(Engels)

At this moment, we are in a transition of conventional analog identification to digital virtual identification. Hereby, a mutual trust between government and civilians plays an essential role. The lack of a pure form of identification can result in an emergence of many restrictions and legislation based on movement in the physical and virtual space.

In this paper, personal information is defined as “all the information that is possibly available of one person”. This information encompasses things such as: name, address, location, income, expenses, depths and biometrical- en DNA information, but also information like eating habits, sexual orientation, political opinion, religious beliefs and physical appearance. For short, it reveals intimate, private, economic en political issues in the life of a person. All the unique features that can be registered will form the identity of a natural person.

Within social studies, identity is considered a process of becoming. Stuart Hall (1994) makes a distinction between two influences on the production of identity. Firstly, he states that [1994:394] identity is being produced by differences between cultures based on similar histories; like slavery, colonization and migration. Secondly, he states that [1994:394] a cultural identity is formed by a reproduction of the past. Thus, the telling of stories and myths. So, when is stated that “All the unique features that can be registered will form the identity of a natural person.”, we have to keep in mind that the (virtual) identity is never fixed, but rather dynamic: it is continuously becoming (completed by unique elements).

Computers have brought several advantages to cope with these issues. These advantages do not necessarily apply to the privacy of civilians nor to the control of the government. Thanks to technology, the government can enforce tons of complicated legislations upon civilians, which is only possible within a process of fast decision making and calculation power. When somebody is speeding for example, the authority will take notice by means of technology (speed sensors). Which will lead to a punishment (speeding ticket). For the authority it seems impossible to grasp total control, though. Technology works both ways (Spam, internet piracy, hacking).

Due to the lack of control for both civilians and government, they have to cope with the following issues: it has been more difficult to (1) discover what personal information is stored where and by whom and (2) what it is used for. The Dutch legislation on the protection of personal information elaborates on these issues. It states [WBP, 2006], in a nutshell, that personal information can only be used for the purpose the civilian has meant it to be used for. And, if this is the case, it should be accurate and complete. The appearance of a digital virtual identity has a tendency to bring fear upon us. Fear of big brother and anarchy. Based on the impact that exposing your digital identity could potentially unveil. Based on what bad things might happen.

The digital virtual identity can be thought of in terms of a body, which incorporates a collection of personal information. The ‘founder’ of this data body is Steve Kurtz (2006), who is a member of the Critical Art Ensemble (CAE). He writes in Utopian Promises – Net Realities an essay, where a virtual body is considered as one of five utopian promises. Kurtz (2006) states: “The virtual body is a body of great potential. On this body we can reinscribe ourselves using whatever coding system we desire. We can try on new body configurations. We can experiment with immortality by going places and doing things that would be impossible in the physical world.” (Kurtz, 2006) The data body is a ‘fascist sibling’ of the virtual body. “(…) a much more highly developed virtual form, and one that exists in complete service to the corporate and police state.” (Kurtz, 2006) One could define the data body as an embodyment of (personal) information, which is linked to one person.

Haggerty and Ericson (2000) elaborate on a body that is similar to that of the data body. “The observed body is of a distinctively hybrid composition. First it is broken down by being abstracted from its territorial setting. It is then reassembled in different settings through a series of data flows. The result is a de-corporealized body, a ‘data double’ of pure virtuality.” (Haggerty and Ericson 2000:613) They mention the concept of the data body again when they state: “It is not so much immediately concerned with the direct physical relocation of the human body […], but with transforming the body into pure information, such that it can be rendered more mobile and comparable.” (Haggerty and Ericson 2000:613)

evolutionary step

Figure 1. Evolutionary step

The notion of completeness in relation to data bodies has inspired the idea behind this concept. The data body, which is illustrated in figure 1 has a rather negative image, because its troubled relationship with man, technology and society. Troubled, because man could be seen as the shadow of the data body. The shadow connotes the lack of agency over the data body within the realms of control, surveillance, and discipline. The evolutionary step illustrates the evolution of the data body. As shown, the evolution of the data body starts later. It is therefore less evolved, less sophisticated and less complete than that of man. This unsophisticated (caveman) property could be inconvenient for man, because of its impact on daily life. For example, a data body is corrupt, which is the equilivant of an error in a database. As a consequence, the person who is linked to this database is prohibited to travel across boundaries.

There is a theoretical solution to fear of the impact that data bodies could have. The completion of the data body. How? There should be a mutual trust between government and citizens. On the one hand, should the government agree to full transparency towards the aggregation and recording of personal information. On the other hand, should the citizen agree to partly give up his/her privacy. Technology should be the key for making sure the data body is complete and in that way sophisticated enough to resemble man.

References:

  • Haggerty, K.D., Ericson, R. V. (2000). The Surveillance Assemblage. British Journal of Sociology, 51,(4),(pp. 605-622).
  • Hall, Stuart (1994). Cultural Identity and Diaspora in Colonial Discourse and Post Colonial Theory. Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman (Eds). Cambridge: Harvester Wheatsheaf. (pp. 394).
  • Kurtz, S. (2006). Essay: Utopian Promises – Net Realities (http://www.well.com/user/hlr/texts/utopiancrit.html), 14 mei
  • WBP, Wet Bescherming Persoonsgegevens. (Dutch Privacy Act of personal data) (2006).http://www.cbpweb.nl/downloads_wetten/WBP.PDF?refer=true&theme=purple

(Engels)

Google has launched the Street View application in The Netherlands. This is another phase in Google’s mission to organise the world’s information by building a 3D-environment. Simon Davies, a surveillance watchdog, stated: “The cultural imperative within Google is anti-privacy”. From his perspective that is certainly the case, but then they probably would follow a different strategy (figure below).

Google's alternative anti-privacy strategy.

Google's alternative anti-privacy strategy.

To regulate its content, Google uses a bottom-up approach of self-regulation. As Cherian George states on the bottom-up model: “[As] bloggers keep an eye over readers’ comments appended to their posts. Popular sites heavy with pictorial or video content, such as YouTube, have their own rules forbidding salacious material.(…) With the evolution of new technology, it is neither practical nor is there need for the state to play the role of a master moderator. (George)”

The bottom-up approach is very pragmatic in a sense that it is the only realistic way for regulation. Simply because, the effort to control its vast amount of ever changing content would be, in a top-down manner, an extremely labour intensive and costly practice. Even Google doesn’t have the resources to bring this into practice. So, Google uses a different strategy which is called: ‘flagging’ . The online Youtube community can get rid of inappropriate and sensitive video material by marking it as such.

The difference between YouTube’s approach and Google’s Street View approach, is the source which is generating the content. YouTube’s content is generated by its users, while Street View’ content is generated by its own apparatus. Because of the shear size of the content, regulation is mosty done by the user. From a psycho-analytical perspective, this relation between Street View and the user is rather disturbing, because the former lacks a proper conscience and the latter has to compensate this. So, when somebody stumbles upon a privacy sensitive image, he or she should be its conscience and flag it!

Google's imperative culture of anti-privacy?

Google's imperative culture of anti-privacy?

Microsoft’s Photosynth also forms a 3D-environment, but it’s based on user generated content. Photo’s taken by individuals are uploaded to a server. Here, Photosynth takes over and stitches the photo’s, taken in the same location, together to form a 3D environment of that area. If everyone would upload their images, then, in time (like Google’s Street View), a whole 3D representation of the world could be created. Except, this world is created by the users, instead of a hegemonic company like Google. Even though, we would regulate that space bottom-up. I would rather regulate a world made by users, then by a corporation without a clear conscience.

an alternative 3D representation of the world

an alternative 3D representation of the world

(Engels)

IWAGU is pronounced as: ‘I Wag You’ and stands for Identification by Webcam And Gesture Utilization. Not to be confused with ‘I kill you’. Lawrence Lessig mentions in his ‘Code V2′ the ‘architectures of identification’. He (Lessig 2006 p.42) states that we constantly are negotiating processes of authentication in real life, and in this process, better technologies and better credentials enable more distant authentication. In real space anonymity has to be created, in cyberspace anonymity is the given (Lessig 2006 p.45).

Contemporary methods of negotiating ones true identity is established by methods as fingerprint reading and password recognition. CAPTCHA is a contemporary technique to make sure that the object of identification is human not a computer program. This process is based on the underdeveloped property of computer programs to interpret images. We, as humans, are perfectly able to extract text from gibberish. As far as one is able to see and is able to distinguish colors.

I would suggest IWAGU as a (new?) method for identification. As far as I am concerned this concept doesn’t exist yet. It should be a fairly simple method to integrate into the daily life of the computer user (PC, MAC, smart phone) and the contemporary verification software. In the next scenario, I will try to explain the workings of this concept.

Scenario.

Imagine you turn on the computer (PC, MAC or smart phone) and after the operating system is loaded the system asks you to sit still and mimic a random gesture. You raise your right hand and show three fingers, just as the system would ask. Now the system uses the webcam to capture in high resolution your face accompanied by your gesture. Next, it determines your identity by comparing the distinct features of your face with the identifying features stored in the system’s database. (The technique to abstract the distinctive facial features is not yet determined. Maybe we can be inspired by Ed Ulbrich’s method.) The random gesture is to make sure this image capture is live and not a recording. After the required gesture is also confirmed positive, you will be able to get access to your personal files. If you’re trying to login to a website, this procedure will be repeated.

Advantage of IWAGU:

One of the advantages of this system compared to a biometric fingerprint is the fact that most of us have a video recording device (webcam) and a few of us have a fingerprint reader on the computer. This procedure will only take a few seconds.

Disadvantage of IWAGU:

Devices:

Not all devices are capable of capturing video. My iPhone does have a camera, but it is not capable of recording video. Ones, every computer is connected to a video camera, then, this concept is likely to work.

Privacy:

The recording of biometric information linked to an individual is fairly controversial. Thus, privacy is an issue. To overcome this issue, it’s necessary to make this personal information accessible to the person who it belongs to. But, then we are back to where we came from, because how do we now for sure that your are the person you claim to be…

For now, this method of negotiating identification or IWAGU beta is perfectly as an alternative or an addition for contemporary identification methods.

(Source)

(Dutch)

Op dit moment zitten we in een overgang van conventionele, analoge identificatie naar digitale virtuele identificatie. Daarbij speelt het wederzijdse vertrouwen tussen de overheid en de burger een centrale rol. Dit vertrouwen wordt problematisch als de identiteit niet met zekerheid kan worden vastgesteld. De technieken kunnen immers nog steeds niet aantonen dat ‘jij wel diegene bent die je beweert te zijn’. Het ontbreken van deze zuivere identificatie kan veel gevolgen hebben voor het vrij bewegen in de virtuele en fysieke ruimtes. De persoonsgegevens die aan verschillende instanties of organisaties worden verstrekt, worden in databanken opgeslagen. Daarmee zijn ze gemakkelijk te verwerken en voor verschillende instanties of personen beschikbaar te stellen.

Dankzij computers kan de overheid tal van ingewikkelde wetten doelmatig uitvoeren en de burger optimaal van dienst zijn. Ook particuliere organisaties en bedrijven kunnen door geautomatiseerde gegevensverwerking efficiënter werken. Maar tegelijkertijd is het minder makkelijk geworden om te achterhalen welke persoonsgegevens door landen, organisaties en bedrijven zijn vastgelegd, waar die gegevens voor worden gebruikt en aan wie ze worden doorgegeven. Dit is in de wetgeving vastgelegd. De persoonsgegevens die worden gebruikt, moeten juist en volledig zijn. Ze mogen ook alleen worden gebruikt voor het doel waar de burger ze voor verstrekt heeft. Sommige gegevens zijn vertrouwelijk en moeten zodanig worden behandeld, dat ze uitsluitend worden vastgelegd door de persoon of instantie die ze nodig heeft. Ze mogen niet verder worden verspreid dan noodzakelijk is. Het zijn immers persoonlijke gegevens.

Een voorbeeld waarin de privacy van de burgers in het geding komt is de ophanden zijnde overeenkomst tussen de Verenigde Staten en de Europese Unie. Er wordt onderhandeld over het verstrekken van passagiersgegevens (PNR) door luchtvaartmaatschappijen aan Amerikaanse autoriteiten in het kader van terrorismebestrijding. Drie belangen komen samen; de financieel-economische belangen van de luchtvaartmaatschappijen; de uitwisseling van persoonsgegevens in het belang van de veiligheid en de handhaving van de principes van de bescherming van persoonsgegevens in de wet bescherming persoonsgegevens. De passagiers dreigen essentiële rechten te verliezen als er geen controle meer kan zijn op het gebruik van de passagiersgegevens door de Amerikaanse autoriteiten. Als de belangen van de luchtvaartmaatschappijen en de Amerikaanse autoriteiten zwaarder wegen dan de privacy van een passagier, dan kunnen de passagiers ook geen beroep meer doen op de rechtsbescherming in geval van foutief gebruik van hun persoonsgegevens. [PNR-dossier 2007]

Aan de hand van deze casus komen we tot de onderzoeksvraag: Is de wet voor bescherming van persoonsgegevens nog wel toereikend in de digitale wereld van nu? En zo nee, op welke onderdelen zou de wet dan nog verbeterd kunnen worden? Klik hier voor de scriptie.

(Dutch)

Persoonlijke noot: de combinatie van mijn studie en het werk van mijn moeder hebben mij geïnspireerd om een onderzoek te richten op gehandicapten binnen de context van nieuwe media. Mijn moeder werkt voor Sensis, een organisatie die zich inzet voor mensen met een visuele handicap. Dit document is een oriënterende aanzet voor een masterthesis. Het onderwerp dat in dit artikel wordt behandeld, vormt een solide basis voor de masterthesis en zal een hoofdstuk voortbrengen over mensen met een handicap binnen een digitale wereld. De term handicap wordt in dit artikel vervangen door het Engelse woord: ‘disability’, omdat deze term gebruikelijk is binnen de context van de ‘disability studies’.

Mijn onderzoeksvraag luidt: is de wetgeving omtrent mensen met een handicap, in relatie tot telecommunicatie of nieuwe media, toereikend? Om deze vraag te kunnen beantwoorden wordt op dit moment alleen de Amerikaanse wetgeving onderzocht, omdat er nog geen literatuuronderzoek is gedaan naar de Nederlandse wetgeving op dat gebied. In de masterthesis wordt dit wel onderzocht.

Deze vraag wordt beantwoord door eerst een theoretisch kader te stellen. Dit kader wordt in de volgende sectie geschetst door een zestal termen die de periferie vormen voor de casus. Deze wordt verderop in dit artikel geanalyseerd. (1) ‘disability’, (2) ‘accessibility’, (3) internettoegankelijkheid, (4) ‘digitale devide’, (5) ‘locatieve media’ en (6) ’handi-capabilitiet’. De centrale term voor dit onderzoek is ‘disability’ of ‘digital disability’. Gerard Goggin en Christopher Newell hebben een boek gewijd aan deze term. In de volgende passage worden de termen behandeld.

Download document