Jan 30, 2008 - Claremont, Calif. - Increasingly omnipresent and omnipowerful, surveillance touches everyone's life profoundly--whether as citizens, workers, consumers, patients, travelers or in personal relations. Hixon-Riggs Visiting Professor of Science, Technology and Society Gary T. Marx, emeritus professor, MIT, will open the conference with the keynote address “Windows into the Soul: Surveillance and Society in an Age of High Technology" Thursday, Mar. 27, at 7 p.m. Many of the participants are internationally reknowned scholars who are helping to define an emerging inter-disciplinary field of surveillance studies. A number of the conferees served on, or advised, the Committee on Privacy in the Information Age for the National Academy of Sciences and contributed to writing its’ recent report: Engaging Privacy and Information Technology in a Digital Age, and also contributed to the recent Contemporary Sociology (March 2007) journal's symposium, "Taking a Look at Surveillance and Society." Presentations will continue on Friday, Mar. 28, and Saturday, Mar. 29. Marx was quoted in The Chronicle of Higher Education's story "Watching the Watchers", written by Peter Monaghan in 2006. The story addresses the burgeoning field of surveillance studies, in which researchers scrutinize the many ways in which human activity is monitored by government and industry. 7:00 p.m. Friday, March 28, 2008 Green Room, Platt Campus Center 8:15-8:45 a.m. 8:45-10:15 a.m. 10:15-10:30 a.m. 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. 12:00-1:00 p.m. Green Room, Platt Campus Center 1:00-2:45 p.m. 2:45-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:45 p.m. 6:00-7:30 p.m. 8:00-10:00 p.m. Saturday, March 29, 2008 Green Room, Platt Campus Center 8:30-9:00 a.m. 9:00-10:15 a.m. 10:15-10:30 a.m. 10:30 a.m.-12:15 p.m. 12:15-1:15 p.m. 1:15-3:00 p.m. 3:00-3:30 p.m. 3:30-5:00 p.m. Participants' Biographies Colin Bennett received his Bachelor's and Master's degrees from the University of Wales, and his Ph.D from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Since 1986 he has taught in the Department of Political Science at the University of Victoria, where he is now Professor. From 1999-2000, he was a fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. In 2007 he was a Visiting Fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Society at University of California, Berkeley. His research has focused on the comparative analysis of surveillance technologies and privacy protection policies at the domestic and international levels. In addition to numerous scholarly and newspaper articles, he has published three books: Regulating Privacy: Data Protection and Public Policy in Europe and the United States (Cornell University Press, 1992); Visions of Privacy: Policy Choices for the Digital Age (University of Toronto Press, 1999, with Rebecca Grant); The Governance of Privacy: Policy Instruments in the Digital Age (Ashgate Press, 2003; MIT Press, 2006 with Charles Raab). He is currently completing projects on “privacy advocacy” in Western societies, as well as on the politics of identity cards. E-Mail: CJB@UVic.Ca http://web.uvic.ca/polisci/bennett Natalie Bookchin is an artist based in Los Angeles who is created pioneering art work in the 1990s that used the Internet as both material and site. From 1998 to 2000 she was a member of the collective ®TMark. Her recent videos sample and archive data flows of images from security webcams around the world, creating unusual portraits of global landscapes. Her work has been shown widely in international venues including Mass MOCA, the Generali Foundation, the Walker Art Center, and The Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles. She has been commissioned to make projects for the Whitney Museum, the Tate Museum, the Walker Art Center, and Creative Time, among other venues. She has received grants from Creative Capital, the Guggenheim Foundation, the Durfee Foundation, the California Arts Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, California Community Foundation, New York State Council for the Arts, Daniel Langlois Foundation, Andy Warhol Foundation among others. She is the Director of Photography and Media Program in the Art School at Calarts where she has taught for the past ten years. James Byrne (PhD, Rutgers University, 1983) is Professor, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of Massachusetts, Lowell. He has over twenty five years experience in the field of criminal justice and criminology. He has taught at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell since 1984. He is the author of numerous monographs and journal articles on the subjects of offender change, offender reentry, risk classification, the link between prison culture and community culture, and the community context of crime and crime control. He has conducted a wide range of evaluations of criminal justice initiatives, including offender reentry, intensive probation supervision, drug testing in federal pretrial systems, domestic violence control, drug treatment, day reporting centers, drunk driving interventions, absconder location/apprehension strategies, and most recently, the impact of the National Institute of Corrections’ Institutional Culture Change Initiative on prison violence. He is a nationally recognized expert in the field of corrections with wide editorial experience. Dr. Byrne has co-authored or edited several critically acclaimed texts, including The Social Ecology of Crime (Springer Verlag, 1986), Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions (Sage, 1994), The New Technology of Crime, Law, and Social Control (Criminal Justice Press, 2007), and The Culture of Prison Violence( Allyn&Bacon,2008). David Cunningham is Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the Department of Sociology at Brandeis University. His previous research has focused on the organization of the FBI's counterintelligence programs (COINTELPROs) against a broad range of left- and right-wing targets between 1956 and 1971. His book on that topic, "There's Something Happening Here: The New Left, the Klan, and FBI Counterintelligence," was published by the University of California Press in 2004. Currently, he is primarily involved with two interconnected projects: a study of the rise and fall of the Civil Rights-era Ku Klux Klan, with a focus on particular features of community-level environments that facilitated or hindered the KKK's mobilization efforts; and an examination of the legacy of racial violence in the American South. This latter project includes a large-scale interview and archival-based effort to construct a representative portrait of the contours of anti-Civil Rights violence in Mississippi between 1955 and 1970. An ongoing Brandeis-based curricular program, "Social Change in American Communities," provides a framework for both graduate and undergraduate students to travel to Mississippi to take part in this research initiative. Dr. Larry Gaines is a professor and chair of the criminal justice department at California State University at San Bernardino. He has police experience with the Kentucky State Police and the Lexington, Kentucky Police Department. Additionally, he served as the Executive Director of the Kentucky Association of Chiefs of Police for 14 years and is a past president of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. He has authored a number of books focusing on various aspects of policing and crime. His current research agenda centers on the evaluation of police programs and tactics in terms of their effectiveness in combating crime and disorder. He is also examining the effectiveness of community partnerships. His most recent journal article examined traffic stops and racial profiling in Riverside, California, and he currently is examining the effects of the Phoenix Project in the City of San Bernardino. The Phoenix Project was a community partnership program aimed at reducing crime in a high crime area in that city. Oscar H. Gandy, Jr. is professor emeritus at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. He is author of The Panoptic Sort and Beyond Agenda Setting, two books that explore issues of information and public policy. A recent book, Communication and Race, explores the structure of media and society, as well as the cognitive structures that reflect and are reproduced through media use. A co-edited volume, Framing Public Life, examines the role of media in shaping public understanding. A book in progress, If It Weren't for Bad Luck, will examine the ways in which probability and its representation affect the lives of different groups in society. More details: http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/ogandy/ John Gilliom is a Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Ohio University. His research interests center on the political and cultural dynamics surrounding the emergence of new forms of surveillance with a particular emphasis on gender, class, and the ethnography of struggle. He is the author of Overseers of the Poor: Surveillance, Resistance, and the Limits of Privacy (Chicago 2001) which explores how the words and actions of those who live under intensive monitoring challenge our prevailing ways of thinking about surveillance and privacy. Gilliom is also the author of Surveillance, Privacy and the Law: Employee Drug Testing and the Politics of Social Control (Michigan 1994) as well as articles on law, legal theory, and the politics of surveillance. His current work explores the implementation of nationwide standardized educational testing under No Child Left Behind, with a special interest in resistance and compliance; race, class and gender; the ideologies of the testing culture; and the reformation of school curricula in response to the testing regime. Gilliom received his Ph D in 1990 at the University of Washington. Glenn A. Goodwin is (Adjunct) Professor of Sociology at the University of La Verne and Emeritus Professor of Sociology, Pitzer College, Claremont, California. He has served on the faculties of Wayne State University; Claremont Graduate University; The American University in Cairo, Egypt; University of California, San Francisco; Ohio University; and Chapman University. Goodwin’s work has appeared in a variety of professional journals and books and he is the co-author of Classical Sociological Theory: Rediscovering the Roots of Sociology (Thomson/Wadsworth, 2006) and co-editor of the volumes,‘Professing’ Humanist Sociology (4th and 5^th editions), American SociologicalAssociation. Goodwin has served on the Board of Directors of the ACLU of Southern California for over 25 years, during which he has been particularly active in First Amendment and Privacy issues. He received his B.A. from S.U.N.Y. Buffalo and his Ph.D. from Tulane University. Kevin Haggerty is a editor of the Canadian Journal of Sociology and book review editor of Surveillance and Society. He is professor of sociology and criminology at the University of Alberta in Canada. He has authored, co-authored or co-edited Policing the Risk Society (Oxford University Press) Making Crime Count (University of Toronto Press) and The New Politics of Surveillance and Visibility (University of Toronto Press). Bob Hoogenboom is a historian and moved in and out of criminology, police studies, public administration and business studies to teach, write and consult on regulation, crime and law enforcement. He is a professor in forensic business studies at Nyenrode University in the Netherlands and part time lector at the Dutch Police Academy. His publications range from regulation (1986), private investigations (1987), growing interweaving of inspections, police and private investigation (1994), fraud on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange (1996), corporate espionage (1997) to privatisation of security (2001), regulation (2004) and more recently on the governance of security in the Rotterdam and Antwerp harbour (forthcoming). He is involved in different projects of the Dutch Council of Chiefs of Police on forensic investigations, quality of detective work and relationships with the intelligence community.. Elizabeth Joh is a Professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law. She received her B.A. in Literature from Yale, and her J.D. and Ph.D. in Law and Society from New York University. Before joining the faculty at Davis, Professor Joh clerked for the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Professor Joh has written on a variety of topics regarding criminal law and procedure, including private policing, traffic stops, and “abandoned” DNA. She teaches criminal law and procedure, constitutional law, and law and society. (eejoh@ucdavis.edu) Ian Kerr holds the Canada Research Chair in Ethics, Law and Technology at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, with cross appointments to the Faculty of Medicine and the Department of Philosophy. In addition to his work on emerging health technologies, bioethics and the human-machine merger, Dr. Kerr has published books and articles on numerous topics at the intersection of ethics, law and technology and is currently engaged in two large research projects: (i) On the Identity Trail, supported by one of the largest ever grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, examining the impact of information and authentication technologies on our identity and our ability to be anonymous; and (ii) An Examination of Digital Copyright, supported by a large grant from Bell Canada and the Bank of Nova Scotia. His devotion to teaching has earned him six awards and citations. Dr. Kerr sits as a member on numerous editorial and advisory boards and is co-author of Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, a business law text published by Prentice Hall. David Lyon is Director of the Surveillance Project, Queen’s Research Chair and Professor of Sociology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario. From 2008-2010 he holds a Killam Research Fellowship from the Canada Council. Born in Edinburgh, Scotland and raised mainly in Bristol, England, he completed his Social Science and History education in Bradford, Yorkshire (BSc Soc Sci, PhD). He has authored or edited 20 books and published many articles. They have been translated into 15 languages. The most recent books are Surveillance Studies: An Overview (Polity, 2007) and Theorizing Surveillance (ed. 2006). Identifying Citizens: Surveillance, Sorting and the State and Playing the Identity Card (co-edited with Colin Bennett) will appear in 2008. He is on the international editorial boards of a number of journals and is the North American editor of Surveillance and Society. He has held visiting positions at the Universities of Auckland, Edinburgh, Melbourne, Leeds, Tokyo, the Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore and the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris. David is married to Sue, a studio potter. They have four adult children and two grandchildren. David also writes songs, paints in watercolour, and participates in the Kingston triathlon. Peter K. Manning (Ph.D. Duke, 1966, MA Oxon. 1982) holds the Elmer V. H. and Eileen M. Brooks Chair in the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, Boston, MA. He has taught at Michigan State, MIT, Oxford, and the University of Michigan, and was a Fellow of the National Institute of Justice, Balliol and Wolfson Colleges, Oxford, the American Bar Foundation, the Rockefeller Villa (Bellagio), and the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Wolfson College, Oxford. Listed in Who’s Who in America, and Who’s Who in the World, he has been awarded many contracts and grants, the Bruce W. Smith and the O.W. Wilson Awards from the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Charles Horton Cooley Award from the Michigan Sociological Association. The author and editor of some 15 books, including Privatization of Policing: Two Views (with Brian Forst) (Georgetown University Press, 2000), his research interests include the rationalizing and interplay of private and public policing, democratic policing, crime mapping and crime analysis, uses of information technology, and qualitative methods. His most recent publications include Policing Contingencies (2003 University of Chicago Press) and The Technology of Policing: crime mapping, information technology and the rationality of crime control (forthcoming 2008 NYU Press). Dr. Stephen T. (Steve) Margulis is Professor of Management, Seidman College of Business, Grand Valley State University (GVSU), in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Before this appointment he was the Eugene Eppinger Professor of Facilities Management at GVSU. He has been publishing on behavioral aspects of privacy for some 30 years. His major publications on privacy are his two edited volumes in the Journal of Social Issues on privacy. The most recent of these is “Contemporary perspectives on privacy: Social, psychological, political.” Journal of Social Issues, 2003, 59 (2). The earlier one, and his favorite privacy publication, is “Privacy as a behavioral phenomenon.” Journal of Social Issues, 1977, 33 (3). He also has published on issues on social psychology, environmental psychology, environmental design research, management information systems, facilities management, and organizational behavior. In addition to university teaching and research, he worked for 10 years for federal government’s National Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of Standards and Technology), followed by work in the private sector, as Director of Research, at BOSTI, an award-winning environmental design research and consulting firm in Buffalo, New York. Gary T. Marx is an electronic (garymarx.net), and occasionally itinerant, scholar. He is currently the Hixon-Riggs Professor of Science, Technology and Society at Harvey Mudd College. He received his PhD from the University of California at Berkeley and has taught there and at Harvard, M.I.T. and the University of Colorado. He is the author of assorted (and even some sordid) publications in academic and popular media and of Protest and Prejudice, Undercover: Police Surveillance in America and the forthcoming Windows Into the Soul: Surveillance and Society in an Age of High Technology and co-editor of Undercover: Police Surveillance in Comparative Perspective. gtmarx@mit.edu. Rachel Mayeri is a Los Angeles-based artist working at the intersection of science and art. Her videos, installations, and writing projects explore topics ranging from the history of special effects to the human animal. Mayeri's "animated documentaries" combine motion graphics and live-action, documentary and storytelling. Primate Cinema: Baboons as Friends (2007), is a reenactment of a primate social drama with human actors, produced in collaboration with primatologist Deborah Forster. Primate Cinema received a Semifinalist honor for the International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge (sponsored by NSF and The Journal Science) and showed at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Denmark. Her chapter on artists' experiments with science documentary is forthcoming in Tactical Biopolitcs, Beatriz da Costa and Kavita Philip, editors (MIT Press). She programmed a DVD of videos by artists and scientists entitled Soft Science, which is distributed by Video Data Bank. Shown nationally and internationally, at Los Angeles Filmforum, ZKM, and P.S.1/MoMA, she is Associate Professor of Media Studies at Harvey Mudd College and a Guest Curator of the Museum of Jurassic Technology. Torin Monahan is trained in science and technology studies (STS), which is an interdisciplinary, social science field devoted to studying the societal implications of and design processes behind technological systems and scientific knowledge. He has received three NSF grants for research and workshops on surveillance technologies and has published widely on issues of surveillance and security, including one edited book, Surveillance and Security: Technological Politics and Power in Everyday Life (Routledge, 2006), five peer-reviewed journal articles, and three book chapters to date. He is a member of the international Surveillance Studies Network and is on the editorial board for the primary academic journal in the field, Surveillance & Society. Additionally, he has taught an undergraduate course on “surveillance and society” every year for the past three years at Arizona State University. More information about his research and publications can be founds at http://www.torinmonahan.com/. Glenn W. Muschert, a sociologist of social problems, is Criminology Program Coordinator and Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and Gerontology at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. Dr. Muschert earned a BS in International Area Studies from Drexel University in 1992, and a Sociology PhD in 2002 from the University of Colorado at Boulder. After serving a one-year appointment on Purdue University’s Law & Society faculty, he joined Miami University’s Criminology faculty in 2003. His research focuses on social control through surveillance and the sociological implications of mass media coverage of high profile crimes, such as school shootings and child abductions. His research has appeared in Sociological Inquiry, Sociological Imagination, Annual Review of Law & Social Science, Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice, Justice Policy Journal, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, and the Social Science Journal. www.users.muohio.edu/muschegw/ Christena Nippert-Eng is Associate Chair, Department of Social Sciences, Illinois Institute of Technology and a frequent mass media commentator. She received her 1994 PhD from University of New York at Stony Brook. Her fields of interest are cognitive sociology, culture, technology, work the home, time and space, ethnography. She teaches film, project, field and lecture-based courses at ITT. Selected research: 2007 "Privacy in the United States: Some implications for design." International Journal of Design, 1(2), 1-10; 2005 "Boundary Play." Space and Culture, Vol. 8, No. 3, 302-324; 2005 "A View From the Outside: Challenges of the Design Ph.D." Idade da Imagem. Revista De arte, Ciencia, e Cultura do IADE, Instituto de Artes Visuais, Design e Marketing, No. 3, S. II. 114-124; 1996 Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries Through Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. She is currently finishing a research project entitled, "Islands of Privacy," funded by the AIM program at the Intel Corporation. In March of 2005 she began work on the concept of "security" by conducting fieldwork in the New York City subway system. She spent the summer of 2006 writing on secrets and secrecy. She is a frequent mass media commentator. Helen Nissenbaum is a Professor of Media, Culture and Communication and of Computer Science at New York University, where she is also a Faculty Fellow of the Information Law Institute. Her areas of expertise include social, ethical, and political implications of computing and information technology. Grants from the National Science Foundation, Ford Foundation, and U.S. Department of Homeland Security have supported research projects on privacy, trust online, security, intellectual property, and several projects investigating political values in computer and information systems, including search engines, video games, and facial recognition systems. She has produced three books, Emotion and Focus, Computers, Ethics and Social Values (co-edited with D.J. Johnson), and Academy and the Internet (co-edited with Monroe Prince), and over 40 research articles, published in scholarly journals of philosophy, political philosophy, law, media studies, information studies, and computer science. Before joining the faculty at NYU, Nissenbaum was Member at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, served as Associate Director of Princeton University’s Center for Human Values and held a postdoctoral fellowship at the Center for the Study of Language and Information at Stanford. She holds a B.A. with honors from the University of Witwatersand, Johannesburg, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Stanford University. Massimo Ragnedda, Ph.D. in Theory of Communication and Intercultural Studies at the University of Sassari. In the academic year 2003/2004 he was Visiting Researcher at the Institute of Communication Studies of Leeds University (UK) and in the academic year 2006/2007 he was an affiliated visitor at the Department of Sociology, University of Cambridge (UK). Currently he teaches Sociology of Culture at the University of Sassari (Italy). He is author of three books and several articles. His forthcoming book is “The postpanoptic society: social control in the post modern society”. Pris Regan is a Professor in the Department of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University. Prior to joining that faculty in 1989, she was a Senior Analyst in the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (1984-1989) and an Assistant Professor of Politics and Government at the University of Puget Sound (1979-1984). Since the mid-1970s, Dr. Regan's primary research interest has been the analysis of the social, policy, and legal implications of organizational use of new information and communications technologies. Dr. Regan has published over twenty articles or book chapters, as well as Legislating Privacy: Technology, Social Values, and Public Policy (University of North Carolina Press, 1995). As a recognized researcher in this area, Dr. Regan has testified before Congress and participated in meetings held by the Department of Commerce, Federal Trade Commission, Social Security Administration, and Census Bureau. Dr. Regan received her PhD in Government from Cornell University in 1981 and her BA from Mount Holyoke College in 1972. Stephen Rohde is a constitutional lawyer, lecturer, writer and political activist. He is a former President of both the ACLU of Southern California and the Beverly Hills Bar Association and is a founder of Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace. He is the author of American Words of Freedom, which explores the origins, history and meaning of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. His most recent book is Freedom of Assembly which is part of the American Rights Series. He is also co-author of Foundations of Freedom published by the Constitutional Rights Foundation and has written numerous articles and book reviews on civil liberties and constitutional history. Since September 11, Mr. Rohde has spoken to a wide array of community, religious, educational and civic organizations on the threats posed to civil liberties at home and human rights abroad by the Bush Administration. Mr. Rohde received his B.A. degree in Political Science from Northwestern University in 1966 and his J.D. degree from Columbia Law School in 1969. James Rule was born and grew up in Northern California. He attended UC Berkeley, Brandeis University, and Harvard, where he completed his Ph.D. in Sociology in 1969. He has held teaching and research appointments at MIT; Nuffield College, Oxford; the Universite de Bordeaux; Clare Hall, Cambridge; the State University of New York, Stony Brook; and (since January, 2007) the Center for the Study of Law and Society at the University of California, Berkeley, where he is Distinguished Affiliated Scholar. He has held fellowships from the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Science, Stanford; the Rockefeller and Guggenheim Foundations; the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton; and the Russell Sage Foundation. He is author of seven books on diverse topics including the origins of civil violence; the role of social inquiry in social betterment; progress and cumulation in social science; and privacy and surveillance. His latest book is Privacy in Peril, Oxford University Press, New York, 2007. Minas Samatas, currently Associate Professor of political sociology at the Sociology Department of University of Crete, has a Ph.D. in sociology from the Sociology Department of the Graduate Faculty of New School for Social Research , New York, USA (1986). His doctoral dissertation entitled : “Greek Bureaucratism : A system of socio-political control ” received the Albert Salomon Memorial Award, as the best Ph.D. thesis of New School for that year. He also got the Joseph Henry Scholarship as visitor scholar at the Hellenic Studies of Princeton University (1994), and a European Union Jean Monnet fellowship (1999-2006), teaching a permanent European Integration course on the Greek state’s modernisation & Europeanization. He has published around 40 articles in international and Greek journals, on issues like “Greek McCarthyism,” “Greece in ‘Schengenland’," "Studying Survrellance in Greece," "Security and Surveillance in Athens 2004 Olympics,” “The Southern European Fortress, ” etc. His book Surveillance in Greece: From anticommunist to the consumer surveillance, Pella, N.Y. 2004, is the only one in the international and Greek bibliography on this topic. Julia Scher is a widely acclaimed artist currently at the Kunsthochschule fur Medien in Koln. Her work critically engages electronic security and surveillance issues in our culture. Practices as varied as theatre, performance, architecture installation, multi media, video, networks, software and sound, are raw materials for her projects. She is interested in creating temporary and transitory web/installation/performance works that explore issues of power, control and seduction. Her current project "Surveillant Architectures" is being developed as a platform at KHM from which to view and critique watchfulness in everyday life. The project was born out of an effort to create a new language to go along with new protocols on the scene- to bring to light the theoretical, social, individual, and political implications of surveillance, security, and terror management issues today. The project was started through M.I.T.’s Center for Advanced Visual Studies in collaboration with students, Lori Ferris and Jen Win. Chris Schneider is currently a fourth year Ph.D. student in the School of Justice and Social Inquiry at the Arizona State University. His dissertation, “Mass Media, Popular Culture, and Technology: Communication and Information Formats as Emergent Features of Social Control” explores the ways that culture and technology have contributed to changes in social action and how these changes have also broadened meanings associated with social control and more generally social interaction. The principle argument is that popular culture reinforces existing facets of both formal and informal social control, with important implications for issues of crime and justice. More broadly my research investigates the process, meanings and social consequences of mass media messages about crime and deviance. I track news and popular culture documents utilizing qualitative methodology grounded in a symbolic interactionist perspective that is oriented to the examination of the cultural context of meanings associated with select practices. This approach illuminates the frames, discourse, and meanings found in news reports with everyday life participants, on the one hand, and agents of social control on the other hand. Graham Sewell is professor of organization studies and human resource management in the Department of Management & Marketing, University of Melbourne, Australia. Prior to this appointment Graham was professor and chair in organizational behavior at the Tanaka Business School, Imperial College London. From August 2004-July 2005 he was the Spanish Ministry of Science & Education visiting professor at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. He has also held visiting appointments at the University of South Florida, the University of California Santa Cruz, and the University of California Berkeley. He gained his PhD in urban planning from Cardiff University in 1994. Graham has been researching workplace surveillance since the late 1980s and has published extensively on the topic in journals such as the Academy of Management Review, the Administrative Science Quarterly, and Sociology. His article with James R. Barker, “Neither good, nor bad, but dangerous: Workplace surveillance as an ethical paradox,” was recently reprinted in The Surveillance Studies Reader (McGraw-Hill/OUP, 2007). For more information go to http://www.managementmarketing.unimelb.edu.au/staff/staffpage.cfm?StaffId=13. Victor N. Shaw, Ph.D., is a professor of sociology at California State University-Northridge. Dr. Shaw is interested in the study of crime, deviance, social control, organizational behavior, higher education, academic careers, and public policy, and has published widely in those areas. Dr. Shaw’s 2000 book, Substance Use and Abuse: Sociological Perspectives, appeared in “Outstanding Academic Titles, 2003,” CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, the Association of College and Research Libraries. His 2004 book, Career-Making in Postmodern Academia: Process, Structure, and Consequence is at the top of some academic advisors’ list of books for postgraduate students and professionals. Dr. Shaw’s most recent books include Crime and Social Control in Asia and the Pacific: A Cross-Border Study (2007) and In View of Academic Careers and Career-Making Scholars: Innovative Ideas for Institutional Reform (2008). Emily Smith is a Research Associate with the Surveillance Project at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. She holds a Masters in Sociology in which her work focused on workplace surveillance, specifically on resistance in call centre contexts. With the project, Emily was involved in the planning and analysis of an international survey on privacy and surveillance as part of research on the Globalization of Personal Data. Her paper on public opinion and national ID cards in Canada will be included in an edited collection Privacy, Surveillance and the Globalization of Personal Information: International Comparisons. Smith is also Editorial Assistant for the online journal Surveillance & Society. Valerie Steeves is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminology at the University of Ottawa. Her main area of research is the impact of new technologies on human rights issues. Professor Steeves has spoken and written extensively on privacy, and was the lead researcher for the Young Canadians in a Wired World research project, measuring the effect of new media on young people’s privacy and social relationships. Ms. Steeves has appeared as an expert witness before a number of Parliamentary Committees regarding privacy legislation, and is a member of the Canadian Standards Association’s Technical Committee on Privacy. She has also worked with a number of government departments to develop privacy education curriculum and materials. Her Web-based educational game Sense and NonSense won the first annual Excellence in Race Relations Education award from the Canadian Race Relations Foundation in 1998 and her game Privacy Playground was awarded the Bronze Medal at the 2006 Summit Creative Awards Competition, an international competition involving thousands of entries from 26 countries. In 2004, Professor Steeves was awarded the LaBelle Lectureship from McMaster University. The LaBelle is a juried prize that recognizes scholars doing interdisciplinary work and challenging accepted ideas. T. Kim-Trang Tran was born in Viet Nam and emigrated to the U.S. in 1975. She received her MFA from the California Institute of the Arts and has been producing experimental videos since the early 1990's. Her work has been exhibited internationally in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and South America. Nationally, Tran has presented her Blindness Series in numerous venues, including screenings at the Museum of Modern Art, the Whitney Biennial, and the 46th Robert Flaherty Film Seminar. Her video project, an eight-tape series investigating blindness and its metaphors was completed in 2006. Tran has received a Rockefeller Film/Video Fellowship and a California Community Foundation Fellowship, both has enabled her to develop an experimental narrative screenplay titled Call Me Sugar, based on the life of her mother. The screenplay is in the final round for the Sundance Screenwriter's Lab. Tran also collaborates with artist Karl Mihail on a project known as Gene Genies Worldwide©™. Their conceptual and public artworks on genetic engineering have exhibited at the Ars Electronica Festival in Austria, Exit Art, the Tang Museum at Skidmore College and elsewhere in the U.S. She is currently an Associate Professor of Art at Scripps College. Anne Uteck received a B.A. from Saint Mary’s University, an LL.B from the University of New Brunswick and an LL.M. from Dalhousie University. She is currently a doctoral candidate at the University of Ottawa Law School where her research focuses on developing a unified theory of privacy to protect all of the interests implicated by emerging technologies. In 2005-2006, Anne was the recipient of the Gowlings LaFleur Henderson Fellowship in Technology Law. After being called to the Bar in Nova Scotia, Anne practiced law at McInnes Cooper in Halifax. From 1991-2001 Anne taught Commercial Law at the Sobey School of Business. In 2001, Anne joined the Dalhousie Law & Technology Institute focusing her research and teaching in the areas of electronic commerce, privacy and employment law. She also taught in the inter-disciplinary Masters of Electronic Commerce Programme at Dalhousie and as a guest lecturer in e-commerce at Vrije University in Amsterdam. She continues to teach part time at the University of Ottawa. Anne’s most recent publications include a report for the Privacy Commissioner of Canada on the legal and technological implications of RFID technologies and an article on the impact of RFID on consumer privacy. Julius Wachtel (most everyone calls him "Jay") retired in 1998 after 23 years as an ATF special agent and supervisor. Most of his experience was in gun trafficking and bombing investigations, with duty stations in Phoenix,Helena (Montana) and Los Angeles. Jay also served as a police sergeant in Oregon and as an Army MP in Vietnam and the U.S. Since 1998 he has been employed as a lecturer at the Division of Politics, Administration and Justice, California State University, Fullerton. Jay's degrees are all in criminal justice: a Ph.D. acquired during a career break in 1982 at the State University of New York at Albany, a master's from Arizona State University and a bachelor's from Cal State Los Angeles. To keep busy he is working on a historical novel about the Great Moscow Show Trials of the thirties and regularly blogs on police, crime and justice issues at http://www.liberalpig.com/. Abstracts Session IA. Conceptual, Theoretical and Ethical Perspectives Helen Nissenbaum, “Privacy in Context” Christena Nippert-Eng, “Privacy and the Work of Secrets” Secrets are the most private of participants’ private things, requiring the most active and protective behaviors in order to keep them that way. Anything and nothing can be a secret; the form is analytically distinct from any content. Secrets are different from mere unshared information, however, as an active (if less than conscious) decision must be made for a secret to be born – and later, for it to die. The work of secrets includes the work required to keep, reveal and find them out. Successful secrets work means keeping the secrets we want to keep, revealing the secrets we wish to share, finding out the secrets we want to know (or think we do) and making good decisions about all this in order to achieve the kinds of relationships we desire with others. Secrets are the currency of relationships, and managing secrets is a critical part of managing relationships, of both the wanted and the unwanted types. How we do the work of secrets matters even more than their actual content when it comes to judging our success in doing this work. The work of secrets consists of 1) the actual craft of secrets work – the skills and techniques of managing secrets-- and 2) decision-making about secrets, including whether or not to have them, share them, or find them out, and what might be the best ways to do that. The “field craft” of secrets work requires attention both to tangible and intangible matters and to collective as well as individual efforts. Competency at secrecy is acquired. Like any other skill set, the skills of secrecy are learned, including the mindset necessary to engage in it. The effort involved in making decisions around secrets is constrained by the life cycle of a secret. The birth and death of a secret are defined by decisions to protect or stop protecting is. Its duration consists of a series of decision-demanding moments. At these moments, the secret-owner’s responses may range from cool and controlled to frantic and foolish. Disclosure/exposure or continued secrecy might occur due to any number of intentional and unintentional acts during this time. Major factors affecting the decisions about secrets – i.e., whether or not to make, keep, reveal, or find out secrets – and how, exactly, to do this include: 1) beliefs about who owns the secret and the ways power is distributed around and connected to secrecy, 2) beliefs about how competent one is in the work of secrets – and how competent relevant others are, too, and 3) beliefs about the potential consequences of disclosure, exposure, and concealment for one’s relationships with others. Glenn W. Muschert, “Information, Openness, and Secrecy: On the Usefulness of Simmel to Surveillance Studies” David Lyon, “Boston Bluefish and New Surveillance” What has lasted from those first proposals about the key changes in surveillance? Marx’s work highlighted the involvement of communication and information technologies in surveillance and he noted what James Rule called the corresponding expansion of surveillance capacities as a result. It sensitized us to developments in that field, especially searchable databases (Lawrence Lessig) and networked communications (Ericson and Haggerty). And it demanded hat serious attention be paid to regulation, limited as Priscilla Regan showed, to attenuated asocial models. Session IB. Conceptual, Theoretical and Ethical Perspectives Ian Kerr, “Emanations, Snoop Dogs and Reasonable Expectations of Privacy” Anne Uteck, “Spatial Privacy in a Networked World” This new wave of powerful technologies are finding their way into our homes, cars, cellular phones, identification documents and even into our clothing and bodies. No longer the stuff of science fiction, emerging location and geospatial technologies are beginning to weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life. Within a context of growing technological convergence, they have the unique ability to locate and track people and things anywhere, anytime and in real-time. Clearly, there are some compelling advantages to such enhanced capability. For example, emergency services are better able to find accident victims, the ability of commercial organizations to improve the way they do business by fleet, product and employee tracking, parents can secure location devices on or in the bodies of their children for safety reasons, government intelligence, law enforcement, port authorities and correctional facilities can manage risk and provide increased security applications. However, accurate, continuous, real-time location tracking in the physical world made possible by emerging technologies also creates a different set of concern. Among these concerns are new forms of surveillance, fresh challenges for privacy and the potential to erode traditional notions of personal space and socially recognized boundaries. These concerns are even more pertinent as the technologies are combined, integrated, connected, invisibly and remotely to networks, forming part of a wider movement towards a society characterized by ubiquitous computing, In the ubiquitous networked society, computing devices are embedded in everyday objects, places and people, operating in the real world. Location-aware technologies exemplify what is referred to as geosurveillance, a mode of surveillance characterized by the ability to track location across spatial territories . As a result, our physical and personal space is increasingly vulnerable and the core privacy interests individuals have in sustaining protection of theses spaces is potentially compromised. This is deeply problematic, particularly over the long term as networked location technologies destabilize private and public environments and challenge our fundamental ideas about space and the privacy expectations that go with them There is, therefore, a need to ensure that privacy policy and law adequately considers the enhanced surveillance capabilities and the full range of privacy interests implicated by emerging networked location technologies. Pris Regan, “STS Approaches to Privacy Protection” In what follows, we step back from this backward-looking, legalistic, and pragmatic approach which has dominated much of the privacy policy discourse and try to develop a new framework for understanding privacy and generating new policy approaches. We draw on insights and theories of the relatively new field of science and technologies studies (STS). STS theory cautions against three mistakes that are often made in thinking about technology... STS scholars argue that a technology cannot exist or function or achieve its intended or unintended purposes without all of the parts (nodes in the sociotechnical system) working together… In this paper, we adopt a sociotechnical systems framework with six dimensions and we use this framework to describe and understand two different systems. Our analysis seeks to understand how these dimensions affect and constitute conditions of privacy. We look at these six dimensions in two different systems, Facebook and Secure Flight. These systems have been selected for their dissimilarities. Oscar Gandy, Jr., “Race and Cumulative Disadvantage Engaging the Actuarial Assumption” This book is about the ways in which the application of probability and statistics to an ever-widening number of decisions about things that matter serves to reproduce and reinforce disparities in the quality of life that different sorts of people can hope to enjoy. For some people, it seems that if it weren’t for bad luck, they wouldn’t have any luck at all. The impact of bad luck seems to cumulate rapidly over time, such that a bit of bad luck early in life increases the probability that losses will mount, and the gambler’s dream of breaking even, or getting ahead in the game eventually gives way to despair. We are just beginning to understand how well we do in the natural lottery that distributes genetic endowments at birth helps to determine how race, gender, and social class combine to influence the character and range of opportunities or life chances we will encounter along our way toward the end of the game of life. This book examines the ways in which public policy and private action further shapes the design of a variety of games that we may or may not see as fair. Policy decisions, informed by statistical analysis, shape the opportunities people face in the markets for education, employment and health. Strikingly similar analyses also determine what we can expect when we take our chances with the courts and the criminal justice system. Special attention is paid to the role played by an actuarial logic that informs routine decisions about access to financial resources, including insurance, that govern far more than access to credit. The mass media play a critically important role in shaping the ways in which we understand the role of luck in our lives, and in the lives of others. The ways in which the media frame the life chances that different groups confront helps to determine whether the public supports, opposes, or ignores proposals to modify public and private activity in these critical areas. This book provides an analysis of tendencies within the media that ironically serve to reinforce disparities among people that investigative journalists had initially hoped to reduce. Challenging the actuarial logic that shapes the distribution of life chances in society is an exceptionally difficult challenge. This book represents the first draft of a declaration of independence from its imperialistic grasp, and a call to oppose its spread. IWBL 3/20/08 2 Chapters Session IIA. Empirical Inquiries: Laws and Orders Peter K. Manning, “Surveillance: From them to us and Back to Them” James Byrne, “The Best Laid Plans: The Varied Consequences of New Technologies for Crime and Social Control” David Cunningham, “Ambivalence and Control: Monitoring the Civil Rights-erea Ku Klux Klan” Elizabeth Joh, “Breaking the Law to Enforce It: Regulating Undercover Policing” Chris Schneider, “Popular Culture, Surviellance and Social Control” Session IIB. Empirical Inquires: Other Applications Politics, Work, Education, Health and Families Colin Bennett, “What Makes a Privacy Advocate? The Actors, Groups and Networks of Anti-Surveillance” This paper will attempt to profile this international privacy advocacy network, and categorize the kinds of groups and individuals that self-identify as “privacy advocates.” I analyze how these actors frame the issue, and the various resources they bring to bear on the problem. The network is loose, open-ended and spontaneous. It comprises many diverse groups which grow and die, divide and fuse, proliferate and contract. It possesses multiple, temporary and sometimes competing leaders or centers of influence. As such it is very similar to the transnational advocacy networks associated with other human rights and consumer issues. In conclusion, I argue that this network is more important than people often recognize, and that its significance will only increase. The paper is based on extensive interviews with key informants in the privacy advocacy network, and is drawn from a forthcoming book: The Privacy Advocates: Resisting the Spread of Surveillance (MIT Press, 2008). Torin Monahan, “Care and Control with Hospital Positioning Systems” Graham Sewell, “Performance Measurement as Surviellance: When (if Ever) Does ‘Measuring Everything That Moves” at Work become Oppressive?” John Gilliom, “Teaching to the Test: Surveillance as Policy Implementation in No Child Left Behind” Val Steeves, “The Watched Child: Surveillance in Three Online Playgrounds” Session IIIA Discussion of Surveillance Issues This is the most open ended of the sessions. Three scholars (Kevin Haggerty, Stephen Margulis, Jay Wachtel) with very diverse backgrounds and experiences will strain what they have heard thus far (or will read in this file) through their prisms and also offer brief comments on surveillance issues they find of particular interest/importance. This session will also hopefully offer additional time for discussion not possible in previous sessions. Jay Wachtel will discuss the need to intercede before terrorist events occur. Given their lesser vulnerability to infiltration than ordinary criminals, the interception of wire and wireless communication loom large. However, unlike informers, who require no judicial blessing, tapping requires that police convince a judge there is probable cause a serious crime is being planned or committed. “Probable cause” means more likely than not, a standard that’s tough to meet when bad guys are so secretive that conventional methods don’t work. Session IIIB Surveillance Issues in Comparative Perspective Elia Zureik, “Workplace Surveillance: An International Survey” The International Survey of eight countries explored the attitudes to employers accessing the email of employees and monitoring their performance through the use of CCTV. Questions in the survey allowed us to assess the relative importance of the property approach compared to the individual rights approach, and situate the results in specific country characteristic such as regulatory policies and other legal measures. As well, we correlated the answers given to these questions with basic demographic characteristics in each of the eight participating countries. Bob Hoogenboom I am finishing a book on port security in two of the biggest harbors in Europe (Rotterdam and Antwerp) using a 'governance of security' perspective. Some conclusions: different control agencies (law enforcement, inspections, private security, intelligence) operate in 'multiple realities'. They have their own distinct tasks, responsibilities, legal frameworks, cultures and interests. Information sharing is increasing but doesn't come close to the Jeremy Bentham drawings. Causes for the inconsistencies between the ideological concepts and empirical realities are to be found in the relative neglect of theoritical and empirical findings from police research (turf wars, police culture, management-street cops), business administration (the structural under use of information in the organisations and the over stretched view we have on the rational nature of IT-processes), public administration (rule of law, bureaupolitics, street level bureaucracy), intelligence studies (the over stretched rational and supposedly effective nature of the agencies; see for instance Legacy of Ashes (2007) on the history of the CIA), criminology (private justice mechanisms and overall techniques and strategies to evade state interference) and political science (many security policies have a ritual, political symbolic, meaning). And more recently the multidisciplinary debate on the boundaries of security because of economic interests are also sharpening the debate on the actual extent of security measures and policies. There are economic checks on security. Consequences are we have a lack of local knowledge (Geertz) on what surveillance actually is and is not. There are many 'big stories', but a relative lack of differentiated (and empirical) stories. From a cognition point of view we must (re)read the panoptic classics (from Darkness at Noon to 1984 and everything in between), we must (re)view film classics like Enemy of the State (wonderful), The Net and The Conversation but also read Dilbert cartoons to understand organizational irrationalities, management instruction films by John Cleese to be aware of organizational stupidities, The Insider to have faith in ethical motivated individuals who 'rage against the machine' (listen to the pop band with the same name), or make an inventory of worldwide surveillance techniques (camera's, audio) given out by human rights organizations to record abuse and mistreatment or accidental homemovies influencing social life (as in the Rodney King case). Given the policy of expansion and resistance in Greece, I will very briefly correlate : What are implications for surveillance studies of what is happening in Greece for what we see elsewhere under the neo-liberal surveillance hegemony? Rejecting "Greek exceptionalism," I argue that history, culture and economy, and the overall state-citizens relations, especially in post authoritarian Session IV. Surveillance and/in Art Julia Scheer, Natalie Bookchin, T. Kim-Trang Tran and Rachel Mayeri will discuss and show their response to the issues through their art. Time permitting, we will show Rebecca Barron’s film “How Little We Know of Our Neighbors”. Session V. Discussion: The Surveillance Society “What Do We Gain and What Do We Lose?” Larry Gaines will consider the potentials and implications of surveillance for local police. Stephen F. Rohde will survey the most prominent assaults on privacy in the post 9/11 era from a civil liberties perspective and focus on the inversion of the pre-9/11 model in which the government was expected to operate largely in public and the individual enjoyed a wide zone of privacy. He directs your attention to the ACLU report available at:2008 Hixon-Riggs Forum on Science, Technology and Society
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Galileo Hall/McAlister
Gary T. Marx, “Windows Into the Soul: Surveillance and Society in an Age of High Technology”
Continental Breakfast
Session IA - Conceptual, Theoretical and Ethical Perspectives
Green Room, Platt Campus Center
Break
Session IB - Conceptual, Theoretical and Ethical Perspectives
Lunch
(Speakers lunch in the Aviation Room)
Session IIA – Empirical Inquiries: Laws and Orders
Break
Session IIB – Other Applications: Politics, Work, Education, Health and Families
Reception and Dinner
Movie – “The Lives of Others”
Galileo/McAlister
Continental Breakfast
Session IIIA - Discussion of Surveillance Issues
Break
Session IIIB - Discussion of Surveillance Issues in Comparative Perspective
Lunch
(Speakers lunch in the Aviation Room)
Session IV – Surveillance and/in Art
Rebecca Baron’s film "How Little We Know of our Neighbors" will be shown
Break
Session V – Discussion: The Surveillance Society “What Do We Gain and What Do We Lose?"
The sinister world of Gary Marx’s 1990 “Case of the Omniscient Organization” incorporates a set of tensions by now familiar in present-day surveillance scenarios and a myriad other socio-technical systems that track, analyze, and disseminate personal information. Rational, from one perspective, these scenarios are nevertheless deeply disturbing. An abiding challenge has been to explain, systematically, what about them (if anything) is morally and politically objectionable. This challenge has motivated my own work, and ultimately, the theory of contextual integrity which I will briefly sketch in my presentation. Building on a rich set of commentaries and existing work on the nature and value of privacy, contextual integrity finds in the layer of social analysis the means to distinguish information practices that are acceptable, even commendable, from those that are objectionable. What is wrong with many contemporary practices is not only that they threaten the interests of information subjects and are resented, but transgress context-relative informational norms. By providing a concrete setting of a business organization, Marx’s scenario is exactly the kind of test-bed that lends itself to contextual analysis. In my presentation, I will elaborate on the structure of context-relative informational norms, explain how they account for judgments about privacy, and explore conditions under which they may legitimately be overridden by novel information practices.
Privacy is a condition of relative inaccessibility. For the 74 mostly middle and upper-middle class Chicagoans in this Intel-funded study, privacy exists when the things they wish to be private are as private as they wish them to be. Within the constraints of its socially gifted nature, they try to achieve privacy through the process of selective concealment and disclosure. When participants lose control over this process – or learn they never did possess such control – they feel as if their privacy has been violated.
Using Simmel’s (1906) article “The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies” as a stepping-off point, this talk examines Simmel’s impact on social scientific studies of secrecy. A brief survey of the piece, and its position in the field leads to a first conclusion that Simmel’s impact was rather diffuse at best. We then argue that what is needed is a Sociology of Information Framework (Marx & Muschert 2007) for the adequate study of information flows in contemporary society. Thus, we outline the framework and some related concepts connected to secrecy: public & private; confidentiality & secrecy; and some paradoxes of information. We conclude with suggestions about how Simmel’s piece on secrecy might be usefully connected with his more famous (1907) piece on money. Considering information as an object of value subject to principles of exchange, we suggest a number of concrete propositions which might serve as bases for future research drawing on the Sociology of Information framework.
This paper takes a large view of surveillance, from Marx’ early comments on the "new surveillance" to the present. The Undercover analysis showed how technological changes amounted to qualitative differences in surveillance. The technologies could be used jointly, and were both centralized and decentralized. The state’s traditional monopoly over the means of violence was being supplemented if not supplanted by new means of gathering and analyzing information. The trend was towards a maximum security society.
What could we not have foreseen? Marx noted the role of mass media and consumerism as parallel forms of cultural control, anticipating Zygmunt Bauman, Thomas Mathiesen, Mark Andrejevic, Hille Koskela on mass media and consumerism and also that of Oscar Gandy, that actually shows how surveillance works as a consumer sphere process. No one foresaw 9/11 of course, or the ways that subsequently surveillance trends not only converged but were deliberately racheted up, fostering further fears of just what Marx had warned of a decade-and-a-half earlier.
What kinds of tools -- analytical and theoretical -- do we need now? The technological changes are still crucial but the cultural and political-economy questions are also indispensable in the twenty-first century. Some of the pioneering ideas of Marx must still be woven into Surveillance Studies; not least his concern with the everyday human dimensions, mediated by Goffman’s self-presentation or Simmel’s stranger, along with the popular cultures of surveillance. The careful taxonomies – perhaps Marx’s signature contribution -- are also vital to nuanced analysis of surveillance that recognizes complexity and ambiguity. Beyond this, the political economy of surveillance – the corporate role in fostering surveillance of all kinds has become a sine qua non.
What stance should be taken towards surveillance? As a basic organizing principle of contemporary institutions surveillance may attract a fundamental critique but Marx’s approach has always been to acknowledge and explore both the ambiguities and moral paradoxes of surveillance. He says, for example, “we need protection not only by government, but from it.” This, because within supposedly democratic societies, a velvet glove hides an iron fist. Marx’s work is predicated on the hope that social science can “make a difference.”
Ian Kerr will report on the recent Canadian case of R. v. Tessling which raises broad and important questions about the nature of privacy and autonomy in a world of ubiquitous information emanation. His work with Jena McGill expresses concern about an increasingly problematic judicial approach to the reasonable expectation of privacy in odour emanations, arguing that a failure to clarify Tessling in the snoop dog cases and in the broader context of ubiquitous information emanation, especially alongside the maintenance of reductionist, non-normative approaches to informational privacy across Canadian courts could seriously diminish privacy rights. http://www.idtrail.org/content/view/667/
In an increasingly mobile society, location has become a new commodity giving rise to technologies such as wireless cellular devices, global positioning systems (GPS), and radio-frequency identification (RFID). These developments enable geographic information systems (GIS), location-based services (LBS), E-911 initiatives, as well as facilitating proposed greater access for interception of communications by state and private sector. The development of these systems and initiatives reflect a combination of political, economic and cultural factors motivating the production of new technologies that can locate people and objects and track their movement from one place to another. These factors include a shift towards a safety and security state, a desire to realize the potential profitability of integrated and accelerated forms of organizational management and a cultural commitment to efficiency, productivity, convenience and comfort. “Where are you?” has become the new “How are you?”
Pris Regan will report on her joint work with Professor Deborah Johnson. Privacy policymaking has tended to address new technological threats to privacy by finding the most appropriate analogy with either a pre-electronic or existing electronic system and then developing privacy policies for the new technology based on the familiar one. For example, face recognition technology is thought to be non-intrusive since taking photographs in public places is not considered an invasion of privacy; obtaining access to an individual’s email is thought to require a warrant because email is seen as comparable to telephone communication and access is, therefore, thought to be parallel to wiretapping. The result of using this approach has been twofold: the new technological threat is analyzed in terms of the privacy theory that was associated with the traditional technology; and existing legal frameworks are used as the starting point for the development of new legislation. In the United States, this has meant that the “fair information practices” model and the Fourth Amendment “reasonable expectation of privacy” model have been twisted and turned to accommodate virtually all new communication and information technologies (CITs) -- with generally unsuccessful results.
By the turn of the century, the analysis and management of risk had escaped the bounds of professional concern and scholarly expertise to claim a prominent place in the public consciousness. The Information Society had become the Risk Society, and the arcane wizardry of actuaries and statisticians became common, almost essential features of popular mass media fare. Estimates of probability based on analyses of events in the past have come to dominate decisions about the paths we should take in the future. Nothing worthy of our attention can avoid an assessment of chance.
In this paper I challenge the idea that surveillance is a) one-way b) only a concern to the middle classes c) best understood via the works of Foucault. I will develop a notion that the "Foucault frenzy" has misdirected our attention from the true targets (and victims of) of surveillance- young, black men in disadvantaged areas of large cities e.g. Boston. I have written some introductory material about the changed nature of spying surveillance etc, especially in the 20th century. Surveillance as presently discussed is middle class-identity-loss-social capital and symbolic damage based. These issues, while important, and an extension of Foucault, distract us from the fundamental damage done to the poor and African Americans- by surveillance, arrest, unequal courts and police and extended inequalities. Who is being surveilled with what damage? I will describe the latest Boston "consent search" and video and audio surveillance in the neighborhoods of Dorchester and Roxbury.
I will offer an overview of both hard and soft technologies of crime control. I will discuss 4 controversial Ps. (1) Precrime/prediction, (2) Private sector, profit, and the decline of Public Justice, and (3) People technology vs. thing technology( replacement of the former with the latter), (4) Privacy (disappearing) in the name of protection( false promises, profit, and the military-criminal justice connection). I will then turn to a consideration of some intended and unintended consequences in police, courts and corrections.
Models that purport to explain the interplay between dissidents and the state generally assert, either explicitly or implicitly, that the path from state interests to action to outcomes is a linear one. Using the case of the United Klans of America (UKA) in North Carolina, I argue that state efforts to exert social control upon a perceived threat to the status quo are shaped by a range of internal and external contingencies. In particular, I undertake an comparative analysis of two state agencies to demonstrate how a particular mechanism -- ambivalence, here conceptualized as a mismatch between organizational culture and organizational goals -- leads to distinct, and sometimes heterogeneous, actions and outcomes not directly traceable to organizational interests. Findings lend insight into how the interplay of endogenous organizational elements shapes contentious political outcomes in potentially divergent ways. I will tell two diverging historical stories, drawing out some key implications of the divergences.
This presentation will investigate how social identities, social interaction, and social control efforts are informed by media entertainment formats and new information technologies. A basic contention is that popular culture is cultivated to enhance the integration of communication and information technologies into an effective, controlled, and accepted communication environment. The principle argument this paper advances is the idea that popular culture reinforces existing facets of both formal and informal aspects of social control while also contributing to the creation of new and unforeseen aspects of social control.
As new information technologies have been introduced to public and private organizations so fears have grown for the unregulated collection, use and disclosure of personally identifiable information, and for the potential for unacceptable levels of surveillance. We already know a great deal about the actual and perceived risks from the unregulated processing of personal information. We also have evidence from numerous surveys that there are high, and perhaps rising, levels of public concern in many countries in most regions of the world. Other research has highlighted the many forms of resistance which individuals use to thwart, circumvent, or disrupt intrusive technologies and practices.
If surveillance is a central condition of modern societies and if its social, economic and political consequences are so widespread and profound, then why have we not witnessed a more visible and coherent anti-surveillance movement? So far collective action has been expressed through the varied activities of people who self identify as “privacy advocates.” This is a sprawling, decentralized and under-resourced network which has emerged in many countries to bridge the gap between a concerned, but ill-informed, mass public, and the governmental and business organizations that process personal information. There is evidence, however, that these individuals are becoming increasingly networked and have thus gained a greater influence because of a number of high-profile conflicts.
Hospitals in the U.S. are increasingly turning to real-time location systems (RTLS) to manage the complicated flow of devices, inventory, medication, staff, and patients in these healthcare settings. The most common of these systems rely on radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags affixed to inventory or embedded in staff badges or patient wristbands. These tags are automatically “read” by detectors placed in hallways, rooms, drug cabinets, or at the entrance to portals such as elevators. Various kinds of graphic user interfaces allow for staff to track the location of items or people, ostensibly enabling staff to speed up patient care while minimizing the need for redundant inventory.
Our primary, ethnographic research on RTLS in U.S. hospitals has found that the administrative parties championing such systems can meet with serious resistance, especially from nursing staff who perceive the systems as heightening management’s surveillance of their workplace activities. In extreme cases, where nursing staff are completely cut out of the decision-making process and are not given persuasive reasons to cooperate with RTLS, they have turned to sabotaging the system by removing and destroying radio-frequency identification tags from inventory and refusing to wear the tags themselves. In all cases, however, there is a noticeable reluctance on the part of administrators to codify formal policies for the use and maintenance of RTLS in hospitals; thus, ongoing communication and negotiation must take place as new uses – such as staff surveillance – are discovered for these emergent technological systems.
Graham Sewell will report on his work with James R. Barker. The relationship between performance measurement and performance management continues as a central concern for management scholars and practitioners. There is evidence to suggest that the legitimacy of performance measurement instruments is likely to be high so long as they are seen to be objective and their administration is perceived to be impartial. We associate these ideals of objectivity and impartially with a technocratic discourse of protection or “care”—disinterested managers measure the performance of others to serve the interests of everyone in the organization (e.g., to expose free-riding, to reward employees’ efforts fairly, to improve organizational performance, etc.). This contrasts with a critical discourse of “coercion”—performance measurement is administered by managers to serve the interests of a minority (e.g., by intensifying work, reducing operating costs, increasing profits, etc.). We argue that by positioning performance measurement as a form of surveillance, we can accommodate both perspectives on its purpose and consequences. We demonstrate how engaging the ambiguity of organizational surveillance helps us to understand the paradoxical status of performance measurement as it is experienced by employees.
The presentation will frame the educational testing under No Child Left Behind as a significant and important surveillance initiative which is now undergoing a major pushback in the form of political and social opposition. I will then use the situation as a vehicle, or starting point, to discuss a number of issues that face surveillance research. In this sense, I think it should work very well for a verbal presentation, because it will give me a chance to briefly touch on a number of interesting hits in the area--opposition and resistance (natch!), thinking about the changing nature of governance, ulterior political motives in "neutral" policies, and the importance of embracing both history and the mundane in surveillance research.
Val Steeves will offer a social, ethical and legal analysis of three web sites focusing on children, including Neopets, Barbie.com and Webkinz. She will examine the business models behind these sites, and explore the ways in which these sites reconstruct our understanding of privacy to promote a business agenda based on seamless surveillance. She will argue that these sites mine children’s play and communication to manipulate their social relationships and sense of self, embedding their brand into the child’s private life. This constitutes a profound invasion of children’s online privacy, and significantly restricts the potential of the Internet to play a constructive role in children’s lives. To fully protect children’s online privacy, policy makers must encourage the creation of public spaces on the Internet in which children can play and communicate free of commercial manipulation, and support the development of media educational initiatives that support children’s critical engagement with online marketing.
What’s the fix? Adopt a standard, much like the Terry stop-and-frisk, allowing police to intercept and “detain” communications given reasonable suspicion that at least one of the parties is promoting terrorism, under court supervision and within set time limits. If probable cause is reached then cases could proceed along a conventional track. Two postings explaining this concept in more detail are at: http://www.liberalpig.com/html/terrorism.html
Emily Smith, “The Surveillance Project’s International Survey on Surveillance and Privacy: Traveller Perspectives”
The Globalization of Personal Data (GPD) project, a international, collaborative and multi-disciplinary research undertaking of the Surveillance Project at Queen’s University in Kingston, set out to examine the increasing flows of personal information and how ordinary people- citizens, workers, travellers, and consumers- respond to these flows. The largest undertaking within this project was an international survey on privacy and surveillance, led by Elia Zureik, conducted in nine countries with almost 10,000 respondents using the same survey instrument. Construction of the GPD survey occurred in many stages over four years. The final survey contained fifty questions on topics including knowledge of technology and laws, control over personal information, trust in government and private companies, actions taken to protect personal information, experiences of surveillance, national ID cards, media coverage, terrorism and security, CCTV, and some questions directed at workers, travellers and consumers in particular. The grand scale of this project leaves many layers of this data yet to be explored. A subset of data on air travellers will be examined here. The personal information of travellers is increasingly being collected and shared among numerous agencies, with the public being largely unaware of this occurrence. The GPD survey reveals the responses of travellers as subjects of surveillance to these flows in internationally comparative perspective.
Three main dimensions characterize research on workplace surveillance: legal, policy, and socio-psychological. Two approaches are identified with legal studies of workplace surveillance: the property and the rights approach. The first is anchored in the notion that the workplace is the property of the owner and as such privacy guidelines are the prerogative of the employer. The rights approach, on the other hand, draws its inspiration from the literature on individual rights and relies on the “reasonable expectation” principle associated with individual privacy. The policy approach situates workplace privacy concerns and their ethical dimensions in the context of existing regulatory measures in the private and public sectors that are designed to reconcile the rights of individuals (as workers, consumers, employers) in the face of technological advances regarding the transmission and storage of information, on the one hand, and organizational/ governmental claims, on the other. The socio-psychological approach examines the attitudes of citizens in their various role capacities to the impact of surveillance technologies in the workplace. Stress is placed on personal autonomy and dignity as they are affected by intrusive surveillance measures.
Surveillance studies, the panopticon, maximum security society and the like are main concepts of this conference. However, many of these concepts seem to be to much more rooted in ideological contexts than solid empirical research. Although very useful as 'sensitizing concepts' (and of course many technological developments are taking place) the 'bittersweet' surveillance realities are such that political, legal, bureaucratic & cultural contingencies are very persistent. Not to mention technofallacies (Marx), disinterest and mere stupidity of low level employees and the structural failing of large scale IT-projects both in the public and private sector. Police research and criminology is rich in colourful stories of turf wars, guerre des flics between law enforcement agencies, not to mention "The Wall" between political and criminal intelligence. Coalition forces in Iraq don't seem to be gaining any substantial ground with the large scale deployment of 'network centric warfare', combining satellites, data, audio, airplanes, sensors and virtual intelligence in helmets of soldiers. Network centric warfare is one of the ultimate fantasies or nightmares, depending on your point of view, of the future of surveillance yet not without some pifalls it seems.
Minas Samatas, "Surveillance Issues in Comparative Perspective : The Greek experience"
While many of the world’s nations are becoming surveillance societies, in Greece, there is a growing resistance to police surveillance, especially after Athens 2004 Olympics, and the pressure by the Greek Government to use the expensive Olympic CCTV cameras as a panacea for all problems, from traffic control to crime and terrorism, urban and sports violence. There is a growing opposition and resistance by mayors, civil society groups, academics, anti-surveillance NGOs and concerned citizens, even by the police union and especially by the Greek Data Protection Authority (DPA), which has recently resigned in protest for the Government’s surveillance policy. Greek people fear and mistrust state surveillance because of their past police-state experience of authoritarian, repressive thought-control surveillance. At the same time, especially the young people, ignore or don’t bother about non state surveillance.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/31846pu
