Sometimes, it is the very ordinariness of a scene that makes it terrifying. So it was with a clip from last week’s BBC documentary on facial recognition technology. It shows the Metropolitan police trialling a facial recognition system on an east London street.
A man tries to avoid the cameras, covering his face by pulling up his fleece. He is stopped by the police and forced to have his photograph taken.
He is then fined ￡90 (US$114) for “disorderly behavior.”
“What’s your suspicion?” someone asks the police.
“The fact that he’s walked past clearly masking his face from recognition,” one of the plainclothes police operating the system replies.
If you want to protect your privacy, you must have something to hide, and if you actually do something to protect your privacy, well, that is “disorderly behavior.”
There is considerable panic in the West about the Chinese tech firm Huawei acting as a Trojan horse for Beijing, but perhaps we should worry less about the tech company than about the social use of technology.
Much has been written about Beijing’s development of a dystopian surveillance state. It is not just in China, though, that what one observer has called “ algorithmic governance “ is beginning to take hold.
As the tech entrepreneur Maciej Ceglowski said in testimony to a US Senate committee hearing this month: “Until recently, even people living in a police state could count on the fact that the authorities didn’t have enough equipment or manpower to observe everyone, everywhere and so enjoyed more freedom from monitoring than we do living in a free society today.”
The UK has long been one of the most closely monitored societies in the world. There are at least 4.9 million CCTV cameras in Britain — one for every 14 people. Some estimates suggest that 20 percent of all CCTV cameras are in the UK.
Now, the UK is at the forefront of the rollout of facial recognition technology. Police forces are using it to monitor shopping centers, music festivals, sports events and political demonstrations.
The technology is currently beset with myriad problems. It is inaccurate — according to the campaign group Big Brother Watch, in police trials “a staggering 95 percent of ‘matches’ wrongly identified innocent people” — and there is a major issue of racial bias in the algorithms.
However, the real problem, technology writer Jamie Bartlett suggested, is not that it does not work, but, rather, that it might work very well.
“Despite the problems, I expect it will be very effective at tackling crime and keeping us safe. At what cost?” he said.
In other words, how much do we treasure privacy? Are we all willing to be treated like that man on an east London street?
Nor is it just facial recognition technology that is the issue here.
Almost without realizing, we have created an entire infrastructure of surveillance. If you’re reading this online, you are being tracked. If you bought a print version of the newspaper at a supermarket, your purchase was probably recorded. Every time you go shopping, use public transport, make a telephone call, engage with social media, you are likely to have been tracked.
Surveillance is at the heart, too, of “smart cities.” From Amsterdam to Singapore, from Dubai to Toronto, cities across the globe are embracing technology to collect data on citizens, ostensibly to improve public services and make urban spaces function better.
What smart cities also enable is a new form of policing. As the mayor of Rio de Janeiro said of the “integrated urban command center” built in preparation for the 2016 Olympics and the World Cup, the system “allows us to have people looking into every corner of the city, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”
Buses that run on time and garbage that is efficiently cleared are good things — although in most smart cities, and in Rio especially, neither actually happens.
However, there is more to the good life than an ordered city. Human flourishing, as Ceglowski said to the US Senate, requires the existence of a sphere of life outside public scrutiny; not only within the intimacy of the home, but also in semi-private spaces, such as the workplace or the church or the pub.
It is that kind of space shielded from scrutiny that increasingly is vanishing.
In a number of US cities, such as San Francisco and Oakland, there have been pushbacks against mass surveillance. Yet, as Ceglowski said, one of the features of the “new world of ambient surveillance” is that “we cannot opt out of it, any more than we might opt out of automobile culture by refusing to drive.”
That is possibly the most disturbing thought of all.
Swirling within the cybersphere’s vast ocean of reports, statistics and graphs about the international coronavirus pandemic, there is a short sentence out there in the worldwide web, which the Chinese government doesn’t want people to notice. It is on the Johns Hopkins University website “https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html” which houses the popular “live map” of Wuhan coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) data from individual countries. That sentence reads: “The map’s names of locations correspond with the official designations used by the US State Department, including for Taiwan.” Most readers may think this merely is an unremarkable footnote, akin to other source data on the site. But
On March 6, China announced through Hong Kong’s Chinese-language Ming Pao that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) would visit Wuhan “soon.” On the same day, US-based Chinese-language IPK Media published an article by Chinese tycoon Ren Zhiqiang (任志強), with the headline: “An official call to arms against Xi: The clown who insists on wearing the emperor’s new clothes.” Will the truth about the struggles inside the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak finally be revealed? Ren’s article is reminiscent of Tang Dynasty poet Luo Binwang’s (駱賓王) “An official call to arms against Empress Wu Zetian (武則天)
Recent global media coverage of Taiwan has at times reduced the nation’s success in containing the spread of COVID-19 to some East Asian values such as cooperation with social control or Confucianism. An article in Wired magazine debunks this myth, crediting the nation’s success to democracy and transparency. It is appalling to learn that this misconception still exists. Here is one thing that world citizens should keep in mind: Taiwan is the first and only country in Asia that has legalized same-sex marriage. There is nothing Confucian about that. If anything, the Confucian legacy is a major obstacle that Taiwanese
The novel coronavirus known as COVID-19 — or the Wuhan virus, after the Chinese city from which it emerged — could not have come at a more advantageous time for China’s communist government. Not for the Chinese people, of course, thousands of whom have perished because of Beijing’s lack of transparency, disinformation and cruel refusal to cooperate with international public health organizations. No, the advantage goes exclusively to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), whose deceptive practices unleashed the deadly virus to the world. To understand how Beijing benefits from the pandemic, it is necessary