02 April 2007
Surveillance
This past saturday i worked at the sts civic forum titled "Surveillance and you." The forum discussed surveillance in the present state of our digital world. I worked along with other participants to provide a sense of being watched throughout the event. The coordinators scripted a play of surveillance where the guests became the participants of the revealing experiment which became the forum. The experiment went as follows; Participants walked in and were greeted by a table for registration. The participants were then asked to give the registrar their thumb for fingerprinting. If the participant willingly gave their fingerprint they were given 5 aninimity dollars which they could later use to buy items towards concealing their identity during the forum from cameras that were taping the entire forum. If they would then provide another finger for identity then they would recieve another 5 aninimity dollars towards hiding their identity. If the participants were unwilling to provide their finger they were given a red ticket to go in with and were unable to recieve any aninimity dollars. The reactions from the participants unwilling to provide their fingerprinting was very interesting to experience. At first I thought the older participants would be the skeptical ones but it was random who would participate and who would refuse. I was shocked at first when I was told of the fingerprint scanners being used. Even though we are surveilled each day by many hidden "Cameras" of surveillance I felt my personal information being violated through the scanner. The experiment helped me to better understand surveillance and the actions being taken to have and protect our information. The topic of surveillance is ever present with the identity 2.0 increasing as the internet continues to develop. At this pace the internet will pose many security problems if they are not addressed soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
That's really interesting that they would do all that for a forum. I mean, where were they going with all of that, other than making the point that we're all being watched? I also find it interesting that it was random as to who didn't want to be fingerprinted. I can't imagine what I would do in the same situation. I think it is a good idea to think about the ways we as a society are being watched though. Knowledge is power. That's not to say that we should challenge it, because it may be for perfectly good reasons like our protection, but I am saying that we should always question it. Know why things are happening the way they are, and what options we have if we don't like things the way they are.
The thing about fingerprinting was pretty interesting indeed. The people who accepted only did so because they were given incentives(the anonymity dollars), and this was the main reason for doing that whole introduction. To get people thinking about how much incentives are used by public and private institutions to collect their private information. And even more-so how this is exactly the way digital identification is taking shape. They are crafting the envelop for our choices in the virtual, and public sphere; in a way that benefits the public good "the watchers" with little care for the individual, "the soon-to-be watchers". Its up to us to decide how big or small we want that envelop; not an easy task. Of course we could just not care and let corporate America decide for us, but at the moment, I dont think thats such a good idea.
Privacy and Security on on two completely different ends of the spectrum. It was interesting how the guy -now school of information technician- who used to work for the CIA said all the whitepapers and research topics he had on his desk before 9/11 all dealt with privacy. Immediately following the tragedy, everything he had worked on up to that point was trashed and security proposals took center stage. Fear has eaten the soul.
What do you guys think about "security" impeding freedom?
I think we need to be worried less about practical security issues and more about the psychological and conceptual issues driving the lack of trust and need for more security.
I couldn't make "Surveillance and you" so its interesting to read your observations. Given that, I can't help but think about how surveillance affects us in our every day lives already. Specifically what most readily comes to mind is how IM transcripts and email records have sank the hopes and careers of some recently made infamous politicians. This could be considered an example of how UbiComp is already embedded in our day to day lives. However we interface, with whatever device, however it relates to UbiComp...our interface actions are recorded, archived and readily available for reference. See the afore mentioned example of infamous lawmakers. Though we may not be able to escape our keystrokes, one thing to note would be the availability of so much info might be indicative of an overload of info. Things can fall through the cracks is my point here. I can see the overload of info being overcome by evolving "filters", which will shift the burden of analyzing the overload from "cultural" to the "computer" realm. A positive point we could pry out of this good/bad scenario would be the more efficient dissemination of pertinent info e.g. "homeland security". The problem that develops when we consider this is the context. The context shifts and we move from better security to big brother.
I am interested to know what the exact responses were when asked to fingerprint from those who refused. I mean were they dismayed, appalled, or just weary of giving away such an intimate piece of their identity for whatever purpose the forum served. I also want to know if the ones who did agree to be fingerprinted knew before hand that they were getting these anonymity dollars or if it was just a pleasant surprise afterwards. I’m not sure if I would have given my fingerprint or not but it does make you ask questions and raises many more on ones rights and personal security. In response to Shanek’s question of security impeding on freedom I think it can serve a more meaningful purpose that out ways this impedance. Take for example the airport security checks. I really don’t mind standing another 30 minutes to an hour while some one intrudes on my personal belongings as long as it deters and prevents another attack
Wow, I wish I had gotten a chance to experience that convention. It seems ironic and counterintuitive to me that in order to gain "aninimity" from the cameras, you were required to give a finger print. You have to be very short minded if you are willing to sacrifice your picture being taken to your fingerprint. The fingerprint is a much more precise way of measuring who a person is. Fake ID's work downtown all of the time, but a fake fingerprint scanner wouldn't stand a chance. I was also surprised to hear that it was a good cross section of people who would not want to participate. Just like you I figured it would be more of an older crowd that was skeptical of the experiment. I would be interested to hear an interview with one of the people after they figured it all out.
My only worries are when participation in giving out your identity are mandated to whatever you are doing. Much like presenting an ID to a liquor store clerk who proceeds to swipe it in the machine, sometimes identifying yourself is not an option. I'm very reluctant to enter information such as my telephone number or email address. Though this prevents annoyances, the behavior helps when practicing safe interaction with Everyware. The more items I buy with cash, the less likely I'll be scrutinized under the proverbial microscope.
Post a Comment