Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 151–167 | Cite as

Unblinking eyes: the ethics of automating surveillance

Original Paper

Abstract

In this paper I critique the ethical implications of automating CCTV surveillance. I consider three modes of CCTV with respect to automation: manual (or non-automated), fully automated, and partially automated. In each of these I examine concerns posed by processing capacity, prejudice towards and profiling of surveilled subjects, and false positives and false negatives. While it might seem as if fully automated surveillance is an improvement over the manual alternative in these areas, I demonstrate that this is not necessarily the case. In preference to the extremes I argue in favour of partial automation in which the system integrates a human CCTV operator with some level of automation. To assess the degree to which such a system should be automated I draw on the further issues of privacy and distance. Here I argue that the privacy of the surveilled subject can benefit from automation, while the distance between the surveilled subject and the CCTV operator introduced by automation can have both positive and negative effects. I conclude that in at least the majority of cases more automation is preferable to less within a partially automated system where this does not impinge on efficacy.

Keywords

Surveillance Automation CCTV SUBITO Operator Prejudice Profiling False positives False negatives Clive Norris Gary Armstrong 

References

  1. Agre, P. E. (1994). Surveillance and capture: two models of privacy. The Information Society, 10(2), 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, C. L., Goodman, N. D. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008). Theory-based social goal inference. In Proceedings of the thirtieth annual conference of the cognitive science society. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.154.2746. Accessed 11 February, 2012.
  3. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burrell, I. (1998). Face-recognition CCTV launched. The Independent. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/facerecognition-cctv-launched-1178300.html. Accessed 11 February, 2012.
  5. Chattaraj, U., Seyfried, A., & Chakroborty, P. (2009). Comparison of pedestrian fundamental diagram across cultures. Advances in Complex Systems, 12(3), 393–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corby Borough Council Electronic Information Team. (2011). The borough of corby cctv department. http://www.corby.gov.uk/business/towncentremanagement/pages/cctv.aspx. Accessed 17 May, 2011.
  7. Dodd, V. (2010). Stop and search plans are “discriminatory”, watchdog warns. The guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/15/stop-and-search-equality-commission. Accessed 31 March, 2011.
  8. Endsley, M., & Kiris, E. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37(2), 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Firth, N. (2011). Face recognition technology fails to find UK rioters. New Scientist, (2826). Available at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128266.000-face-recognition-technology-fails-to-find-uk-rioters.html. Accessed 11 February, 2012.
  10. Gerrard, G., Parkins, G., Cunningham, I., Jones, W., Hill, S., & Douglas, S. (2007). National CCTV strategy, home office and association of chief police officers. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100413151441/http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/cctv/National%20CCTV%20Strategy%20Oct%202007.pdf. Accessed 21 January, 2011.
  11. Gill, M. & Spriggs, A. (2005). Assessing the impact of CCTV. Home Office. Available at: http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf. Accessed 26 July, 2010.
  12. Graham, S. (1998). Towards the fifth utility? On the extension and normalisation of public CCTV. In C. Norris, J. Moran, & G. Armstrong (Eds.), CCTV, surveillance and social control (pp. 89–112). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  13. Haggerty, K. D. (2009). Methodology as a knife fight: The process, politics and paradox of evaluating surveillance. Critical Criminology, 17(4), 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harwood, M., (2010). Terrorists slip past TSA’s scientifically untested behavioral threat detection program. Security Management. http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/terrorists-slip-past-tsas-scientifically-untested-behavioral-threat-detection-program-007158. Accessed 17 May, 2011.
  15. Helbing, D., Johansson, A., & Al-Abideen, H. (2007). Dynamics of crowd disasters: An empirical study. Physical Review E,. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.75.046109.Google Scholar
  16. Helbing, D., & Molnar, P. (1995). Social force model for pedestrian dynamics. Physical Review E, 51(5), 4282–4286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang, G.B. et al., (2008). Labeled faces in the wild: A database for studying face recognition in unconstrained environments. Workshop on faces in “real-life” images: detection, alignment, and recognition. Marseille, France. Available at: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inria-00321923/. Accessed 11 February, 2012.
  18. Keteyian, A. (2010). TSA’s program to spot terrorists a $200 M sham? CBS Evening News. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/19/eveningnews/main6500349.shtml. Accessed 17 May, 2011.
  19. Koushki, P. A. (1988). Walking characteristics in central Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 114(6), 735–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2010). “We are all different”: Statistical discrimination and the right to be treated as an individual. The Journal of Ethics, 15(1–2), 47–59.Google Scholar
  21. Lord, S. M. (2010). Aviation Security: Efforts to validate TSA’s passenger screening behavior detection program underway but opportunities exist to strengthen validation and address operational challenges, government accountability office. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10763.pdf. Accessed 18 January, 2011.
  22. Lyon, D. (2002). Surveillance as social sorting: Computer codes and mobile bodies. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Surveillance as social sorting (pp. 13–30). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Mack, A. (2003). Inattentional blindness: Looking without seeing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 180–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manning, F. (2011). Worcester city monitor 100 CCTV cameras with only one person. Big Brother Watch. http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2011/08/worcester-city-monitor-100-cctv-cameras-with-only-one-person.html. Accessed 24 August, 2011.
  25. McKinnon, R. (2007). Big brother isn’t watching. Evening Times. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/big-brother-isn-t-watching-1.976256. Accessed 17 May, 2011.
  26. Mica, J.L. (2010). Letter to janet napolitano, secretary, department of homeland security. http://republicans.transportation.house.gov/Media/file/111th/Aviation/2010-05-20-TSA_Reorg_Letter.pdf. Accessed 18 January, 2011.
  27. Michelman, S. (2009). Who can sue over government surveillance? UCLA Law Review, 57, 71–106.Google Scholar
  28. Morrall, J., Ratnayake, L., & Seneviratne, P. (1991). Comparison of CBD pedestrian characteristics in Canada and Sri Lanka. Transportation Research Record, 1294, 57–61.Google Scholar
  29. Moussaid, M., Perozo, N., Garnier, S., Helbing, D., & Theraulaz, G. (2010). The walking behaviour of pedestrian social groups and Its impact on crowd dynamics. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010047.Google Scholar
  30. Norris, C. (2002). From personal to digital: CCTV, the panopticon, and the technological mediation of suspicion and social control. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Surveillance as social sorting (pp. 249–281). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Norris, C., & Armstrong, G. (1999). The maximum surveillance society: The rise of CCTV. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  32. Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced “complacency”. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Police and Criminal Evidence Act. (1984). Google Scholar
  34. Resnick, R. A. (2002). Change detection. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 245–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schadschneider, A., Klingsch, W., Klupfel, H., Kretz, T., Rogsch, C., Syfried, A., et al. (2008). Evacuation dynamics: Empirical results, modeling and applications. In B. Meyers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of complexity and system science (pp. 3142–3176). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Simons, D., & Ambinder, M. (2005). Change blindness: theory and consequences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(1), 44–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sochman, J. & Hogg, D., (2010). Who knows who—inverting the social force model for finding groups. IEEE international workshop on socially intelligent surveillance and monitoring (SISM 2011). Google Scholar
  38. Steffen, B. & Syfried, A. (2008) The repulsive force in continuous space models of pedestrian movement. Physics and Society, arXiv:0803.1319v1.Google Scholar
  39. Tanaboriboon, Y., Hwa, S. S., & Chor, C. H. (1986). Pedestrian characteristics study in Singapore. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 112(3), 229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Warikoo, N. (2011). U.S. ends registration program targeting men from muslim countries. The Gazette. http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/ends+registration+program+targeting+from+Muslim+countries/4792096/story.html. Accessed 17 May, 2011.
  41. Westacott, E. (2003). Human oversight of surveillance technology. Presentation to the society for philosophy and public affairs, American philosophical association eastern division meeting, Washington DC, 29 December, 2003. https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AWI7P4qhQyVvZGY5OW52dmZfMTgyOHpwZHJrZ3Y&hl=en. Accessed 17 May, 2011.
  42. Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme for political thought. The Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wiseman, R. (2006). How fast is your city? http://www.richardwiseman.com/quirkology/pace_home.htm. Accessed 20 May, 2011.
  44. Xiaoping, Z., Tingkuan, Z., & Mengting, L. (2009). Modeling crowd evacuation of a building based on seven methodological approaches. Building and Environment, 44(3), 437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Inter-Disciplinary Ethics AppliedUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations