Perhaps the most surprising thing about this news story from the UK is how unsurprising it seems today, in 2008:

A government database holding details of every phone call made, email sent and minute spent on the internet by the public could be created as part of a centralised fight against crime and terrorism, it emerged [May 20th]. News of the proposal prompted alarm about the country's growing surveillance culture and raised fears of "data profiling" of citizens. It follows on from plans for databases for ID cards and NHS electronic patient records.

Telecoms companies and internet service providers would be compelled to hand over their records to the Home Office under proposals that could find their way into the new data communications bill. The information would be stored for at least 12 months and police, security services and other agencies across Europe would be able to access the database with court permission. [Read full article in Guardian UK, and others, via Schneier on Security]

Which brings me to my main point. I've noticed an unsettling trend in the comment sections of blogs and websites reporting on intrusive government proposals like the one above.

I see fewer expressions of outrage at the idea that our private communications could be intercepted, monitored, shared and stored by government agencies - and more "what, are you paranoid?" joking, more "what's the big deal, everyone's doing it, get used to it" dismissals. Why should this be the case? Do we actually value our electronic privacy less today than we once did?

What I suspect is happening is a gradual downward shift of privacy expectations in this less-than-a-decade since 9/11, and public acclimation to pervasive surveillance. Being watched is no longer the exception: it's the norm.

Corporations routinely buy and sell our private personal and financial information amongst themselves, public spaces and private establishments surveil and record activity as a matter of course. Any time we enter a store, a bank, a sports arena, or an airport we expect to have our actions and movements electronically observed and recorded. When we dial a customer service number, the canned preamble more often than not warns us "this call may be recorded."

A friend whom I normally held to be an advocate of individual privacy rights recently offered the apologist's trope, that those who are guilty of nothing have nothing to fear by being watched. I found this surprising and a bit disturbing - after all, if our calls and emails are recorded, then yesterday's innocent act could become tomorrow's documented transgression. It also occurred to me that these days even I rarely notice the increasing number of dark, shiny watchful hemispheres on the ceilings and walls of nearly every store and public place I go. They're just there, like light bulbs and fire sprinklers.

Outside of our homes, we have virtually no expectation of privacy of action to speak of, but this broad proposal is different: it hits us where we communicate, emote, express, think. It's not just surveillance of behavior; it's the closest thing we have today to surveillance of thought.

You know, I think those commenters are right. We're starting to care less and less that we're being watched because we're all being watched.

Labels: security, soapbox, UK

---

  Pardon my French, but I find this just f---ing creepy and beyond the pale. The BBC reports that a pilot interactive surveillance camera program - with remotely monitored units that not only observe, but verbally reprimand 'bad public behavior' - will be extended to more locations [via Kottke.org]:

"Talking" CCTV cameras that tell off people dropping litter or committing anti-social behaviour are to be extended to 20 areas across England. They are already used in Middlesbrough where people seen misbehaving can be told to stop via a loudspeaker, controlled by control centre staff. About £500,000 will be spent adding speaker facilities to existing cameras.

Shadow home affairs minister James Brokenshire said the government should be "very careful" over the cameras. Home Secretary John Reid told BBC News there would be some people, "in the minority who will be more concerned about what they claim are civil liberties intrusions...But the vast majority of people find that their life is more upset by people who make their life a misery in the inner cities because they can't go out and feel safe and secure in a healthy, clean environment because of a minority of people," he added. [emphasis mine]

What really upsets people is their night out being destroyed or their environment being destroyed by a fairly small minority of people. The talking cameras did not constitute "secret surveillance", he said. "It's very public, it's interactive." Competitions would also be held at schools in many of the areas for children to become the voice of the cameras, Mr Reid said.

Er, no, it's not "interactive" - unless you can talk back to the cams and tell them to sod off. You've got to hand it to the government officials, though, on what I like to call the "Ronald McDonald Effect": win the hearts and imaginations of children on an idea, and you've all but insured public acceptance. Plus, wouldn't you rather have a sweet-voiced primary schooler tell you "Place your trash in the bin! Yes, you - the portly bald gentleman!" than a mechanized Orson Welles? "It puts on the lotion!" indeed. Ahem...and Chicago, let's not give Da Mare any interesting ideas:

• Chicago plans advanced surveillance
• WIRED: Chicago's Spycam Force
• Daley wants security cameras at bars
• Surveillance cameras soon will monitor high-crime areas of Durham as part of a $133,500 pilot program approved Thursday.

Unfortunately, this wasn't just a backdated April Fool's gag.

Labels: chicago, crime, culture, privacy, UK

---

  Yet another brilliant idea in the War on Obesity, as reported in the BBC:

A leading professor in the U.K. said that obese people should be warned about the health risks of their weight when buying clothes...[Dr.] Naveed Sattar, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, said that oversized clothing should have obesity help line numbers sewn on them to try to reduce Britain's obesity crisis.
...
The suggestion would be to put the label on all clothes with waist sizes over 37 inches for boys or 31 inches for girls. Women's clothes over size 16 would also get a label. [read full article]

Notice anything unusual about this? There's no mention of warning labels on men's clothing. Why? Does the doctor believe that men would ignore or not take kindly to this sort of thing stenciled inside their trousers, or is the underlying assumption that unlike men, women and children are blissfully unaware of their size and need this sort of "reminder"?

Interestingly, the US version of this story makes no mention of warning labels* for mens' clothing, but one is mentioned in the original BBC article (over 40 in/102 cm).

Another curious thing: UK news outlets haven't picked up this story with anywhere near the frequency US TV news stations have. Maybe because a story like this is the perfect "you won't believe it!" tease for the 11 o'clock news. Then again, I sometimes wonder if the UK and US are in some sort of secret competition to see who can create the nanniest nanny-state.

* Yes, I know some will argue that a precedent exists in warning labels on alcohol, cigarettes, even lottery tickets. I would argue this is different. Plus-size clothing does not cause obesity, nor is it an "addictive consumable" as these other products are. Using this logic, one could advocate for warning labels placed on all highly caloric or fattening foods...or products that induce people to be sedentary, like automobiles, or computers...or perhaps bathroom scales should be required to sound an alarm if the weigh-ee exceeds a specified weight limit. You get the general idea.

Labels: health, privacy, UK

---