We Know Where You Are. And We’re More and More Sure What That Means

Chapter
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 11)

Abstract

Knowing where something occurs is most meaningful if placed in relation to other events, people, and things. Recent innovations in pervasive information and computing technology (PICT) and related information technology infrastructures open up capabilities to record and analyze locations and relations among events in unparalleled fashion, leading to increases in data about where people are and what they do. Spatial analysis can identify many of these relations and help create penetrating insights. First, this chapter considers how the field of geography has developed analytical capabilities that support understanding online and virtual activities involving pervasive information technology. Because of a growing infrastructure with a capability to thoroughly record locations and events, coupled with computational approaches that mine data and cross-reference data from different sources, geographic analysis has become a commonplace means of analyzing data and establishing patterns of activities or information about individuals. With vast amounts of location data and the use of analysis techniques, it has become possible to not only know where people are, but what the aggregation of data from different sources means. Also this chapter reviews recent developments and their underlying geographic concepts, and points to important questions in considering the role of location and relations in information-age surveillance.

References

  1. Acohido, Byron. 2011. Privacy implications of ubiquitous digital sensors. USA Today, January 26, 2011, P1B.Google Scholar
  2. Albrecht, Katherine, and Liz McIntyre. 2006. Spychips: How major corporations and government plan to track your every purchase and watch your every move. New York City: Plume Books.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, M.P., and A.J. Ruggles. 2005. Geographic information technologies and personal privacy. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization 40(4): 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, Killian. 2011. 27,000 users sue Apple for $25 million over locationgate. http://www.cultofmac.com/109211/27000-users-sue-apple-for-25-million-over-locationgate/. Accessed 1 Dec 2011.
  5. Cairncross, F. 2001. The death of distance: How the communications revolution is changing our lives. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  6. Castells, Manuel. 2000. The rise of the network society, 2nd ed. Oxford/Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Cope, Meghan, and Sarah Elwood. 2009. Qualitative Gis: A mixed-methods approach. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Davies, Gavyn. 2006. Gavyn Davies does the maths. The Guardian, July 19, 2006. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jul/20/secondworldwar.tvandradio. Accessed 27 May 2013.
  9. Dobson, Jerome E., and Peter F. Fisher. 2003. Geoslavery. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 22(1): 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duhigg, Charles. 2012. How companies learn your secrets. The New York Times, February 13. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html. Accessed 31 May 2013.
  11. Duquenoy, P. 2007. The information society: What next? The information society: Innovation, legitimacy, ethics and democracy in honor of professor Jacques Berleur sj, 263–68.Google Scholar
  12. Duquenoy, Penny, and Oliver K. Burmeister. 2009. Ethical issues and pervasive computing. In Risk assessment and management in pervasive computing, ed. Penny Duquenoy and Oliver K. Burmeister. Hershey: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
  13. Elden, Stuart. 2010. Land, terrain, territory. Progress in Human Geography 34: 799–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Electronic Privacy Information Center. 2013. Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones. http://epic.org/privacy/drones/. Accessed 23 Apr 2012.
  15. Elwood, Sarah, and Agnieszka Leszczynski. 2011. Privacy, reconsidered: New representations, data practices, and the geoweb. GeoJournal 42(1): 6–15.Google Scholar
  16. Ettlinger, Nancy. 2011. Governmentality as epistemology. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101(3): 537–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer-Hübner, S., P. Duquenoy, and M. Hansen. 2011. Privacy and identity management for life. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fotheringham, Stewart, Peter Rogerson, Donna J. Peuquet, and Duane F. Marble (eds.). 1994. Spatial analysis and Gis. Technical issues in geographic information systems. Bristol: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  19. Getis, Art. 1999. Spatial statistics. In Geographical information systems, ed. P.A. Longley, M.F. Goodchild, D.J. Maquire, and D.W. Rhind. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Goss, Jon. 1995. Marketing the new marketing: The strategic discourse of geodemographic information systems. In Ground truth: The social implications of geographic information systems, ed. J. Pickles. New York City: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hannah, Matthew G. 2009. Calculable territory and the west German census boycott movements of the 1980s. Political Geography 28: 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kitchin, R., and M. Dodge. 2011. Code/space: Software and everyday life. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Knigge, L., and M. Cope. 2006. Grounded visualization: Integrating the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data through grounded theory and visualization. Environment and Planning A38(11): 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kwan, Mei-Po. 1999. Gender, the home-work link, and space-time patterns of nonemployment activities. Economic Geography 75: 370–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kwan, Mei-Po. 2007. Affecting geospatial technologies: Toward a feminist politics of emotion. The Professional Geographer 59(1): 22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liptak, Adam. 2011. Court case asks if ‘Big Brother’ is spelled GPS. The New York Times, September 8. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/us/11gps.html. Accessed 31 May 2013.
  27. Livingstone, David N. 1992. The geographical tradition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Longley, Paul A., Sue M. Brooks, Rachel McDonnell, and Bill MacMillan (eds.). 1998. Geocomputation: A primer. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Mandelbrot, B.B. 1983. The fractal geometry of nature. New York City: Wh. Freeman.Google Scholar
  30. Massey, Doreen. 2005. For space. Thousand Oaks: Sage Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mazumdar, S., G. Rushton, B.J. Smith, D.L. Zimmerman, and K.J. Donham. 2008. Geocoding accuracy and the recovery of relationships between environmental exposures and health. International Journal of Health Geographics 7(1): 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McLuhan, Marshall, and Bruce R. Powers. 1989. The global village: Transformations in world life and media in the 21st century, Communication and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Monmonier, Mark. 1991. How to lie with maps. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. National Research Council (US). Panel on Confidentiality Issues Arising from the Integration of Remotely Sensed Self-Identifying Data. 2007. Putting people on the map: Protecting confidentiality with linked social-spatial data. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nissenbaum, Helen. 2010. Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. O’Sullivan, David, and David J. Unwin. 2003. Geographic information analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Omer, I., P. Bak, and T. Schreck. 2010. Using space–time visual analytic methods for exploring the dynamics of ethnic groups’ residential patterns. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 24(10): 1481–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pavlovskaya, M. 2004. Other transitions: Multiple economies of Moscow households in the 1990s. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94(2): 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Perkal, J. 1956. On epsilon length. Bulletin de l’Academie Polonaise des Sciences 4: 399–403.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Pogue, David. 2011. Wrapping up the apple location Brouhaha. http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/wrapping-up-the-apple-location-brouhaha/. Accessed 26 Aug 2011.
  41. Rushton, Gerard, Marc P. Armstrong, Josephine Gittler, Barry R. Greene, Claire E. Pavlik, Michele M. West, and Dale L. Zimmerman. 2006. Geocoding in cancer research, a review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30(25): 516–524.Google Scholar
  42. Sheppard, Eric, and Robert B. McMaster (eds.). 2004. Scale and geographic inquiry: Nature, society, and methods. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Shilton, Katie. 2009. Four billion little brothers. Privacy, mobile phones, and ubiquitous data collection. Communications of the ACM 52(11): 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, Neil. 2004. Scale Bending. In Scale and geographic inquiry: Nature, society, and methods, ed. Eric Sheppard and Robert B. McMaster. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  45. Solove, D.J. 2008. The end of privacy? Scientific American 299(3): 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Suchan, Trudi, and Cynthia A. Brewer. 2000. Qualitative methods for research on mapmaking and map use. Professional Geography 52(1): 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sui, Daniel Z. 2004. GIS, cartography, and the “third culture”: Geographic imaginations in the computer age. The Professional Geographer 56(1): 62–72.Google Scholar
  48. Sullivan, C. 2009. Digital identity – the legal person? Computer Law and Security Review 25(3): 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sweeney, Laura. 2000. Uniqueness of simple demographics in the U.S. population: Laboratory for international data privacy working paper, LIDAP-WP4. Pittsburgh: Laboratory for International Data Privacy, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  50. 2007. The logic of privacy. The Economist, January 4. http://www.economist.com/node/8486072. Accessed 13 Dec 2011.
  51. Unwin, David. 1981. Introductory spatial analysis. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  52. Watson, P.G., P. Duquenoy, M. Brennan, M. Jones, and J. Walkerdine. 2009. Towards an ethical interaction design: The issue of including stakeholders in law-enforcement software development. Paper read at Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the Australian computer-human interaction special interest group: Design: Open 24/7, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  53. Weiss, S. 2008. The need for a paradigm shift in addressing privacy risks in social networking applications. The Future of Identity in the Information Society 262: 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations