter by increasing the chance of being caught, and by revealing themodus operandi. This requires a minimal level ofinvasiveness.[118]Surveillance can give human operatives a tactical advantage through improved situational awareness, or through the use of au- tomated processes, i.e. video analytics. Surveillance can help reconstruct an incident and prove guilt through the availability of footage for forensics experts. Surveillance can also influence subjective security if surveillance re- sources are visible or if the consequences of surveillance can be felt.
Other supporters simply believe that there is nothing that can be done about it, and that people must become accus- tomed to having no privacy. AsSun MicrosystemsCEO Scott McNealysaid: “You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.”[119][120]
Another common argument is: "If you aren't doing some- thing wrong then you don't have anything to fear.” Which follows that if one is engaging in unlawful activities, in which case they do not have a legitimate justification for their privacy. However, if they are following the law the surveillance would not affect them.[121]
30.2.2 Opposition
An elaborategraffitoin Columbus, Ohio, depicting state surveil- lance oftelecommunications
With the advent of programs such as theTotal Informa- tion Awarenessprogram andADVISE, technologies such ashigh speed surveillance computersandbiometricssoft- ware, and laws such as theCommunications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, governments now possess an unprecedented ability to monitor the activities of their subjects.[122]Manycivil rights andprivacy groups, such as theElectronic Frontier FoundationandAmerican Civil Liberties Union, have expressed concern that by allowing continual increases in government surveillance of citizens we will end up in amass surveillancesociety, with ex- tremely limited, or non-existent political and/or personal freedoms. Fears such as this have led to numerous law- suits such asHepting v. AT&T.[122][123]
Some critics state that the claim made by supporters should be modified to read: “As long as we do what we're told, we have nothing to fear.”. For instance, a person who is part of a political group which opposes the policies of the national government, might not want the govern- ment to know their names and what they have been read-
30.2. CONTROVERSY 167
ing, so that the government cannot easily subvert their or- ganization, arrest, or kill them. Other critics state that while a person might not have anything to hide right now, the government might later implement policies that they do wish to oppose, and that opposition might then be im- possible due to mass surveillance enabling the govern- ment to identify and remove political threats. Further, other critics point to the fact that most people do have things to hide. For example, if a person is looking for a new job, they might not want their current employer to know this. Also if an employer wishes total privacy to watch over their own employee and secure their financial information it may become impossible, and they may not wish to hire those under surveillance. The most concern of detriment is securing the lives of those who live under total surveillance willingly, educating the public to those under peaceful watch while identifying terrorist and those who use the same surveillance systems and mechanisms in opposition to peace, against civilians, and to disclose lives removed from the laws of the land.
In addition, a significant risk of private data collection stems from the fact that this risk is too much unknown to be readily assessed today. Storage is cheap enough to have data stored forever, and the models using which it will be analyzed in a decade from now cannot reasonably be foreseen.[124]
Totalitarianism
Programs such as theTotal Information Awarenesspro- gram, and laws such as theCommunications Assistance For Law Enforcement Acthave led many groups to fear that society is moving towards a state ofmass surveillance with severely limited personal, social, political freedoms, where dissenting individuals or groups will be strategi- cally removed inCOINTELPRO-like purges.[122][123] Kate Martin, of the Center For National Security Stud- ies said of the use of military spy satellites being used to monitor the activities of U.S. citizens: “They are laying the bricks one at a time for a police state.”[105]
Some point to the blurring of lines between public and private places, and the privatization of places tradition- ally seen as public (such as shopping malls and industrial parks) as illustrating the increasing legality of collecting personal information.[125] Traveling through many pub- lic places such as government offices is hardly optional for most people, yet consumers have little choice but to submit to companies’ surveillance practices.[126]Surveil- lance techniques are not created equal; among the many biometric identification technologies, for instance, face recognitionrequires the least cooperation. Unlike auto- matic fingerprint reading, which requires an individual to press a finger against a machine, this technique is subtle and requires little to no consent.[126]
A traffic camera atop a high pole oversees a road in the Canadian city of Toronto.
Psychological/social effects
Some critics, such asMichel Foucault, believe that in ad- dition to its obvious function of identifying and capturing individuals who are committing undesirable acts, surveil- lance also functions to create in everyone a feeling of al- ways being watched, so that they become self-policing. This allows the State to control the populace without hav- ing to resort to physical force, which is expensive and oth- erwise problematic.[127]
168 CHAPTER 30. SURVEILLANCE
over a large populous through the uncertainty of surveil- lance. Michel Foucault analyzed the architecture of the prison panopticon, and realized that its success was not just in its ability to monitor but also its ability to not mon- itor without anyone knowing.[128]Critics such as Derrick Jensen and George Draffan, argue that panopticism in the United States began in World War I when the issuing of passports became important for the tracking of citizens and possibly enemies of the state. Such surveillance con- tinues today through government agencies in the form of tracking internet usage and library usage.[129]
Psychologists have shown that merely giving people the “illusion” of being observed can produce significant vol- untary changes in a range of pro-social behaviors.[130]For example, studies have shown that people donate more and litter less when they think that they are being watched.
Privacy
Numerous civil rights groups and privacy groups op- pose surveillance as a violation of people’s right to pri- vacy. Such groups include: Electronic Privacy Informa- tion Center, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union
There have been several lawsuits such as Hepting v. AT&TandEPIC v. Department of Justiceby groups or individuals, opposing certain surveillance activities. Legislative proceedings such as those that took place dur- ing theChurch Committee, which investigated domestic intelligence programs such asCOINTELPRO, have also weighed the pros and cons of surveillance.