|
ValeriaVouterakouSecondEssay 4 - 18 Feb 2025 - Main.ValeriaVouterakou
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Living Under the Digital Eye: How a dual citizen of Greece and the United Kingdom can resist becoming a biometric data source | >
> | Living Under the Digital Eye: How a dual citizen of Greece and the United Kingdom (the "UK") can resist becoming a biometric data source | | | -- By ValeriaVouterakou - 02 Dec 2024 | |
<
< | As a dual citizen of Greece and the United Kingdom, I often found myself constantly perplexed by the surveillance landscape that underpinned those two societies. I spent the better half of my life in a country where surveillance was not a significant concern for the Greek society and has never been a prominent topic of public discourse. After having spent a decade in the United Kingdom and having experienced the phenomenon of hyper-surveillance in that society, I realised that citizens are more willing to talk about it because they know that there is an elephant in the room. This paper explores the hidden ways biometric surveillance operates in everyday life in these societies and outlines the legal and practical strategies for resisting the transformation of one’s own self into a data commodity. | >
> | As a dual citizen of Greece and the UK, I often found myself constantly perplexed by the surveillance landscape that underpinned those two societies. I spent the better half of my life in Greece where surveillance was never a prominent topic of public discourse. After having spent a decade in the UK and having then experienced the phenomenon of hyper-surveillance, I realised that the British public was willing to discuss this topic because they were aware of the surveillance issue hanging over like a pendulum threatening their privacy. This paper explores the hidden ways biometric surveillance operates in everyday life in these societies and outlines the legal and practical strategies for resisting the transformation of one’s own self into a data commodity. | | | | |
<
< | The phenomenon of a hyper-surveilled United Kindgom | >
> | The phenomenon of the hyper-surveilled UK | | | | |
<
< | It may not be a surprise that surveillance is a major concern for British citizens, as the United Kindgom has strikingly an estimated 6 million CCTV cameras in operation which amounts to the average Londoner being caught on camera over 300 times per day. The Metropolitan Police is undertaking AI-driven real-time facial recognition trials at heavily trafficked public places. The implication of this trial for the day-to-day life of a resident in London is that a mere walk through Picadilly Circus will result in him being unknowingly scanned and compared against police watchlists. The UK National DNA Database holds over 5 million profiles, surprisingly even of people with no prior criminal record. Fingerprint and DNA retention policies mean that biometric samples will not be deleted unless expressly requested. The reality for a citizen in London is that if he were to be arrested for a minor protest action with no further consequences or charges, the National DNA Database will still keep his DNA indefinitely. | >
> | It may not come as a surprise that surveillance is a major concern for British citizens, as the UK has an estimated 6 million CCTV cameras in operation which amounts to the average Londoner being caught on camera over 300 times per day (n1). The Metropolitan Police is undertaking AI-driven real-time facial recognition trials at heavily trafficked public places. The implication of this trial for the day-to-day life of a resident in London is that a mere walk through Picadilly Circus will result in him being unknowingly scanned and compared against police watchlists. The UK National DNA Database holds over 5 million profiles, including of people with no prior criminal record. Fingerprint and DNA retention policies mean that biometric samples will not be deleted unless expressly requested. The reality for a citizen in London is that if he were to be arrested for a minor protest action with no further consequences or charges, the National DNA Database will still keep his DNA indefinitely. | | | | |
<
< | .---++++ Subsub 1 | | |
The illusion of less surveillance in Greece | |
<
< | As a stark contrast to the UK, Greece has significantly far fewer CCTV surveillance and there is generally no large-scale public discussion on biometric tracking but lack of visible surveillance does not equate to true privacy. For instance, the Greek government is rolling out mandatory biometric ID cards that will replace older forms of identification. So, a Greek citizen must now provide fingerprints which are stored in a centralised EU database in order to apply for a Greek passport. Greece is also part of Eurodac, the EU’s centralised fingerprint database, initially established to track asylum seekers but has seen increasingly wider data collection. Under the Schengen Information System, biometric records are shared across EU law enforcement agencies which means that it is possible that that Greek citizen’s data may be used beyond what was originally anticipated upon its collection. There is a sort of opaqueness when it comes to knowing with certainty how these data will be processed across the EU borders and in most cases EU citizens are unaware of these practices. In practical terms, this means that a Greek citizen applying for a visa or crossing the EU border is unknowingly checked against various biometric databases. | >
> | As a stark contrast to the UK, Greece has significantly far fewer CCTV surveillance and there is generally no large-scale public discussion on biometric tracking, but lack of visible surveillance does not equate to true privacy. For instance, the Greek government is rolling out mandatory biometric ID cards that will replace older forms of identification. So, a Greek citizen must now provide fingerprints which are stored in a centralised EU database in order to apply for a Greek passport. Greece is also part of Eurodac, the EU’s centralised fingerprint database, initially established to track asylum seekers but has seen increasingly wider data collection. Under the Schengen Information System, biometric records are shared across EU law enforcement agencies which means that it is possible that that Greek citizens’ data may be used beyond what was originally anticipated upon their collection. There is a sort of opaqueness when it comes to knowing how these data will be processed across the EU borders and in most cases EU citizens are unaware of these practices. In practical terms, this means that a Greek citizen applying for a visa or crossing the EU border is unknowingly checked against various biometric databases. | | |
The art of unnoticed surveillance | |
<
< | To paint a picture of this unseen surveillance, picture a 30-year-old journalist in London. She wakes up to her smart alarm and as she asks Alexa about the weather, her voice command is processed and stored by Amazon AI to refine her consumer profile. She then taps her contactless card at the Tube with her journey data logged by TFL. When she is at the office, Microsoft Teams analytics tracks her screen activity and message frequency. As she steps out to grab lunch, Apple Pay tracks her activity and links it to previous purchases to assess spending habits all while the café’s WIFI collects device data and potentially shares anonymised location trends with third party advertisers. When she is back at home after a long day at work, she scrolls through Instagram and the algorithm tracks her activity, searches and location history to refine personalised ad targeting. Finally, as she is about to put the lights out, she checks her fitness tracker which continuously stores her heart rate and sleep cycle, anonymised health data which then will be sold (absent her express consent) to insurers and research institutions to build health risk models.
In both Greece and the United Kingdom, surveillance operates subtly, embedding itself into every-day activities that go unnoticed by the public. This seamless integration takes shape in the form of constant monitoring and tracking. For instance, if an individual lists his property for renting on Facebook Marketplace, he will likely be monitored by local authorities for potential tax evasion. Unbeknownst to them, individuals put out information on social media that is monitored by authorities in an effort to detect unauthorised activities. Many social media platforms utilise AI-powered facial recognition technology to identify individuals in photos even if they are not explicitly tagged. This practice raises serious red flags and people are often unaware of those practices, let alone that there are opt-out features for facial data automatic tagging. Even though the facial data is allegedly not collected for the purpose of individual identifications the practice still raises many concerns on the extent to which surveillance is practised on social media platforms. This means that potentially Met police could deploy live facial recognition to develop a database of protestors in the UK. | >
> | To craft a vivid portrayal of this invisible surveillance, picture a 30-year-old journalist in London. She wakes up to her smart alarm and as she asks Alexa about the weather, her voice command is processed and stored by AI to refine her consumer profile. She then taps her contactless card at the Tube with her journey data logged by TFL. When she is at the office, Microsoft Teams analytics tracks her screen activity. As she steps out to get lunch, Apple Pay tracks her activity and links it to previous purchases to assess spending habits, all while the coffee shop's WIFI collects device data and potentially shares anonymised location trends with third party advertisers. When she is back at home after a long day at work, she scrolls through social media and the algorithm tracks her activity, searches and location history to refine personalised ad targeting. Finally, as she is about to put the lights out, she checks her fitness tracker which continuously stores her heart rate and sleep cycle, anonymised health data which then will be sold (absent her express consent) to insurers and research institutions to build health risk models.
In both Greece and the UK, surveillance operates subtly, embedding itself into every-day activities that go unnoticed by the public. This seamless integration takes shape in the form of constant monitoring and tracking. For instance, if an individual lists his property for renting on Facebook Marketplace, he will likely be monitored by local authorities for potential tax obligations. Unbeknownst to them, individuals put out information on social media that is monitored by authorities in an effort to detect unauthorised activities. Many social media platforms utilise AI-powered facial recognition technology to identify individuals in photos even if they are not explicitly tagged. This practice raises serious red flags and people are often unaware of those practices and the opt-out features for facial data automatic tagging. Even though the facial data is allegedly not collected for the purpose of individual identifications, the practice still raises many concerns on the extent to which surveillance is used on social media platforms. This suggests that the Met police could deploy live facial recognition to develop a database of protestors in the UK. | | | | |
<
< | Surveillance has infiltrated the retail space as biometric tracking is now used to collect data on customers. It is often the case that shopping centres and transport hubs make use of facial recognition to track customer movements and absent a customer’s express consent, companies often use biometric data such as facial recognition systems linking a customer’s history of past visits to predictive purchasing behaviour. While Greece appears, prima facie, less evasive in the biometric tracking practice, the recent transition to cashless transactions has helped institutions create a detailed behavioural profile linking financial patterns to specific locations and activities. When an unsuspected citizen makes a contactless payment in a market in Athens, the technology combined with other data sources can be potentially used to build a more comprehensive picture of an individual movements. Our digital footprint is so big that a combination of information can reveal so much about our activities and predispositions and it seems like this simple fact falls out of the ambit of matters that preoccupy the Greek public. | >
> | Surveillance has infiltrated the retail space as biometric tracking is now used to collect data on customers. It is often the case that shopping centres and transport hubs make use of facial recognition to track customer movements and companies often use biometric data such as facial recognition systems linking a customer’s history of past visits to predictive purchasing behaviour. While Greece appears, prima facie, less evasive in the biometric tracking practice, the recent transition to cashless transactions has helped institutions create a detailed behavioural profile linking financial patterns to specific locations and activities. When an unsuspected citizen makes a contactless payment in a market in Athens, the technology combined with other data sources can be potentially used to build a more comprehensive picture of an individual's movements. Our digital footprint is so big that a combination of information can reveal so much about our activities and predispositions and it seems like this simple fact falls out of the ambit of matters that preoccupy the Greek public. | | |
A Guide to Digital Anonymity
Whilst the surveillance picture painted looks grim, reducing one’s digital footprint is still feasible and it can be achieved by resisting biometric data collection, following technological strategies for increased anonymity and minimising social media presence. | |
<
< | Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, individuals can request the deletion of their DNA and fingerprints absent a past criminal record. In 2020, the English Courts deemed that automated facial recognition technology used by South Wales Police was unlawful and a violation of privacy rights in the case of Ed Bridges v South Wales Police. Another way to protect someone’s identity is by using infrared-blocking glasses and opting for accessories that distort AI-based face recognition in highly surveilled areas of London to avoid facial recognition and tracking. The use of de-Googled phones such as CalyxOS? can also prevent passive location tracking. In a similar manner disabling WIFI and Bluetooth in public can reduce digital footprint. To prevent cross-border tracking in the EU, a traveller can use burner SIM cards. | >
> | Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, individuals can request the deletion of their DNA and fingerprints absent a past criminal record. In 2020, the English Courts deemed the automated facial recognition technology used by South Wales Police unlawful and a violation of privacy rights in the case of Ed Bridges v South Wales Police (n2). Another way to protect someone’s identity is by using infrared-blocking glasses and opting for accessories that distort AI-based face recognition in highly surveilled areas of London to avoid facial recognition and tracking. The use of de-Googled phones can also prevent passive location tracking. In a similar manner disabling WIFI and Bluetooth in public spaces can reduce digital footprint. To prevent cross-border tracking in the EU, a traveller can use burner SIM cards.
The General Data Protection Regulation provides a stronger legal protection because it gives individuals the option to request access and deletion of their biometric data. Greek citizens can take advantage of this option and also delay the adoption the new biometric ID cards that the Greek government is in the process of implementing. Both residents in Greece and the UK should opt for encrypted messaging apps, use privacy-focused search engines like Startpage and opt-out of all data collection. To achieve secure internet usage, they can use VPNs to prevent ISP tracking and a Tor Browser. The use of burner emails such as ProtonMail? and Temp Mail as well as the use of block trackers can also add to digital anonymity. To ensure location privacy, individuals are advised to turn off location services and opt for privacy focused phones while removing any smart assistants like Alexa and Siri. Opting for privacy-friendly payment methods and cash payments can also ensure transaction privacy.
Conclusion
While the road to full anonymity seems utopic for the UK given the heightened surveillance landscape, residents still have the option to implement changes in their day-to-day life to minimise surveillance. Notwithstanding that Greece is less surveilled, it has adopted EU-wide biometric control measures. Greek residents must become increasingly aware of the surveillance force that looms over, unseen, yet inescapable. The surveillance elephant is not merely in the room, it is expanding exponentially, shaping the very space we navigate and it is about time Greeks acknowledged the weight it carries into their lives. | | | | |
<
< | The GDPR provides a stronger legal protection because it gives individuals the option to request access and deletion of their biometric data. Greek citizens can take advantage of this option and also delay the adoption the new biometric ID cards that the Greek government is in the process of implementing.
Both residents in Greece and the UK should opt for encrypted messaging apps, use privacy- focused search engines like Startpage instead of Google and opt out of all data collection. To achieve secure internet usage, they can use VPNs to prevent ISP tracking and Tor Browsers. The use of burner emails such as protonmail and tempmail as well as the use of block trackers can also add to digital anonymity. | >
> | Endnotes: | | | | |
<
< | To ensure location privacy, individuals are advised to turn off location services and opt for privacy focused phones such as CalyxOS? instead of Android and iOS while removing any smart assistants like Alexa and Siri. Opting for privacy-friendly payment methods and cash payments can ensure a better transaction privacy. | >
> | N1 - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/lens/surveillance-camera-photography.html | | | | |
<
< | While the road to full anonymity seems unfeasible for the UK given the heightened surveillance landscape, residents still have the option to implement changes in their day-to-day life to minimise surveillance. Notwithstanding that Greece is less surveilled, it is adopting EU-wide biometric control measures. Greek residents must become increasingly aware of the surveillance force that looms over, unseen yet inescapable. The surveillance elephant is not merely in the room, it is expanding exponentially, shaping the very space we navigate and it is about time Greeks acknowledged the weight it carries into our lives. | >
> | N2- https://www.hunton.com/privacy-and-information-security-law/uk-court-of-appeal-finds-automated-facial-recognition-technology-unlawful-in-bridges-v-south-wales-police | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: |
|
|
ValeriaVouterakouSecondEssay 3 - 17 Feb 2025 - Main.ValeriaVouterakou
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | The Evolution of Surveillance in Travel: From Paper Trails to Digital Footprints | >
> | Living Under the Digital Eye: How a dual citizen of Greece and the United Kingdom can resist becoming a biometric data source | | | -- By ValeriaVouterakou - 02 Dec 2024 | |
<
< | Several years ago, during a family trip to Asia, I encountered an unfamiliar technological advancement at the airport: facial recognition machines. At the time, this innovation was largely absent in Europe. As a teenager, I instinctively resisted such an act of submission which I thought of at the time as a violation of my privacy. My initial reaction was ultimately trumped by the impatience of my parents and the intimidating authority that the board control officer exerted on me. Reflecting on this experience today, what once seemed unsettling and intrusive, has since become a standard feature of international travel and a norm that travellers have accepted at face value raising important questions about privacy considerations. This paper seeks to examine the role of surveillance in travel with a particular focus on the legal and ethical dimensions of privacy as well as a possible solution to address surveillance concerns. | >
> | As a dual citizen of Greece and the United Kingdom, I often found myself constantly perplexed by the surveillance landscape that underpinned those two societies. I spent the better half of my life in a country where surveillance was not a significant concern for the Greek society and has never been a prominent topic of public discourse. After having spent a decade in the United Kingdom and having experienced the phenomenon of hyper-surveillance in that society, I realised that citizens are more willing to talk about it because they know that there is an elephant in the room. This paper explores the hidden ways biometric surveillance operates in everyday life in these societies and outlines the legal and practical strategies for resisting the transformation of one’s own self into a data commodity. | | | | |
<
< | The History of Travel Surveillance | >
> | The phenomenon of a hyper-surveilled United Kindgom | | | | |
<
< | The inception of the passport dates back to the 15th century under the reign of King Henry V of England which was designed to grant his subjects passage in and out of foreign land for the purpose of their negotiations , with the concept of a standardized global passport system emerging centuries later in the aftermath of World War I, to facilitate controlled international travel. Over the years, new security measures have been introduced including but not limited to border control customs via physical checkpoints, passenger name record systems (with onward sharing with government authorities) and more thorough passenger background checks (via Advanced Passenger Information System). During the Cold War, political tensions resulted in heightened monitoring with the use of visas and stamps as tools of tracking movement. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks there was a security paradigm shift which resulted in the development of databases used by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and biometrics in airports. Transitioning to the 21st century, the world saw the introduction of e-passports, facial recognition and AI driven border checks. Strict surveillance measures were also introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic which included health declarations, contact tracing systems, thermal scanning and monitoring systems to identify symptomatic travellers and excessive data sharing facilitated by International Air Transport Association (IATA). China introduced a QR-based health code system for domestic travel assigning colour codes to its citizens based on each individual citizen’s health risk. The COVID-19 pandemic culminated in a dystopian reality whereby most governments time and time again proved that they had no regard for their people’s fundamental rights to privacy, freedom of choice and freedom of movement. This has led to a society where surveillance has become omnipresent and individual autonomy is systematically diminished shifting the balance of power irrevocable toward the authorities.---++++ Subsub 1 | >
> | It may not be a surprise that surveillance is a major concern for British citizens, as the United Kindgom has strikingly an estimated 6 million CCTV cameras in operation which amounts to the average Londoner being caught on camera over 300 times per day. The Metropolitan Police is undertaking AI-driven real-time facial recognition trials at heavily trafficked public places. The implication of this trial for the day-to-day life of a resident in London is that a mere walk through Picadilly Circus will result in him being unknowingly scanned and compared against police watchlists. The UK National DNA Database holds over 5 million profiles, surprisingly even of people with no prior criminal record. Fingerprint and DNA retention policies mean that biometric samples will not be deleted unless expressly requested. The reality for a citizen in London is that if he were to be arrested for a minor protest action with no further consequences or charges, the National DNA Database will still keep his DNA indefinitely. | | | | |
>
> | .---++++ Subsub 1 | | | | |
<
< | Overview of Legal Framework | | | | |
<
< | The US legal framework leans towards robust data collection for security purposes. More specifically, the Privacy Act of 1974 controls the collection, use and disclosure of personal data by federal agencies and the REAL ID Act 2005 outlines the security standards to be met to board a commercial flight in the United States. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) which has also been enacted by other US states | >
> | The illusion of less surveillance in Greece | | | | |
<
< |
Really? Who?
| >
> | As a stark contrast to the UK, Greece has significantly far fewer CCTV surveillance and there is generally no large-scale public discussion on biometric tracking but lack of visible surveillance does not equate to true privacy. For instance, the Greek government is rolling out mandatory biometric ID cards that will replace older forms of identification. So, a Greek citizen must now provide fingerprints which are stored in a centralised EU database in order to apply for a Greek passport. Greece is also part of Eurodac, the EU’s centralised fingerprint database, initially established to track asylum seekers but has seen increasingly wider data collection. Under the Schengen Information System, biometric records are shared across EU law enforcement agencies which means that it is possible that that Greek citizen’s data may be used beyond what was originally anticipated upon its collection. There is a sort of opaqueness when it comes to knowing with certainty how these data will be processed across the EU borders and in most cases EU citizens are unaware of these practices. In practical terms, this means that a Greek citizen applying for a visa or crossing the EU border is unknowingly checked against various biometric databases. | | | | |
<
< | governs data protection in the travel industry. | | | | |
<
< |
Source?
| >
> | The art of unnoticed surveillance | | | | |
>
> | To paint a picture of this unseen surveillance, picture a 30-year-old journalist in London. She wakes up to her smart alarm and as she asks Alexa about the weather, her voice command is processed and stored by Amazon AI to refine her consumer profile. She then taps her contactless card at the Tube with her journey data logged by TFL. When she is at the office, Microsoft Teams analytics tracks her screen activity and message frequency. As she steps out to grab lunch, Apple Pay tracks her activity and links it to previous purchases to assess spending habits all while the café’s WIFI collects device data and potentially shares anonymised location trends with third party advertisers. When she is back at home after a long day at work, she scrolls through Instagram and the algorithm tracks her activity, searches and location history to refine personalised ad targeting. Finally, as she is about to put the lights out, she checks her fitness tracker which continuously stores her heart rate and sleep cycle, anonymised health data which then will be sold (absent her express consent) to insurers and research institutions to build health risk models.
In both Greece and the United Kingdom, surveillance operates subtly, embedding itself into every-day activities that go unnoticed by the public. This seamless integration takes shape in the form of constant monitoring and tracking. For instance, if an individual lists his property for renting on Facebook Marketplace, he will likely be monitored by local authorities for potential tax evasion. Unbeknownst to them, individuals put out information on social media that is monitored by authorities in an effort to detect unauthorised activities. Many social media platforms utilise AI-powered facial recognition technology to identify individuals in photos even if they are not explicitly tagged. This practice raises serious red flags and people are often unaware of those practices, let alone that there are opt-out features for facial data automatic tagging. Even though the facial data is allegedly not collected for the purpose of individual identifications the practice still raises many concerns on the extent to which surveillance is practised on social media platforms. This means that potentially Met police could deploy live facial recognition to develop a database of protestors in the UK. | | | | |
<
< | Agencies and airline carriers are obligated to disclose the categories of personal data they collect, the purpose of collection and whether such data is disseminated to third parties. Notwithstanding the disclosure and transparency requirements under the CCPA, there are exceptions to those legal obligations, including when the airlines are not obligated to seek express consent from the passengers to provide information to the government for security, customs or immigration purposes. In a similar manner, the EU has implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016 which sets out the legal landscape of data privacy in relation to the processing of any personal data of EU residents. While the GDPR imposes stricter rules on how traveller data is used through data minimisation processes, adequate safeguards in relation to sharing personal data with non-EU countries, who must offer at least the same or equivalent privacy protections, and a traveller’s right to delete the data or object to certain uses of such data. Nevertheless, air carriers and travel agents may still be required to share such personal information with governments for security or immigration purposes. | >
> | Surveillance has infiltrated the retail space as biometric tracking is now used to collect data on customers. It is often the case that shopping centres and transport hubs make use of facial recognition to track customer movements and absent a customer’s express consent, companies often use biometric data such as facial recognition systems linking a customer’s history of past visits to predictive purchasing behaviour. While Greece appears, prima facie, less evasive in the biometric tracking practice, the recent transition to cashless transactions has helped institutions create a detailed behavioural profile linking financial patterns to specific locations and activities. When an unsuspected citizen makes a contactless payment in a market in Athens, the technology combined with other data sources can be potentially used to build a more comprehensive picture of an individual movements. Our digital footprint is so big that a combination of information can reveal so much about our activities and predispositions and it seems like this simple fact falls out of the ambit of matters that preoccupy the Greek public. | | | | |
<
< | A New World | >
> | A Guide to Digital Anonymity | | | | |
<
< | This discussion prompts the question as to whether the legal framework is adequate and my conclusion is in the negativity. While this paper does not purport to explore the significance of security and counterterrorism measures, which is indisputable, what it does propose is adopting a new lens through which the surveillance of travelling can be reduced rather than incrementally intensified in the years to come. While an outright relaxation of the privacy regulations and laws seems unachievable, this paper proposes to shift the attention to the airline carriers. The establishment of minimal surveillance air carriers which would only request the legally required minimum of personal information required for passengers might seek to address this problem. Such airlines would opt out of TSA prechecks, would refrain from data sharing with third parties, facial recognition and would offer anonymous payment options and no WIFI monitoring during flights. | >
> | Whilst the surveillance picture painted looks grim, reducing one’s digital footprint is still feasible and it can be achieved by resisting biometric data collection, following technological strategies for increased anonymity and minimising social media presence. | | | | |
<
< |
What reason is there to suppose the existence of such carriers? What possible business justification would there be? Who will pay how much more for a ticket to avoid what?
| >
> | Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, individuals can request the deletion of their DNA and fingerprints absent a past criminal record. In 2020, the English Courts deemed that automated facial recognition technology used by South Wales Police was unlawful and a violation of privacy rights in the case of Ed Bridges v South Wales Police. Another way to protect someone’s identity is by using infrared-blocking glasses and opting for accessories that distort AI-based face recognition in highly surveilled areas of London to avoid facial recognition and tracking. The use of de-Googled phones such as CalyxOS? can also prevent passive location tracking. In a similar manner disabling WIFI and Bluetooth in public can reduce digital footprint. To prevent cross-border tracking in the EU, a traveller can use burner SIM cards. | | | | |
>
> | The GDPR provides a stronger legal protection because it gives individuals the option to request access and deletion of their biometric data. Greek citizens can take advantage of this option and also delay the adoption the new biometric ID cards that the Greek government is in the process of implementing.
Both residents in Greece and the UK should opt for encrypted messaging apps, use privacy- focused search engines like Startpage instead of Google and opt out of all data collection. To achieve secure internet usage, they can use VPNs to prevent ISP tracking and Tor Browsers. The use of burner emails such as protonmail and tempmail as well as the use of block trackers can also add to digital anonymity. | | | | |
<
< | Such privacy-friendly travel systems would at first glance seem costly, providing no incentive for any airline to adopt such measures but ultimately if enough people recognised the value of their freedom of choice, they could drive up demand for low-surveillance systems and that demand can in turn pressure the system to reform its regulatory framework to balance security with privacy. By adopting essential security measures while minimizing privacy intrusions we can metamorphose the system into a world where freedom of movement is a given and not a self-earned right that travellers must justify or defend at every ‘checkpoint’ of their life.
A bare majority of US citizens now have a passport, for the first time in history. Less than a third of Americans held a passport in 2008. No major state government permits unidentified border-crossing, and it is plain that under foreseeable circumstances none will. Nor does it really matter what information beyond reliable personal information is collected at the border given the ease with which all the additional information keyed to that identity can be gathered by national means of intelligence. So the reader is likely to wonder what all the fuss is about. It would be a good idea, I think, to address that matter head on.
| >
> | To ensure location privacy, individuals are advised to turn off location services and opt for privacy focused phones such as CalyxOS? instead of Android and iOS while removing any smart assistants like Alexa and Siri. Opting for privacy-friendly payment methods and cash payments can ensure a better transaction privacy. | | | | |
>
> | While the road to full anonymity seems unfeasible for the UK given the heightened surveillance landscape, residents still have the option to implement changes in their day-to-day life to minimise surveillance. Notwithstanding that Greece is less surveilled, it is adopting EU-wide biometric control measures. Greek residents must become increasingly aware of the surveillance force that looms over, unseen yet inescapable. The surveillance elephant is not merely in the room, it is expanding exponentially, shaping the very space we navigate and it is about time Greeks acknowledged the weight it carries into our lives. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: |
|
|
ValeriaVouterakouSecondEssay 2 - 06 Jan 2025 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | | |
<
< | Paper Title | >
> | The Evolution of Surveillance in Travel: From Paper Trails to Digital Footprints | | | -- By ValeriaVouterakou - 02 Dec 2024 | |
<
< | The Evolution of Surveillance in Travel: From Paper Trails to Digital Footprints | | | Several years ago, during a family trip to Asia, I encountered an unfamiliar technological advancement at the airport: facial recognition machines. At the time, this innovation was largely absent in Europe. As a teenager, I instinctively resisted such an act of submission which I thought of at the time as a violation of my privacy. My initial reaction was ultimately trumped by the impatience of my parents and the intimidating authority that the board control officer exerted on me. Reflecting on this experience today, what once seemed unsettling and intrusive, has since become a standard feature of international travel and a norm that travellers have accepted at face value raising important questions about privacy considerations. This paper seeks to examine the role of surveillance in travel with a particular focus on the legal and ethical dimensions of privacy as well as a possible solution to address surveillance concerns. | | | Overview of Legal Framework | |
<
< | The US legal framework leans towards robust data collection for security purposes. More specifically, the Privacy Act of 1974 controls the collection, use and disclosure of personal data by federal agencies and the REAL ID Act 2005 outlines the security standards to be met to board a commercial flight in the United States. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) which has also been enacted by other US states governs data protection in the travel industry. Agencies and airline carriers are obligated to disclose the categories of personal data they collect, the purpose of collection and whether such data is disseminated to third parties. Notwithstanding the disclosure and transparency requirements under the CCPA, there are exceptions to those legal obligations, including when the airlines are not obligated to seek express consent from the passengers to provide information to the government for security, customs or immigration purposes. In a similar manner, the EU has implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016 which sets out the legal landscape of data privacy in relation to the processing of any personal data of EU residents. While the GDPR imposes stricter rules on how traveller data is used through data minimisation processes, adequate safeguards in relation to sharing personal data with non-EU countries, who must offer at least the same or equivalent privacy protections, and a traveller’s right to delete the data or object to certain uses of such data. Nevertheless, air carriers and travel agents may still be required to share such personal information with governments for security or immigration purposes. | >
> | The US legal framework leans towards robust data collection for security purposes. More specifically, the Privacy Act of 1974 controls the collection, use and disclosure of personal data by federal agencies and the REAL ID Act 2005 outlines the security standards to be met to board a commercial flight in the United States. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) which has also been enacted by other US states
Really? Who?
governs data protection in the travel industry.
Source?
Agencies and airline carriers are obligated to disclose the categories of personal data they collect, the purpose of collection and whether such data is disseminated to third parties. Notwithstanding the disclosure and transparency requirements under the CCPA, there are exceptions to those legal obligations, including when the airlines are not obligated to seek express consent from the passengers to provide information to the government for security, customs or immigration purposes. In a similar manner, the EU has implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016 which sets out the legal landscape of data privacy in relation to the processing of any personal data of EU residents. While the GDPR imposes stricter rules on how traveller data is used through data minimisation processes, adequate safeguards in relation to sharing personal data with non-EU countries, who must offer at least the same or equivalent privacy protections, and a traveller’s right to delete the data or object to certain uses of such data. Nevertheless, air carriers and travel agents may still be required to share such personal information with governments for security or immigration purposes. | | |
A New World | |
<
< | This discussion prompts the question as to whether the legal framework is adequate and my conclusion is in the negativity. While this paper does not purport to explore the significance of security and counterterrorism measures, which is indisputable, what it does propose is adopting a new lens through which the surveillance of travelling can be reduced rather than incrementally intensified in the years to come. While an outright relaxation of the privacy regulations and laws seems unachievable, this paper proposes to shift the attention to the airline carriers. The establishment of minimal surveillance air carriers which would only request the legally required minimum of personal information required for passengers might seek to address this problem. Such airlines would opt out of TSA prechecks, would refrain from data sharing with third parties, facial recognition and would offer anonymous payment options and no WIFI monitoring during flights. Such privacy-friendly travel systems would at first glance seem costly, providing no incentive for any airline to adopt such measures but ultimately if enough people recognised the value of their freedom of choice, they could drive up demand for low-surveillance systems and that demand can in turn pressure the system to reform its regulatory framework to balance security with privacy. By adopting essential security measures while minimizing privacy intrusions we can metamorphose the system into a world where freedom of movement is a given and not a self-earned right that travellers must justify or defend at every ‘checkpoint’ of their life. | >
> | This discussion prompts the question as to whether the legal framework is adequate and my conclusion is in the negativity. While this paper does not purport to explore the significance of security and counterterrorism measures, which is indisputable, what it does propose is adopting a new lens through which the surveillance of travelling can be reduced rather than incrementally intensified in the years to come. While an outright relaxation of the privacy regulations and laws seems unachievable, this paper proposes to shift the attention to the airline carriers. The establishment of minimal surveillance air carriers which would only request the legally required minimum of personal information required for passengers might seek to address this problem. Such airlines would opt out of TSA prechecks, would refrain from data sharing with third parties, facial recognition and would offer anonymous payment options and no WIFI monitoring during flights.
What reason is there to suppose the existence of such carriers? What possible business justification would there be? Who will pay how much more for a ticket to avoid what?
Such privacy-friendly travel systems would at first glance seem costly, providing no incentive for any airline to adopt such measures but ultimately if enough people recognised the value of their freedom of choice, they could drive up demand for low-surveillance systems and that demand can in turn pressure the system to reform its regulatory framework to balance security with privacy. By adopting essential security measures while minimizing privacy intrusions we can metamorphose the system into a world where freedom of movement is a given and not a self-earned right that travellers must justify or defend at every ‘checkpoint’ of their life. | | | | |
>
> |
A bare majority of US citizens now have a passport, for the first time in history. Less than a third of Americans held a passport in 2008. No major state government permits unidentified border-crossing, and it is plain that under foreseeable circumstances none will. Nor does it really matter what information beyond reliable personal information is collected at the border given the ease with which all the additional information keyed to that identity can be gathered by national means of intelligence. So the reader is likely to wonder what all the fuss is about. It would be a good idea, I think, to address that matter head on.
| | |
|
|
|
ValeriaVouterakouSecondEssay 1 - 02 Dec 2024 - Main.ValeriaVouterakou
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By ValeriaVouterakou - 02 Dec 2024
The Evolution of Surveillance in Travel: From Paper Trails to Digital Footprints
Several years ago, during a family trip to Asia, I encountered an unfamiliar technological advancement at the airport: facial recognition machines. At the time, this innovation was largely absent in Europe. As a teenager, I instinctively resisted such an act of submission which I thought of at the time as a violation of my privacy. My initial reaction was ultimately trumped by the impatience of my parents and the intimidating authority that the board control officer exerted on me. Reflecting on this experience today, what once seemed unsettling and intrusive, has since become a standard feature of international travel and a norm that travellers have accepted at face value raising important questions about privacy considerations. This paper seeks to examine the role of surveillance in travel with a particular focus on the legal and ethical dimensions of privacy as well as a possible solution to address surveillance concerns.
The History of Travel Surveillance
The inception of the passport dates back to the 15th century under the reign of King Henry V of England which was designed to grant his subjects passage in and out of foreign land for the purpose of their negotiations , with the concept of a standardized global passport system emerging centuries later in the aftermath of World War I, to facilitate controlled international travel. Over the years, new security measures have been introduced including but not limited to border control customs via physical checkpoints, passenger name record systems (with onward sharing with government authorities) and more thorough passenger background checks (via Advanced Passenger Information System). During the Cold War, political tensions resulted in heightened monitoring with the use of visas and stamps as tools of tracking movement. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks there was a security paradigm shift which resulted in the development of databases used by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and biometrics in airports. Transitioning to the 21st century, the world saw the introduction of e-passports, facial recognition and AI driven border checks. Strict surveillance measures were also introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic which included health declarations, contact tracing systems, thermal scanning and monitoring systems to identify symptomatic travellers and excessive data sharing facilitated by International Air Transport Association (IATA). China introduced a QR-based health code system for domestic travel assigning colour codes to its citizens based on each individual citizen’s health risk. The COVID-19 pandemic culminated in a dystopian reality whereby most governments time and time again proved that they had no regard for their people’s fundamental rights to privacy, freedom of choice and freedom of movement. This has led to a society where surveillance has become omnipresent and individual autonomy is systematically diminished shifting the balance of power irrevocable toward the authorities.---++++ Subsub 1
Overview of Legal Framework
The US legal framework leans towards robust data collection for security purposes. More specifically, the Privacy Act of 1974 controls the collection, use and disclosure of personal data by federal agencies and the REAL ID Act 2005 outlines the security standards to be met to board a commercial flight in the United States. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) which has also been enacted by other US states governs data protection in the travel industry. Agencies and airline carriers are obligated to disclose the categories of personal data they collect, the purpose of collection and whether such data is disseminated to third parties. Notwithstanding the disclosure and transparency requirements under the CCPA, there are exceptions to those legal obligations, including when the airlines are not obligated to seek express consent from the passengers to provide information to the government for security, customs or immigration purposes. In a similar manner, the EU has implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016 which sets out the legal landscape of data privacy in relation to the processing of any personal data of EU residents. While the GDPR imposes stricter rules on how traveller data is used through data minimisation processes, adequate safeguards in relation to sharing personal data with non-EU countries, who must offer at least the same or equivalent privacy protections, and a traveller’s right to delete the data or object to certain uses of such data. Nevertheless, air carriers and travel agents may still be required to share such personal information with governments for security or immigration purposes.
A New World
This discussion prompts the question as to whether the legal framework is adequate and my conclusion is in the negativity. While this paper does not purport to explore the significance of security and counterterrorism measures, which is indisputable, what it does propose is adopting a new lens through which the surveillance of travelling can be reduced rather than incrementally intensified in the years to come. While an outright relaxation of the privacy regulations and laws seems unachievable, this paper proposes to shift the attention to the airline carriers. The establishment of minimal surveillance air carriers which would only request the legally required minimum of personal information required for passengers might seek to address this problem. Such airlines would opt out of TSA prechecks, would refrain from data sharing with third parties, facial recognition and would offer anonymous payment options and no WIFI monitoring during flights. Such privacy-friendly travel systems would at first glance seem costly, providing no incentive for any airline to adopt such measures but ultimately if enough people recognised the value of their freedom of choice, they could drive up demand for low-surveillance systems and that demand can in turn pressure the system to reform its regulatory framework to balance security with privacy. By adopting essential security measures while minimizing privacy intrusions we can metamorphose the system into a world where freedom of movement is a given and not a self-earned right that travellers must justify or defend at every ‘checkpoint’ of their life.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|