Use Of Surveillance Technologies Research Articles

Self-Tracking Technology as an Extension of Man

Self-Tracking Technology as an Extension of Man

Surveillance, intervention and the politics of care

This article connects with debates about the use of surveillance technology to detect, report and prevent abuse in care settings. Grounded in a Heideggerian theorisation of care as intervention, it argues that care unfolds in people’s deliberations and decisions about whether and how to intercede when abuse is suspected. Such reflections reveal the politics of care because they are contingent on how the need for care is constructed, and actions subsequently legitimised. From this perspective, surveillance can be seen as a manifestation of care, involving choice and responsibility for framing both the problem of, and solution to, abuse.

What do we require from surveillance technology? A review of the needs of people with dementia and informal caregivers.

IntroductionDementia has become a major global concern and surveillance technology might provide support for informal caregivers and people with dementia. However, the needs of caregivers and people with dementia for surveillance technology have not been reviewed.MethodA scoping literature review was used to identify the needs of caregivers and/or people with dementia towards surveillance technology. Electronic database searching was undertaken on LexisNexis, PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing, Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Assistive Technology database, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies were synthesized by theme.ResultsTwenty-eight eligible studies were identified, with the majority reporting the needs of caregivers rather than people with dementia. The predominant themes for caregivers were location accuracy, and increasing the safety of the person with dementia. People with dementia wanted simple useful technology that fits within their capacity and existing routines.ConclusionsThe needs of people with dementia must be considered when designing surveillance products. Studies have mostly focused on caregivers and discount ST product requirements. Further work is required to establish effective use of surveillance technology in dementia care. Therefore, further research should cross analyze these results by examining both the needs of caregivers, and people with dementia.

Protecting journalistic sources against contemporary means of surveillance

Abstract This article aims to explore the impact of contemporary surveillance measures on journalistic work, in particular, in the context of protecting journalistic sources of information. Such protection is considered necessary to guarantee the free flow of information and enable journalists to appropriately fulfil their ‘public watchdog’ role. Thus, the use of surveillance technology to compromise the confidentiality of sources affects freedom of expression, but it also influences the observance of other human rights, such as the right to privacy. This article analyses both legal and practical aspects of the application of surveillance measures with respect to journalists. First, it reflects on the legal standards for protecting journalistic sources in the digital age and on the new legal developments weakening source protection in those countries. Second, it examines selected instances when journalists were subject to surveillance in three countries: Bulgaria, Poland and Romania.

The Eyes of Law Enforcement in the New Panopticon: Police-Community Racial Asymmetry and the Use of Surveillance Technology

This study examines the relationship between police-community racial asymmetry and the use of surveillance technology by local law enforcement. The data come from a nationally representative survey of law enforcement agencies, with supplementary information provided by the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Survey, the Census, and the Uniform Crime Reports. Results indicate that police departments that underrepresent African Americans in the community are more likely to use or plan to implement surveillance technology, controlling for a range of agency-and contextual-level factors. One potential explanation for these findings is that surveillance technology operates as a form of social control that is differentially applied to racial minorities to manage what is perceived to be a greater proclivity toward criminal behavior. The implications of these findings are discussed.

The effectiveness of surveillance technology: What intelligence officials are saying

ABSTRACTIn recent years, Western governments have come under sharp criticism for their use of surveillance technology. They have been accused of sweeping up massive amounts of information without evidence of the technologies being effective in improving security. The view of critics is clear, but what do intelligence officials themselves say? This paper analyzes statements of intelligence officials in the U.S. and U.K. from 2006 to 2016, examines what criteria officials use in their discourse on effectiveness, and investigates how considerations of cost and proportionality factor into the equation. It identifies seven measures of effectiveness in the statements of intelligence officials, and finds that cost, though rarely discussed, is the driver behind formalized evaluations of surveillance programs.

Federal and State Preemption of Local Privacy Regulation

In recent years, cities have started to regulate the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data by local government agencies. Much of this regulatory activity involves setting limits on police department acquisition and/or use of surveillance equipment and technology or establishing privacy principles safeguarding all data collection and use by city agencies. Obviously, the prospects for successful local policymaking in the privacy arena (“privacy localism”) extend no further than the preemptive effect of applicable federal and/or state law. If federal electronic surveillance law preempts local surveillance ordinances or city privacy laws, that’s game, set, and match. State preemption of privacy localism poses an even greater threat given that cities derive their power to govern not from any federal sources of law but from state constitutional and statutory provisions as interpreted by state courts. Thus, states can override local privacy initiatives in either of two ways: by enacting laws that preempt local privacy laws or withdrawing city authority to adopt such laws. In short, quite apart from its substantive merits, the success or failure of privacy localism largely rests on cities finding ways to avoid preemption and maintain local power. This Article examines in detail the threat of federal and state overrides of privacy localism. This is a narrow perspective on privacy localism but of vital importance for the reason just given: federal — and especially state — preemption has the capacity to stop local privacy regulation in its tracks. The inquiry into federal preemption of local privacy regulation requires a review of over two dozen federal privacy statutes. This turns out to be quite manageable because so few of them bear directly on local surveillance ordinances or local regulation of city data practices (which are the principle concerns of privacy localism). State preemption is harder to tackle given that there are approximately 700 state privacy laws, which makes for a crowded regulatory arena with a seemingly endless capacity to override local privacy law. The sheer number of state laws requires some simplifying assumptions to guide the state preemption analysis. Because Seattle and New York city are leading the way in regulating local police use of surveillance technologies and local data practices, this Article will mostly focus on Washington and New York state laws regulating (1) video cameras and/or facial recognition, automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), and drones; and (2) government records or personal data collected by government agencies insofar as they overlap with Seattle and New York City’s locally adopted privacy rules.

The body politics of the urban age: reflections on surveillance and affect

The article theorizes surveillance and affect in the context of urban security policy. Surveillance, as commonly understood, provides the means to “know” a person or a population, and to a certain extent to control or manage her/him/it. Hence, surveillance and knowledge are intimately tied together. New modes of surveillance are, therefore, also contingent upon new ways of knowing. This article discusses surveillance and affect in urban politics and let these concepts communicate with empirical research on urban security. The starting point is empirical research in three European cities on changes in local level security policy between 2000 and 2010. In all three cases, significant changes in the governance networks’ approaches about security were observed. These changes coincided with new developments in the use of surveillance technologies to increase feelings of security. In this process “performative” surveillance became a central aspect of urban security policy, with particular focus on affects related to fear of crime, old age, and gender. The article theorizes the relationship between security, surveillance, and affect. The argument put forward is that new security policies were instances of the production of a discourse in which the pre-cognitive, instinctual affects were increasingly targeted. The article shows how proponents of the new type of security governance articulate policy goals focusing on fear, threat, and surveillance. It contributes to a small body of literature on urban security and emotions by showing how cultural differences play out when similar policy goals that target citizens on the level of pre-cognitive affects are implemented.

A gap in the market: the conceptualisation of surveillance, security, privacy and trust in public opinion surveys.

Understanding the attitudes of members of the public towards the impact of surveillance technologies used to enhance public security on their privacy is an essential, but complex consideration for policy makers, where public trust plays a central role. Understanding public attitudes involves assessing what public opinion surveys reveal. However, in order to ensure that public attitudes are appropriately being measured across all four concepts (privacy, security, trust and surveillance) it is necessary to consider how existing surveys conceptualise and operationalise these terms. This article undertakes precisely this consideration, in order to evaluate existing practices and provide recommendations for future public opinion surveys on surveillance technologies or practices intended to provide security, but which may impact privacy. We have found three issues relating to past approaches: past surveys do not always adequately define or conceptualise the terms they are employing. Second, surveys sometimes rely on the use of examples in lieu of definitions. Finally, and most importantly, we find that existing surveys do not always adequately examine the impact of the public’s trust towards the use of surveillance technologies to enhance security, but which may affect their privacy.

Healthcare law and ethics, 11: restraint and surveillance within care homes (2/2)

This article in this series on healthcare ethics will continue the focus on restraint and surveillance begun in the previous article and will highlight the often thorny issues of covert administration of medicines with particular reference to: those with a learning disability; those who are elderly; and the use of surveillance technology in health and social care environments.

Surveillance technologies as Instruments of discipline in the elite sports coaching context: A cautionary post-structural commentary

The use of surveillance technologies as tools to encourage performance enhancement has become an accepted component of elite coaching. Those from the communities of sports physiology, psychology and biomechanics who promote the application of surveillance technologies have reported multiple benefits for the athlete. Conversely, several socio-cultural studies have suggested that surveillance technologies can lead to an oppressive mechanism of control over the athlete, significantly altering the role and responsibilities of the contemporary coach. In this critical commentary we use a post-structural position and adopt Foucault’s disciplinary analysis to contribute to the ongoing debate surrounding the use of surveillance technology in sport. Specifically, we achieve this by labelling surveillance technologies in sport as what Foucault (1977) might call, instruments of discipline, and by explaining the impact they have upon the working coach and the skilled athlete. We present some suggestions surrounding how to most appropriately utilise surveillance technologies in a sports coaching context and conclude by warning against a binary consideration of the use of technology as either good or bad.

Appropriating Video Surveillance for Art and Environmental Awareness: Experiences from ARTiVIS.

Arts, Real-Time Video and Interactivity for Sustainability (ARTiVIS) is an ongoing collaborative research project investigating how real-time video, DIY surveillance technologies and sensor data can be used as a tool for environmental awareness, activism and artistic explorations. The project consists of a series of digital contexts for aesthetic contemplation of nature and civic engagement, aiming to foster awareness and empowerment of local populations through DIY surveillance. At the core of the ARTIVIS efforts are a series of interactive installations (namely B-Wind!, Hug@tree and Play with Fire), that make use of surveillance technologies and real-time video as raw material to promote environmental awareness through the emotion generated by real-time connections with nature. Throughout the project development, the surveillance concept has been shifting from the use of surveillance technology in a centralized platform, to the idea of veillance with distributed peer-to-peer networks that can be used for science and environmental monitoring. In this paper we present the history of the ARTiVIS project, related and inspiring work, describe ongoing research work and explore the present and future challenges of appropriating surveillance technology for artistic, educational and civic engagement purposes.

The Use of Surveillance Technologies for the Prevention, Investigation and Prosecution of Serious Crime

This Working Paper is based on two research reports that were the outcome of the research carried out by the team of the Universite Libre de Bruxelles within the FP7 project SURVEILLE. Such research focused on the use of surveillance technologies for the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of serious crime. Taken together, the two reports developed a comparative analysis of a number of surveillance technologies and techniques used at different stages of the criminal procedure within selected national jurisdictions. The first project deliverable, finalised in October 2012 and entitled “The use of surveillance technologies for the prevention and investigation of serious crime” (D4.1), addressed the use of the interception of telecommunications and video-surveillance in three countries, namely France, Italy and the United Kingdom. The second deliverable, finalised in April 2013 and entitled “Comparative law paper on data retention regulation on a sample of EU Member States” (D4.3), examined the rules governing the retention of data by telecommunications companies and internet service providers for criminal justice purposes in nine countries (i.e. Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and the United Kingdom). The two reports test the existence of what the authors call a double shift: the means at the disposal of competent national authorities (intelligence services and law enforcement agencies) in the fight against serious crime are evolving in such a way that the share of tasks and competences is now increasingly blurred. The fundamental rights dimension was the normative background of the legal dimensions of the SURVEILLE project as a whole, and thus also of the present work. The impact of evolving trends in the use of surveillance upon the right to privacy and the right to the protection of personal data are at the core of this research undertaking. The authors wish to highlight that legislation is changing very quickly in this domain both at the national level and at the EU level. In particular, the January 2015 attacks in Paris against Charlie Hebdo, the February 2015 attacks in Copenhagen and the increasing threat resulting from the foreign fighters phenomenon are significantly challenging the effectiveness of means used by States to prevent, investigate, detect and prosecute terrorist offences. Recent legislative developments deepen the blur between the tasks and functions of intelligence services and law enforcement agencies as well as the blur between administrative and criminal law measures. Furthermore, with the ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 8 April 2014 in the Digital Rights Ireland case -- partially reaffirmed in Schrems, EU Member States together with EU institutions have to rethink the legal framework concerning the use of surveillance technologies and techniques in order to ensure a coherent relationship between on the one hand safeguarding the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, and on the other hand developing effective means to prevent, investigate, detect and prosecute serious crime. Despite the fact that the two papers were written at least two years ago, the information remains largely up to date. These papers analyse a trend that has been occurring for some years and that is not over yet: a massive use of surveillance technologies and techniques by an increasing number of competent authorities leading to an exponential gathering of information by EU Member States aiming to fight more effectively against serious crime -- often at the expense of fundamental rights.

The Smart Floor: How a Public-Private Partnership co-developed a heterogeneous healthcare technology system.

Currently, a wide variety of healthcare technologies are being implemented in private homes, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. with the triple aim of improving people's health, improving the quality of care, and reducing costs related to healthcare services. In this chapter, we discuss how different actors in a public-private partnership co-developed a heterogeneous system around the Smart Floor to ensure that both new healthcare practices and residents' routines were inscribed into the new healthcare technology. We argue that implementing the Smart Floor was not just a question of buying a technology and integrating it during construction-it required co-development with the healthcare staff. The floor is more than a technology placed under the floor surface in a resident's apartment; rather, it is a heterogeneous network of human and non-human actors communicating with each other. In this chapter, we illustrate how the heterogeneous technological system was co-developed and redesigned during knowledge sharing processes with companies, lead-users, and healthcare staff. We also discuss how care practices have changed as a result of the Smart Floor system. In particular, healthcare staff members no longer feel a need to disturb elderly residents with routine in-person checks. Domesticating the technologies for different groups of actors required not only coordinating communication among sensors, the interface, the portable nurse call (smartphones), and alarms, but also accepting the use of surveillance technology.

The Use of Surveillance Technologies in Planning Enforcement

This article explores the use of surveillance technologies in planning enforcement. Using literature from surveillance studies, it explores the use of well-established and more recent ‘surveillance technologies’, including aerial photography, closed-circuit television and the Street View function in Google Maps. The article identifies the varying use of these technologies in planning enforcement and explains the reasons for this using concepts derived from surveillance studies.

Surveillance technologies in care homes: seven principles for their use

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to consider the use of surveillance technologies in care homes and the way in which they can help protect older people. It signals an ethical way forward for their use that de-fuses the heightened rhetoric associated with concerns about the abuse. Totally, seven principles are put forward by which the use of surveillance technologies can be supported. Design/methodology/approach – The paper recognises the significance of technological developments and the key part that they now play in helping people live more independently. Surveillance technologies have a part in this within care homes, but there are important ethical considerations – notably around the way in which concerns for privacy are balanced with those about people’s safety and autonomy. Findings – The paper points to an approach that can guide the use of surveillance technologies within care homes. The seven principles put forward will be built on through further work in 2015 including care home residents, family carers, formal care providers and others. In setting out these principles the paper mediates between the positions of those who argue the merits of such technologies and those who point to some of them, notably cameras, as undermining people’s privacy and the nature of the “care relationship”. Originality/value – The subject matter of the paper is important because of the attention being given to problems of abuse in care settings; and the freedom by which anyone can access technologies that can be used for surveillance. The paper is timely and carries substantial originality.

CE: Original research: the use of surveillance technology in residential facilities for people with dementia or intellectual disabilities: a study among nurses and support staff.

The use of surveillance technology in residential care facilities for people with dementia or intellectual disabilities is often promoted both as a solution to understaffing and as a means to increasing clients' autonomy. But there are fears that such use might attenuate the care relationship. To investigate how surveillance technology is actually being used by nurses and support staff in residential care facilities for people with dementia or intellectual disabilities, in order to explore the possible benefits and drawbacks of this technology in practice. An ethnographic field study was carried out in two residential care facilities: a nursing home for people with dementia and a facility for people with intellectual disabilities. Data were collected through field observations and informal conversations as well as through formal interviews. Five overarching themes on the use of surveillance technology emerged from the data: continuing to do rounds, alarm fatigue, keeping clients in close proximity, locking the doors, and forgetting to take certain devices off. Despite the presence of surveillance technology, participants still continued their rounds. Alarm fatigue sometimes led participants to turn devices off. Though the technology allowed wandering clients to be tracked more easily, participants often preferred keeping clients nearby, and preferably behind locked doors at night. At times participants forgot to remove less visible devices (such as electronic bracelets) when the original reason for use expired. A more nuanced view of the benefits and drawbacks of surveillance technology is called for. Study participants tended to incorporate surveillance technology into existing care routines and to do so with some reluctance and reservation. They also tended to favor certain technologies, for example, making intensive use of certain devices (such as digital enhanced cordless telecommunications phones) while demonstrating ambivalence about others (such as the tagging and tracking systems). Client safety and physical proximity seemed to be dominant values, suggesting that the fear that surveillance technology will cause attenuation of the care relationship is unfounded. On the other hand, the values of client freedom and autonomy seemed less influential; participants often appeared unwilling to take risks with the technology. Care facilities wishing to implement surveillance technology should encourage ongoing dialogue on how staff members view and understand the concepts of autonomy and risk. A clear and well-formulated vision for the use of surveillance technology-one understood and supported by all stakeholders-seems imperative to successful implementation.

The pursuit of exclusion through zonal banning

In recent years, a growing emphasis has been placed on the use of zonal banning to address violence and anti-social behaviour associated with alcohol consumption. While we recognise the longer historical links between territory and crime, this article focuses on recent efforts to govern territory through new zonal regulations. Recent processes in Australia involve the conflation criminal law principles with processes of managing order in and around private spaces through new administrative approaches to alcohol-related law enforcement. The article outlines the nature of sub-sovereign ‘police laws’ and the extent to which they have been used based on Victorian data. We conclude by suggesting these developments need ongoing critical scrutiny given evidence of the ongoing expansion of proprietary-based principles in the management of urban disorder, and the potential for these developments to promote the increased use of surveillance technologies to exclude undesirable populations from the night-time economies of Australian cities.

Assessing Security Technology’s Impact: Old Tools for New Problems

The general idea developed in this paper from a sociological perspective is that some of the foundational categories on which the debate about privacy, security and technology rests are blurring. This process is a consequence of a blurring of physical and digital worlds. In order to define limits for legitimate use of intrusive digital technologies, one has to refer to binary distinctions such as private versus public, human versus technical, security versus insecurity to draw differences determining limits for the use of surveillance technologies. These distinctions developed in the physical world and are rooted in a cultural understanding of pre-digital culture. Attempts to capture the problems emerging with the implementation of security technologies using legal reasoning encounter a number of problems since law is by definition oriented backwards, adapting new developments to existing traditions, whereas the intrusion of new technologies in the physical world produces changes and creates fundamentally new problems.

The Catalysing Effect of Serious Crime on the Use of Surveillance Technologies for Prevention and Investigation Purposes

This article conducts a comparative critical study of the development in the use of surveillance technologies for the prevention and investigation of serious crime within three selected national jurisdictions – France, Italy and the United Kingdom. It tests the existence of a perilous double shift: (a) surveillance technologies introduced in relation to serious crime are increasingly used for the purpose of preventing and investigating ‘minor’ offences; at the same time, surveillance technologies originally used for public order purposes in relation to minor offences are now increasingly affected to the prevention and investigation of serious crime; (b) means at the disposal of each actor (intelligence and law enforcement agencies) for the prevention and investigation of serious crime are evolving so that the share of tasks and competences has become blurred. Two surveillance technologies are selected as case studies: the interception of telecommunications and video-surveillance. The human rights dimension – most importantly, the right to privacy and the principle of proportionality, which are at stake in this context – constitutes the normative background of the present work.