Big Brother Is Watching You - And It Ain't So Cool

Hot foot on my article yesterday on Google Street View, today there is an announcement that the Government may start watching conversations and information on sites like Facebook. It has been further suggested that the Government will start watching emails, texts and internet contacts.

It has branded a 'Snoopers' Charter' and this time it doesn't seem to be in line with the 'Way cool' philosophy of the seemingly philanthropic gestures made by Google. Should we now start being afraid?

Is this stepping too far into this nice new technology and spoiling the party or should we start getting getting all indignant and joining the prissy campaigners who tell us our privacy is being violated?

The Snoopers' Charter

The proposals by the Government are to keep user details on sites like Facebook. The home Office claims that the information may be vital in combating crime gangs and terrorists who 'might' use the sites. The idea follows a similar proposal to record every phone call, text and email and internet visit made in the UK. Ministers say at this stage they are only interested in user details and not conversations which may take place on sites like Facebook, Bebo and MySpace.

The Government denies it is trying to intrude on people's personal lives and that they were merely trying to keep up with technology. A Home Office spokesman reiterated the view that there was no interest in the content of information but that the aim was to be able to collect communication data for law enforcement agencies to use to gather evidence and prevent things like terrorism. The same same spokesman confirmed the proposal for recording the content of emails, phone calls and texts - again saying the content of the conversations was not the target.

Home Office Minister, Vernon Croaker, whose name sounds straight out of gangland, confirmed the Government was aiming to act on social networks as they were not covered by EU legislation. He acknowledged that it would raise fresh concerns about the right to privacy and acknowledged it was 'an extremely difficult area'.

The Reaction

Facebook's Chief Privacy Officer, for indeed they have one, Chris Kelly, said that the company was considering lobbying Ministers over the issue and described it as 'overkill'. Lib Dem MP, the appropriately named Tom Brake, pointed out the websites contained sensitive personal data which could easily leak from any Government-controlled database. Pointing out the extended proposals on monitoring emails, phone calls, texts and internet visits, he branded it as 'The most expensive Snoopers Charter in history' He also pointed out that information like people's sexual orientation, religious beliefs and political views could be monitored.

A View From The Public

Yesterday, I suggested that maybe we should lighten up about Google's aims with Street View where cameras could give people looking at Google Maps the opportunity to have a quick look at the cities they may be visiting or just looking out of interest. Already Street View had received a complaint via the Information Commission (ICO) that over 200 people had been identified in the pictures causing 'embarrassment and damage' with one woman identified after she had moved house to get away from a violent partner - she was seen outside her new home.

We generally agree that Google's intentions are just to be 'way cool' and have clever and neat gadgets and applications which lighten up our lives, are helpful and make life more interesting. If they make a few bucks at the same time, so what. The same could be said of sites like You Tube, Facebook, LinkedIn, Bebo, MySpace and the plethora of social networks that exist. In general. it is all just good fun, hip and fashionable. The abuses tend to be minimal but there have been definite instances where embarrassing or possibly sinister scenes have resulted in people getting into trouble or fired at work.

The famous sporting phrase 'What goes on on tour, stays on tour' has been replaced by 'What goes on tour, goes on Facebook.'

Now the Government has stepped in and could be ready to urinate on the fun. The Government has many ways of recording who exists in Britain, from births to deaths, immigration records to electoral roles, bank accounts, tax records, school attendances - you name it, our information should be there and pretty much in plain view. So delving into social networking sites on the face of it seems like overkill.

The threat of gang crime and terrorism is very real. However, I would argue very strongly that just by knowing someone's social networking handle and profile information you are hardly likely to spot that Osama Bin Ladin has a Facebook profile and invites members to join him on his cause. I don't think it is likely that he has a Twitter handle and his latest 'tweet' says he is 'cleaning the cave and doing a little scheming before lunch'.

I would argue that if terrorists do use Facebook and the likes then they possibly use handles so that they are less conspicuous but then again I don't have a criminal brain. I would suggest that the only way to spot criminals and terrorists on such sites, on the internet in general, via emails, texts and phone calls is to monitor their conversations and try to look for keywords, phrases or coded messages in their content. Much else would be pointless - unless indeed it was a good excuse to gather information on innocent people and filter the information for other uses like how to tax us more or find out our personal information for monitoring purposes.

The obvious conclusion would be the first thing the Government would do is to take a look at all people who are Muslim. The theory goes, you see, that not all Muslim are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims - so all you have to do is drill down. That has a minor flaw - recently the Continuity and Real IRA were implicated in a repeat of Sectarian violence in Northern Ireland - so you would have to include Catholics as well.

You see where I am going with this - already there are profound implications about our sensitive data without even trying to think of the wider possibilities.

The Future

I don't think this is about tracking people on Facebook whose profile says their hobby is drug dealing or organising false identities for terrorists - I presume if they were that open they would have an entry in the Yellow Pages. This is about another mechanism and possibly an excuse to pry into people's lives.

Britain leads they way with over 1 camera per 14 people monitoring us - higher than any other European country. So far it has not really helped to reduce crime or stop events such as 7/7 even though the terrorists were clearly seen entering Luton and Kings Cross Stations.

Already we have seen Councils win the right to turn security cameras in city centres to use to track people who park illegally. We use a good proportion of the cameras to catch people speeding rather than find people who steal cars or drive illegally. My point is that once you have carte blanche to access the information, what you do with it has endless opportunities and usually, crime solving, terrorist prevention and personal safety may be the given reason initially but actually are way down the agenda.

On the other hand, crime perpetrated on and via the internet is fast rising. Our identities, personal information, habits and most sensitive data like credit cards and PINs are regularly passed around the web. Identity cloning is becoming too easy and the criminals are far too nerdy to be foxed by security systems and protection provided to companies and individuals on the web. Ebay has been a classic area for crime with spoofs in London alone in 2006 were running at over £1m per week just on car sales.

It is a short hop to believe that terrorists are using the ability to mask their true identity and communicate via the internet to coordinate their efforts - after all we regularly round up people for nights out or birthday parties in pretty much the same way.

Vernon Croaker at the Home Office is not wrong in saying that it is a very sensitive area. It is why individuals should be well appraised of the motives and reasons why such data is needed and more importantly how it will be stored, segmented and used for the future.

The big question will always be - if it starts at the Government and law enforcement having access to the data today, which other agencies will have access to the data tomorrow?

If a Government can pluck a document off the web written by a 21 year old student and use it to persuade us that we need to invade a country then we need to be healthily cynical about what the Government is up to.

Our freedom and privacy is quietly being eroded and while we may think that technology like Google Street View and Facebook is 'Way cool' today, we may actually regret we accepted it with such open arms in the future - if we allow the Government to have its way.

Big Brother Is Watching You - Hey, It's Good Thing!

'We get sued every day', said Eric Schmidt, CEO at Google. It was a comment worthy of his more bullish rival, Steve Ballmer at Microsoft, and it shows how companies who purport to change the world for the better develop a thicker skin as they mature.

It's a thin line between use and abuse of data in this modern age. So much information on us as individuals is collected and then we lose control over what is done with it. What starts as essential information for a transaction becomes a commodity to be traded itself. The issue of late surrounds Google's Street View service which was launched in the UK this month and got its first formal complaint put to the Information Commissioner (ICO).

In the complaint drawn up by privacy campaigners it cites over 200 reports from members of the public identifiable by the service.

Cool Google

Google has the reputation of being the soft mega-corporation who offers its employees cycles to get around its Bay Area Campus, who brought us the ability to search the web in seconds and who brought cool new applications and gadgets to make the computing dream come alive. It is also a highly profitable corporation and it is hell bent on replacing Microsoft as the dominant player in the future. Google Street View does not seem to be one of those sinister moves by a big company, it seems more like the kind of 'really neat' or 'cool' stuff from a company whose two founders are pleasant multi-billionaires who are ethical, nerdy and general all round cool dudes. Street View, we would like to think, has to be one of their zany ideas for people to try as they could not possibly be any other agenda or money to be made from it.

Street View allows a viewer of Google Maps to actually go and take a look at 25 cities in the UK, and get 360 degree views. As with most things in the computer world many might initially ask 'Why would you want to do that?' But as with Google's satellite views, I could not stop myself taking a look at my own address and seeing that the picture was taken in high Summer and you can see two sunbeds with yellow towels in my garden and my car parked outside the garage. It was way cool and has now become part of everyday browsing. Google Maps is just an amazing service which I even have on my PDA and, yes, I have used it when looking for addresses in London.

My theory is if I use then it has to be simple and useful, believe me.

So What's The Beef With Google Street View?

After the ICO had given permission in 2008 for Google to go ahead there is now a threat due to the complaint that Street View may have to be turned off. Prissy privacy campaigners would tell us that there had been 'clear embarrassment and damage' caused by people being viewed. This was also in breach of the permission granted by the ICO to Google in the first place.

Google had said that they would blur people's faces and car registrations when it was launched.

It sounds just another pathetic attempt by campaigners to spoil our fun. However, there is definitely risk here as one of the complaints received was from a women who was identifiable and had moved house to get away from a violent partner - she was pictured outside her new home. Another complaint came from two work colleagues found to be in a 'compromising position' - the image was subsequently circulated amongst their workmates.

You can see how this can quickly develop.

The Legal Position

Legal Eagles argue that data protection is all about taking reasonable steps and the argument is that if Street View is breaching privacy then almost anything you can do with data is a breach of privacy.

That is one point of view. However, in this instance, the data is being collected without the express permission of those in the pictures to have their images distributed. If you do not have their permission to distribute the data then actually presenting it to millions of potential viewers on the web is pretty irresponsible to say the least, particularly if the images can result in embarrassment or damage.

The same argument can be applied to You Tube and other picture sites which now flourish on the web. In the business world, giving your business card to another person can mean your data can not only become freely available on the web but also sold many times. Services like Jigsaw actively rewards its users for contributing full business card information on contacts made which are then sold as a highly targeted services to other individuals and companies to find contacts and build lists. LinkedIn is similar is some respects but has curtailed access to some information unless of course you pay. There is a very definite implication when you hand someone your card that no permission is granted for the recipient to distribute it and certainly for any third party they should hand it to. But it happens.

The problem here is that already people have proved that they can 'lift' the images from Street View and distribute them and that means that Google really has not taken enough precautions to stop that. But all you have to do is send the link to everyone to achieve the same results, so it boils down to the collection of the data in the first place, how it is subsequently displayed, who has access to it and what might they do with the data once viewed

Will Google Get Around This?

Inevitably they will. They got through to China by taking on board their rules and I guess if they can make sure their blurring technology is more effective then they can re-launch pretty soon. The concept has great merit but as always there is a tendency to trivialise the risks of potential outcomes. We can all point fingers at 'nanny' campaigners but when we are personally affected by it then we suddenly become very indignant - and rightfully so.

The obvious argument goes the other way. If you put yourself in a compromising position, there is always a risk you pay a price. People like Max Mosley have argued successfully that is not true and may even have claim to have 'lost his dignity' because of it and get a large amount of compensation - he was filmed in an orgy with dominatrix prostitutes dressed in strange pseudo-Nazi outfits.

If he can get away with that then Google Street View doesn't stand a chance. As always there has to be a balance. It looks as if Google's first effort got it wrong - but the cool dudes among us hope they put it right as it looks a great tool.