Image: Katina Michael 2015

So here we are in 2015, where one of the most respected and lead media agencies of Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Commission is encouraging children to switch their webcams on and record themselves to be alongside the characters "....not essential to the game but it allows you to enjoy an extra special experience."

Seriously?

If it wasn't that the fact that it is ABC app developers distributing the message I'm sure we would have the Australian Federal Police shutting it down and sending out a international trigger alert.

So lets take a step back and revisit the case where Matel thought it would be a great idea to build an SD camera into the womb or chest of a Barbie doll, USB plug in it's butt and encourage kids to upload their lap play!

The BBC brought this to the attention of the world in 2010 - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11930727

The post on this harks back a bit but it's well worth revisiting what Associate Professor Katina Michael had to say at the time on the matter - https://goo.gl/uYQP8W

Both cases bring some serious considerations to the forefront for debate and these could be framed within the socio-ethical context.

Did the developers at the time of bringing these inventions to the marketplace, for even a minute, consider building in socio-ethical reasoning, using an adaptive framework that is cross-cultural, contextual to thwart the release of these technologies that are obviously in breach or likely to be in breach of national or international laws?

For that matter, does it cross the minds of engineers in their race to realise the dreams of the science fiction writers dystopia, that there are childrens well being at stake here? 

Unlikely.

So lets look at another case where this "load-your-yourself-for-further-fun' is occurring in other areas of the gaming world.

Namco Bandai Games Inc. has a similar such strategy employed on their sit-down car racing games that pepper many nations and entertainment venues.

The premise is that when you swipe your credit card to start the game it prompts you to use the accelerator pedal to "capture" a photo of your self seated, up close and portrait in style that is then loaded into the game interface as a player visual place holder. Each player is then able to "see" the others they are competing with on that bank of 5 gaming machines....but wait, there is more.

On the virtual car track there might be 20 or thirty cars racing around the track and each and every one of those cars also has images hovering above each car containing the facial features of children (players) who may have long left the game and in fact even left the premises. As you will see in image one (1) above I have depicted in true sousveillance style the general scale and composition as to what is captured of the player.

In the other photos you will identify children peering up into the camera which proceeds to take up to ten images at a time and then present them back to the player to select from.

In essence, the gaming machine is a networked device (internet enabled) that for all intents and purposes does nothing more than take a series of photos of the player and then they use that for the entertainment of the others seeing themselves and in competition racing against each other - literally.

It begs the question of the provider, summed up here as a series of questions unanswered:

  • Where was the privacy declaration that childrens images were NOT being stored for the re-marketing of the game to players in new and prospective proximal, walk by marketing?
  • Are images captured of innocent people who are captured amongst these high definition depictions of players seated used also and elsewhere?
  • Are these games networked and the images being transmitted across the internet to other gaming machines and therefore peoples identity being used to market this and potentially many other products based on age, geolocation, facial identity and any number of other body sensing capabilities built into these machines?
  • When the game is "over" can we then be assured as a consumer that our facial identity will not re-appear and be used for further marketing of the game?

In conclusion, we live in a society that has become accustomed to the unanswerable, where our basic rights as a human to feel our way forward using our instinct has been denied. Our proximity to everyday locations such as shopping centres have become a multiplicity of feeds, or re-picturing, of an imbued distrust of whereabouts never mind whom we are.

We have accepted that even a simple children's game is now potentially an identify harvesting activity and for the convenience we are promised upgrades and further levels of convenience.

The Australian Broadcast Commission has clearly a lot to answer to, but again, to what degree are such breaches of a socio-ethical consideration amongst those who would argue that it is a matter of socio-technical convenience, entertainment and choice that governs what is on-sold despite all the claims that "your data is safe with us".

Clearly, we are descending deeper into the night garden with it's myriad of murky monikers that evade ethical design and thwart useful privacy assured user interfaces.

"...Google Glass makes it easy for wearers to surreptitiously take pictures or video of unknowing subjects. That's caused more than a few people to ask: What does Glass mean for our privacy? Now Congress, too, wants answers."


"...Interview with Mitch Jackson - lots more on Mitch Jackson here - https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MitchJackson/about "


"...I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere down the line this [ Google Glass ] will be the norm....or whatever the mobile technology is."  - 2 April 2014 9:24AM AEST


Mitch Jackson provides an account of how he perceives Google Glass playing out across the legal profession in his state and perhaps across the United States more broadly. Mitch also provides feedback on a range of far ranging questions that included:

1. Mitch, which part of the US do you call home?
2. In your email signature you identify as a trial lawyer with 28 years experience. How is it then that you have identified as a #glassexplorer  and what does that do for your credibility as a Lawyer?
3. There have been some very public events of late that expose both the good and the bad sides of #glass  - what do you consider is the difference?
4. Have you or do you envisage in the the near future dealing with cases that involve #glass  legally in any way?
5. Where dont you wear #glass  ?
6. What has your Family reaction been to #glass  ? Rotary ? your sports associations?
7. When you say your involved with social media and #googleglass   in your G+ profile do you see these as separate entities or mutually complementary?
8. #glass  is at this point still a relatively unknown phenomena here in Australasia. What do you consider will be the impact of #glass  more broadly on the professional communities across Australia?
9. Given that society has changed significantly since the inception of the Internet do you have any ideas on what likely changes might happen with the functions and form of #googleglass  in the next iterations before it's public release?
10. What is the likely shifts in law and governance that we are going to have to tackle as a Society and internationally or even perhaps across all of humanity as a result of #glass  ?


Prescott flies drone onto oncoming train on the Sydney Harbour Bridge on October 3, 2013.

Prescott flies drone onto oncoming train on the Sydney Harbour Bridge on October 3, 2013.

Watch more here in this Brisbane Times news clipping.

Popular Mech

Popular Mech

Transient

The Art of Flying Your Very Own Drone

Drones are coming to American skies—not just for surveillance or security work, but also for hobbyists. If you want to pilot your own drone, learn the ABCs of UAVs.

Read more

"Over a four-month period I learned how to fly three multicopters: a super-simple $300 Parrot AR.Drone 2.0, a $680 DJI Phantom, and a tricked-out, six-rotor $1300 3D Robotics Y6. Multicopters have anywhere from three to eight rotors, are highly maneuverable, and can hover and fly in virtually any direction. These are good starter drones, because they are generally quite controllable and won't disappear over the horizon in a hurry, the way fixed-wing craft tend to do. 

But as I found out, multicopter flying is not without its challenges. Things can sometimes go haywire faster than you can react. Plus, piloting one can be a mind-bending exercise in relative positioning. Multicopters are symmetrical, so it's not always obvious which way your drone is "facing." Remote control usually involves either a radio-control unit with dual analog sticks and a dizzying array of switches and buttons (many of which do nothing), or, in the case of the Parrot AR.Drone, an iOS or Android smartphone or tablet with onscreen virtual controls. Regardless, operation can get a little complicated. When your drone flies behind you and you turn around to face it, the directional controls are now the reverse of what they were when it was in front of you—likewise, if you swivel your drone to face a new direction without reorienting your own body, the drone moves sideways relative to you. For this reason, I suggest keeping your first flights low and close by, and that you find a wide, open area to practice in—I used a local dog park. Also, purchase a few extra propellers, because you're going to crash your drone. And that's okay, because repairing your drone is part of the hobby. 

In terms of accessibility, the Parrot AR.Drone 2.0 is the newbie's top choice. It is affordable, durable, comes with a battery and an onboard camera, and is controlled via a smartphone. You can even fly it indoors—it comes with a removable hull that protects the rotors from bumps into walls, pets, and people. Takeoff and landing are accomplished with a single button. The AR.Drone has a sonar sensor that keeps it a fixed distance from the ground, and its 720p camera records a video to your tablet or phone as it flies. 

I had fun flying it, and my nerdy little toy impressed my nerdy friends. But the limitations surfaced quickly. The standard battery for the model I tested was rated for 1000 milliampere-hours—good for a paltry 12 minutes of air time. The company now sells a 1500-mAhr battery for longer flight times. Also, since the AR.Drone is controlled via Wi-Fi, it is constrained in its range to about 165 feet from the controller. There's plenty of fun to be had within that range, but more sophisticated choppers put it to shame. 

For instance, the Phantom, a ready-to-fly quadrotor from DJI, has a range of almost 1000 feet from the controller. But I wouldn't suggest sending it that far afield—at any distance greater than 500 feet, the drone becomes a coin-size white blob against the clouds. The Phantom is also fast, with a top speed of more than 20 mph—although that kind of hot-dogging will chew through a 2200-mAhr battery (which is not included) in 10 to 15 minutes. 

The quadrotor also uses a GPS sensor and digital compass to do away with the orientation problem that plagues most multicopters. Phantom has two Intelligent Orientation Control settings that normalize its forward motion regardless of which way the drone is facing. One IOC setting fixes the Phantom to a grid, which still reverses the controls if you fly it behind you. The other setting fixes the craft to a radius around its launch point; forward motion moves it away from you, reverse brings it back. I found this massively useful once I attached a GoPro to the Phantom's camera mount. I could then steer the camera in any direction yet still fly the aircraft relative to my own postion. It was like having a helicopter cameraman at my disposal for home movies. Now I have tons of aerial footage of my kids playing with the neighborhood dogs in the park, and a few high-altitude pans that give a view of my entire town. 
 

The Überdrone

On the upper end of the (or, at least, my) cost-and-complexity curve is the 3D Robotics Y6 hexacopter, using the APM:Copter software platform, which was the last and most ambitious drone I tried. You can build this three-arm, six-rotor craft yourself for $400 to $600 in parts (depending on the options you select), or you can have 3D Robotics build it for you for $700 to $1300. Fully tricked out, a 3D Robotics multicopter can be flown manually with a remote control, or it can do autonomous waypoint navigation. It can be accessorized with a wireless-telemetry kit that communicates with your laptop and a first-person-view camera that broadcasts back to a screen or video goggles. And it can also support a servo-driven tilting gimbal for real-time control of a second video camera. The idea is that you guide the aircraft with the low-res broadcast camera and record with a hi-def camera on the gimbal. Its six motors make the Y6 a strong beast, capable of lifting a heavy payload—some of which is its own large battery (the company suggests at least 4200 mAhr). The drone can also survive one or more motor failures while maintaining flight."

It is with great joy that MG and I write to let you know that the Uberveillance edited volume is finally in stores and available for purchase. We encourage you to ask your libraries to purchase the volume. Of significance are the coming together of well-known voices in the surveillance field to discuss the definition and impact of uberveillance, including Katherine Albrecht, Roger Clarke, Mark Gasson, Kevin Haggerty, Steve Mann, Ellen McGee, Kevin Warwick, Marcus Wigan and numerous authorities on the topic of microchipping people. This volume contains 17 book chapters, and 7 interviews and panel presentations as well as full referencing of source materials in some 500 pages.

"Uberveillance" edited volume by Michael and Michael (2014)

"Uberveillance" edited volume by Michael and Michael (2014)

 

CONTENTS PAGE

PART A The Veillances

Chapter 1 Introduction: On the “Birth” of Uberveillance  (pages 1-31) M. G. Michael (University of Wollongong, Australia)

Chapter 2 Veillance: Beyond Surveillance, Dataveillance, Uberveillance, and the Hypocrisy of One-Sided Watching  (pages 32-45) Steve Mann (University of Toronto, Canada)

Chapter 3 Uberveillance: Where Wear and Educative Arrangement  (pages 46-62) Alexander Hayes (University of Wollongong, Australia)

PART B Applications of Humancentric Implantables

Chapter 4 Practical Experimentation with Human Implants  (pages 64-132) Kevin Warwick (University of Reading, UK), Mark N. Gasson (University of Reading, UK)

Chapter 5 Knowledge Recovery: Applications of Technology and Memory  (pages 133-142) Maria E. Burke (University of Salford, UK), Chris Speed (University of Edinburgh, UK)

PART C Adoption of RFID Implants for Humans

Chapter 6 Willingness to Adopt RFID Implants: Do Personality Factors Play a Role in the Acceptance of Uberveillance?  (pages 144-168) Christine Perakslis (Johnson and Wales University, USA)

Chapter 7 Surveilling the Elderly: Emerging Demographic Needs and Social Implications of RFID Chip Technology Use  (pages 169-185) Randy Basham (University of Texas – Arlington, USA)

PART D Tracking and Tracing Laws, Directives, Regulations, and Standards

Chapter 8 Towards the Blanket Coverage DNA Profiling and Sampling of Citizens in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland  (pages 187-207) Katina Michael (University of Wollongong, Australia)

Chapter 9 ID Scanners and Überveillance in the Night-Time Economy: Crime Prevention or Invasion of Privacy?  (pages 208-225) Darren Palmer (Deakin University, Australia), Ian Warren (Deakin University, Australia), Peter Miller (Deakin University, Australia)

Chapter 10 Global Tracking Systems in the Australian Interstate Trucking Industry  (pages 226-234) Jann Karp (C.C.C. Australia, Australia)

Chapter 11 Tracking Legislative Developments in Relation to “Do Not Track” Initiatives  (pages 235-259) Brigette Garbin (University of Queensland, Australia), Kelly Staunton (University of Queensland, Australia), Mark Burdon (University of Queensland, Australia)

Chapter 12 Uberveillance, Standards, and Anticipation: A Case Study on Nanobiosensors in U.S. Cattle  (pages 260-279) Kyle Powys Whyte (Michigan State University, USA), Monica List (Michigan State University, USA), John V. Stone (Michigan State University, USA), Daniel Grooms (Michigan State University, USA), Stephen Gasteyer (Michigan State University, USA), Paul B. Thompson (Michigan State University, USA), Lawrence Busch (Michigan State University, USA), Daniel Buskirk (Michigan State University, USA), Erica Giorda (Michigan State University, USA), Hilda Bouri (Michigan State University, USA)

PART E Health Implications of Microchipping Living Things

Chapter 13 Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990–2006  (pages 281-317) Katherine Albrecht (CASPIAN Consumer Privacy, USA)

PART F Socio-Ethical Implications of RFID Tags and Transponders

Chapter 14 Privacy and Pervasive Surveillance: A Philosophical Analysis  (pages 319-350) Alan Rubel (University of Wisconsin – Madison, USA)

Chapter 15 Neuroethics and Implanted Brain Machine Interfaces  (pages 351-365) Ellen M. McGee (Independent Researcher, USA)

Chapter 16 We Are the Borg! Human Assimilation into Cellular Society  (pages 366-407) Ronnie D. Lipschutz (University of California - Santa Cruz, USA), Rebecca J. Hester (University of Texas Medical Branch, USA)

Chapter 17 Uberveillance and Faith-Based Organizations: A Renewed Moral Imperative  (pages 408-416) Marcus Wigan (Oxford Systematics, Australia & Edinburgh Napier University, UK)

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Compilation of References

About the Contributors

Index

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Roba Abbas, University of Wollongong, Australia

Greg Adamson, University of Melbourne, Australia

Katherine Albrecht, CASPIAN, USA

Anas Aloudat, University of Jordan, Jordan

Michael V. Arnold, University of Melbourne, Australia

Emilia Belleboni, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain

Rafael Capurro, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, USA

Kenneth Foster, University of Pennsylvania, USA

Amal Graafstra, Amal.net, USA

Mireille Hildebrandt, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Peter Hyland, University of Wollongong, Australia

Nicholas Huber, Accenture, Australia

Indrawati, Institut Manajemen Telkom, Indonesia

Eleni Kosta, K. U. Leuven, Belgium

Ronald Leenes, Tilburg University, The Netherlands

Avner Levin, Ryerson University, Canada

Michael Loui, University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign, USA

Noëmi Manders-Huits, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Keith W. Miller, University of Missouri – St. Louis, USA

Lyria Bennett Moses, University of New South Wales, Australia

Christine Perakslis, Johnson and Wales University, USA

Laura Perusco, Macquarie Bank, UK

Kenneth Pimple, Indiana University – Bloomington, USA

Joseph Savirimuthu, University of Liverpool, UK

Alan D. Smith, Robert Morris University, USA

Charles Smith, Mesa State College Alumni, USA

Judith Symonds, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand

Samuel Fosso Wamba, Rouen Business School, France

John Weckert, Charles Sturt University, Australia

 

HOW TO CITE THE VOLUME

MLA Style

Michael, M.G. and Katina Michael. "Uberveillance and the Social Implications of Microchip Implants: Emerging Technologies." IGI Global, 2014. 1-509. Web. 24 Dec. 2013. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4582-0

APA Style

Michael, M., & Michael, K. (2014). Uberveillance and the Social Implications of Microchip Implants: Emerging Technologies (pp. 1-509). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4582-0

Chicago Style

Michael, M.G. and Katina Michael. "Uberveillance and the Social Implications of Microchip Implants: Emerging Technologies." 1-509 (2014), accessed December 24, 2013. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4582-0

"CONTROVERSIAL tracking technology will be deployed in Brisbane's CBD under a plan to snoop on visitors' movements throughout the Queen Street Mall and South Bank.

The technology, from UK-based company Path Intelligence, intercepts mobile phone signals to track each person as they move around the area.
But while the company insists it doesn't collect private data and all information is anonymous, a privacy expert has warned it is "basically spying" and could breach Australian law."
:
:
"Australian Privacy Foundation vice-chair David Vaile said the technology misused the telephone network by using it to snoop on unsuspecting visitors.
He said any such technology should have an open and transparent privacy assessment so citizens could be comfortable their personal data wasn't being collected and that the system wasn't vulnerable to abuse or hacking.
"They're basically spying on you . . . The phone system wasn't put there to enable people to spy on other people by tracking them, its only purpose was for facilitating calls," he said.
Mr Vaile said the technology could be in breach of telecommunication law, and differing international definitions of "anonymous" meant such tracking systems could also breach the Privacy Act. "

Read more

 

Transient

Read more

"A study of over 4000 people carried out by the Centre of Creative and Social Technologies (CAST) at Goldsmiths University, revealed that one in five Britons were uncomfortable with the privacy implications surrounding the Google Glass – and believe that it should be banned outright. The research paper, The Human Cloud: Wearable Technology from Novelty to Productivity, found that around half of respondents expressed a general mistrust about the invasive nature of wearable technologies such as Google Glass and Nike +, citing concerns for privacy as well as calling for possible regulation over such smart objects. However, the survey did find a general openness towards the forthcoming explosion of cloud-powered devices, with around 71% of people expressing the enhancement that such innovations had allowed in regards to their health, intelligence, confidence, relationships, as well as many other aspects of their lives.
Google have already started to regulate usage of the Glass, recently banning pornography applications as well as facial recognition technologies that are believed to be a breach of privacy. However, the development of applications has persisted in the face of Google’s attempts to tame the behemoth that the Glass has become. The increased interest and openess of those studied in CAST’s survey for wearable tech will lead to what has been dubbed The Human Cloud: the term created for the network of humans equipped with wearable internet-connected technologies. The title alone certainly evokes an eerie progression towards the Singularity, but for the mean time, Chris Bauer co-director of CAST, comments that “The rich data created by wearable tech will drive the rise of the ‘human cloud’ of personal data. With this comes countless opportunities to tap into this data; whether it’s connecting with third parties to provide more tailored and personalised services or working closer with healthcare institutions to get a better understanding of their patients. We’re already seeing wearable technology being used in the private sector with health insurance firms encouraging members to use wearable fitness devices to earn rewards for maintaining a healthier lifestyle. It is likely that the public sector will look to capitalise on the wearable technology trend with a view to boosting telehealth and smart city programs.” Applications of the human cloud will serve only to enhance almost all aspects of our daily life, assimilating and collecting information in a much more efficient manner than ever before."
 

Transient

Read more 

identities and uberveillance.jpg