Walk down your local high street with your neck angled roofwards and – being careful not to crash into a lamp-post – see how many CCTV cameras you can spot. Even for the vast majority of us who have nothing to hide, it’s an unsettling experience.
With over four million closed circuit TV cameras – that’s one for every 14 people –
It’s an emotive issue. And while many people justifiably ask why they should be concerned if they’re not upto anything dodgy, the use of CCTV to catch criminals in the act is increasingly being seen as the thin end of a very thick edge in which CCTV, mobile phones, travel passes and supermarket loyalty cards join forces to gather disproportionate amounts of data regarding our daily comings and goings. Add to this the fact that there’s mounting evidence that CCTV doesn’t achieve much more than enable the government to justify fewer police out on the beat, and
A self-consciously unalarmist (and all the more disturbing for this) report launched this week by The Royal Academy of Engineering highlights some of the things that could go wrong when technology and personal privacy collide on this scale, and it makes sobering reading.
The report argues that the increased use of surveillance technologies threatens to bring about a technical failure of catastrophic proportions. E-Passports, biometrics, the National Identity Register, public data on the web all have serious risks associated with them. If the system breaks down, as a result of accident or sabotage, the information that is lost, leaked or tampered with could have catastrophic effects on the individuals concerned.
On a less apocalyptic note, the report argues that there’s no reason why issues of personal privacy and public security have to be mutually exclusive. And part of the responsibility to find a route through this quagmire, lies with, you’ve guessed it, engineers, who through properly developed technology could help society tiptoe the fine line between safer streets and protected personal privacy.
It’s positive news for engineers, a vote of confidence for the power of technology to effectively address society’s problems. But it’s also a sobering reminder, that engineers, like all human beings, are responsible for the consequences of their actions. Technology creep – the notion that technology invented for one thing ends up being exploited in all kinds of sinister ways by governments, marketing people, insurance companies and nosey parkers is not really an excuse. While government must shoulder much of the responsibility for the way in which technology is deployed and regulated, engineers also have a responsibility to think about the ways in which technology can be abused, and then attempt to ensure that this won’t be possible.
Jon Excell
Features Editor
Today (29/03/07) the new “Ministry of Justice” is announced. How long before the “Ministry of Truth”?
Worried? You bet I am.
John Thompson
Sirs,
Mr. Excell’s truly excellent editorial in this week’s ‘Engineer Newsletter’ once again repeats the age-old adage that ‘engineers have a responsibility to think about the ways in which technology can be abused, and then attempt to ensure that this won’t be possible.’
If indeed, engineers and scientists actually behaved in this way, then there would be no scientific progress at all. Henri Poincare and Albert Einstein would never have attempted to publish the famous equation E = mc squared, for fear that, in later years, someone else might figure out that, if mass could indeed be converted into energy, then it might well be possible to develop an atomic weapon!
Should they then have thought twice about publishing their theory, then? Most scientists would argue not.
All science technology can be put to both good and bad use. The scientist should only deal with the technology.
Sincerely,
Dave Wilson
Whilst none of us want to feel Big Brother is always watching, it does have its use if resources can be targeted to specific areas
Where it does fail is in areas out of the public domain. We find that ‘security’ cameras ‘protecting’ places of work etc have no use in prosecuting offenders and so are not a deterrent. Witness the recent report of a chip shop owner who knows the intruder, passes the tape and the details to the authorities, and nothing happens.
Can someone please explain to me why, as a business operator, I am obliged to put up notices advising staff and visitors of the presence of CCTV, and even the local authorities tell you that you are about to be ‘Gatsoed’; and yet, as you so rightly point out, there are camera’s observing our every move in public places with little or no warning of their presence.
What’s the legal angle on this? What if I object to my image being captured, for let’s hypothetically suggest religious beliefs?
“Engineers also have a responsibility to think about the ways in which technology can be abused, and then attempt to ensure that this won’t be possible.”
Jon your last sentence is a very good suggestion but I am afraid engineers are the last people to rely on to protect public interest as far as privacy are concerned.
Take a look at this (typical) clause found in the Subscription and Software contracts (EULA) of a major CAD software vendor.
“XXXXXXXX shall have the right to conduct an audit on your premises or by electronic means to ensure that your use of all/any versions of the Software complies with the provisions of this Agreement. In the event any audit discloses a breach of this Agreement, XXXXXXXX reserves the right to terminate this Agreement and/or recover damages, attorney’s fees, and costs, including the cost of the audit.”
Try as I might to get engineers to recognise the danger in agreeing to a conditions that gives a software company total access to a customers systems without any recourse or scrutiny is lunacy; but you better believe it that’s exactly what millions of CAD users have done. In doing, so those users have put all of us who disagree at risk.
Why worry about who might be watching you in the street and not what can be done with your computers?
Yes, engineers can help control intrusion into our privacy but only when they show enough nous to protect themselves and their employer’s data.