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.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations