Schneier on Security

Roger • February 2, 2006 7:33 PM

@Bruce:
“Remember, new surveillance technologies are first used on populations with limited rights: inmates, children, the mentally ill, military personnel.”

Really? I think I take your point (that if we allow these sorts of things to encroach on the defenceless, they will become more tolerated for use on everyone); but I don’t think the statement as given is actually true.

Nearly every surveillance technology I can think of was first used against a particular opponent because that opponent was too powerful, dangerous or wily to be caught otherwise. The two “victim groups” which come up repeatedly are dangerous or organised criminals, and enemy soldiers during wartime. (Another interesting thing I’ve just realised, is that very few surveillance technologies were originally intended for surveillance; most are adaptations of existing instrumentation systems.)

The first baker’s dozen I thought of:
Technology; first surveillance targets; original use
* Bloodhounds (“sniffer” dogs): poachers and murderers; hunting
* Telescopes: enemy troops and warships; astronomy
* Postal interception: enemy generals, political conspirators; plain old literacy
* Financial audit trails: preventing embezzlement; ???
* Aerial surveillance: enemy troops; flying for its own sake
* Covert listening devices: a corrupt lawyer working for an embezzler; dictaphones
* Covert photography: suffragette prisoners who refused to allow mugshots; telephoto lenses for landscape photography, also Paul Strand’s covert cameras for street photographic art c. 1915
* Radio interception: enemy troops in WWI, then organised crime during the US Prohibition; radio communication
* Telephone taps: organised crime during Prohibition; an accidental misfeature of trunk lines
* Radar: enemy warplanes; radio communications and medical equipment
* Night vision: enemy troops; astronomy and early television
* Directional microphones: spies and diplomats; studio outside broadcast equipment
* CCTV: armed bank robbers; TV for entertainment.

Out of that list, only covert photography could reasonably be described as “first used on populations with limited rights”. In fact most were first used for surveillance because the surveillance target was powerful and/or dangerous. In that respect, even the suffragettes don’t entirely count as weak; they were subject to covert photography because they were starting to commit serious crimes (arson) but the UK Home Office feared the political consequences of using conventional police methods against them.

Roger • February 6, 2006 2:29 AM

@Victor Bogado:
“They first telled the world that he was using a too thick coat for a warm day and a big scary backpack. ”

Actually, those false rumours — and several others — originated with the press interviewing “eyewitnesses”, not the police.

“When videos, from surveilance cameras were released, along with witnesses acounts, disproved that version…”

Actually, the police informed Senhor de Menezes’ family, their lawyers, and Brazilian consular officials of the inaccuracy of those rumours within two days, well before the CCTV tapes were stolen.

“…the police department puted the reporter that “bought” the tape behind bars.”

The journalist was charged with stealing evidence from the investigators. The arrest was at the request of the Independent Police Complaints Commission — the people investigating the police — not the police. So far as I am aware he has not yet been prosecuted, and I would think his prosecution would be delayed until it can be seen if he jeopardised any other trials.

“No one was arrested or punished in any way for their grave mistake. No one.”

False. The officers involved were suspended during the investigation. The matter was placed before the IPCC for investigation, in accordance with procedure. On 18 August, the IPCC predicted the complex case could take up to 6 months to investigate, i.e. up until 18 February 2006. In December, the IPCC indicated that the investigation report would be completed in about a month, and that it was “likely” that it would recommend criminal prosecution of some of the police officers involved. The IPCC completed and submitted its report on the 19th of January this year, 5 months after predicting it would take 6 months. The report has not been released to the public at this stage, but the list of recipients (including the solicitors of the Crown Prosecution Service) strongly suggests that it indeed does call for prosecution.

On the 29th of January several newspapers carried stories which claimed to be based on leaks from this report, and suggesting that the officers most likely to be charged are from the surveillance team (as some of us suggested on this blog three days after the tragedy). These stories are unconfirmed at this stage.