1. Traffic cameras shot at (England) 2. Secret cameras in a high school (Canada) 3. Iris recognition (JFK Airport, USA) 4. War inspectors' equipment (USA) 1. Police Seek Camera Shooter November 12, 2002 09:08 AM ET LONDON (Reuters) - Police hunted for a marksman with a grudge on Monday after two roadside speed cameras were shot to pieces in rural east England. Norfolk police said a sniper, probably armed with a high-powered air rifle, riddled the cameras with pellets causing 70,000 pounds ($111,000) worth of damage. The attacks happened days before a number of newly installed cameras were set to go live at accident black spots in the area. "You often have to worry about the mentality of people who do this sort of thing," Bryan Edwards, spokesman for the Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership, was quoted as saying by the Eastern Daily Press. Speed cameras, which photograph speeding motorists as they drive by and can lead to substantial fines, are controversial in Britain. But police would not say whether they believed a disgruntled motorist was behind the incidents. 2. Wed, November 13, 2002 Brandon high school admits using hidden cameras: Teachers and kids not told By SCOTT EDMONDS WINNIPEG (CP) - Manitoba's ombudsman and education minister demanded answers Wednesday after a Brandon high school admitted it had installed hidden cameras - including one in the guidance counsellor's office - that were so secret, even the teachers weren't told. "Public bodies are not just authorized to collect personal information on a whim," said Manitoba ombudsman Barry Tuckett. "There has to be a justifiable need for collecting personal information." He noted that if someone could prove they had been harmed by the release of what was collected on the video, the Brandon school division, which authorized the cameras, could face fines up to $50,000 under provincial privacy legislation. "There are people out there that are very concerned about it and they're suggesting that this just wasn't an appropriate use, so it's a good thing for an independent body like us to take a look at that." Manitoba Education Minister Ron Lemieux has also asked his staff to find out more about the incident. "This is very disturbing to me and I think that parents would be very disturbed with this, too, and I believe the students would be very disturbed and I believe the teachers would be very disturbed," he said. He said school divisions have the right and responsibility to take measures to ensure the safety of staff and students but must obey the same laws that apply to all Manitobans. Brandon school division officials did not return calls to explain why the cameras were installed at Neelin high school. But on Tuesday, Brandon schools superintendent Donna Michaels told a news conference that it was inappropriate to have placed cameras in the school without notifying staff. Two were in offices and a third was at the entrance to the school. Only the principal and vice-principal knew about the cameras. The cameras were installed in August. They were removed immediately after a teacher spotted one and complained October 31. Michaels said the cameras were not part of a "fishing expedition" and were put in due to security concerns. However, she also said those concerns were not communicated to Brandon police. Lemieux noted Wednesday that if someone wanted to deter vandalism or crime, it makes more sense to advertise that video cameras are being used rather than keeping them secret. Brian Ardern of the union representing Manitoba teachers said the case appeared to be a clear invasion of privacy. "I'm a little shocked," said Ardern. "Clearly it's bad judgment because they rectified the situation. I can't think of any reason to justify this kind of thing." He said a union grievance or a perhaps a lawsuit were possibilities, adding that the fact that a camera was concealed in an office used by a guidance counsellor was of particular concern. "If you've got counsellors or resource teachers who may deal with students in confidence, then it's a bigger issue." Ardern said video cameras are not unheard of in Manitoba schools but they are found in public areas and are easily visible. "When the cameras are hidden, when you are conducting covert surveillance on teachers and students, then it's a problem," he said. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2002/11/13/4384-cp.html 3. JFK terminal only in nation to screen employees' eyes -------------------- By AMY WESTFELDT Associated Press Writer November 14, 2002, 4:26 PM EST NEW YORK -- Elizabeth Coletta has to do a little more than swipe her identification card to get into secure areas at John F. Kennedy International Airport. The Swiss International Airlines manager now looks straight into a scanner that reads her iris to make sure she is who her card says she is. Kennedy has been testing iris scanning on about 300 employees working at Terminal 4 for the last two months. It's the only airport in the nation to use the technology with employees to prevent security breaches. John DeFelice, the international terminal's security director, said the technology prevents employees from giving their ID cards to someone else. "I can give my card, but I can't give my eyes to anyone," he said. For now, the program is not mandatory. But DeFelice said he expects the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees the nation's travel systems, to require some sort of mandatory biometric screening for the terminal's 1,500 employees within the year. A TSA spokeswoman didn't immediately return a telephone call Thursday. The terminal is managed by a private company, a consortium that includes the operators of Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark (N.J.) Liberty airports, is testing different employee security systems but hasn't made a decision on iris scanning. The $2,000 iris scanner and the $15,000 door that bars entry into a secure area has been installed at the Terminal 4 customs area leading to the airport's tarmac. The employees using the system range from airline managers to security guards who need close access to planes on the ground. The scanner stores 247 traits of a person's iris into a computer and on his or her ID card's magnetic strip. Terminal officials said they believe the iris scanning technique is even more specific than fingerprinting, because that technique only checks for 85 traits. After swiping their cards, workers peer into the scanner for about 10 to 15 seconds, until the door clicks open. The system works with contact lenses and eyeglasses but not with sunglasses. If the scanner fails to match an employee's eyes and card, an alarm goes off and security guards are dispatched, DeFelice said. Terminal officials say they're not aware of any employee who failed the iris scan test in other uses at airports in Amsterdam and Charlotte, N.C. No security problem at Kennedy prompted the technology, said John Scanlon, director of the state Office of Public Security. "This is not a response to a problem," he said. "It's anticipating. It's proactive." The airport does not plan to make the technology available to passengers, although more than 4,500 frequent fliers have been using the system at Amsterdam's airport for more than a year as a substitute for their passports, said Schiphol USA President Victor van der Chijs. The Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in North Carolina, used similar eye technology in 2000 but suspended the system last year. 4. The New York Times The New York Times International November 13, 2002 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/13/international/middleeast/13INSP.html Arms Inspectors in Iraq Will Use High-Tech Gear By WILLIAM J. BROAD In the four years since United Nations weapons inspectors left Iraq, the digital revolution has made their gear smaller, lighter, faster, more precise and easier to use. Millions of dollars in commercial and antiterrorism funds are accelerating the rush of technology, opening new vistas for weapons sleuthing. Experts say the advances are giving the inspectors a technical edge in the hide-and-seek world of Iraqi weapons, as well as new leverage to disarm Iraq. Among the new developments are these: Commercial spy satellites so powerful that their photos can reveal details of factories, buildings and arsenals. Miniature sensors that can constantly monitor the air, water and soil for telltale signs of weapons of mass destruction. Newly portable germ detectors that can quickly check installations for anthrax, plague and other deadly biological agents. Powerful radar systems that can penetrate the ground to scan for signs of tunnels and underground bunkers. Human knowledge and experience will still be paramount in any inspection regime, Hans Blix, head of the United Nations inspection teams, recently told trainees in Vienna, according to transcripts made public by the United Nations. But, he went on, "powerful new means of verification" are now coming into play. His view was supported by military analysts who pointed out that if the equipment can find strong evidence of prohibited weapons work, rather than weak or ambiguous clues, that could prove important in making the case for action against the government of President Saddam Hussein. But even as Mr. Blix hailed technology's new power, military analysts emphasize that Iraqi weapons makers have had four years to refine their deceptions and thoroughly understand the United Nations approach. As one Defense Intelligence Agency expert, John Yurechko, said recently of the Iraqis, "They now have experienced the inspection regime" and have whetted skills to counter it. Weapons inspections began in Iraq in 1991, but after repeated failures of cooperation between the United Nations and Baghdad, the inspectors left in December 1998, hours before the United States and Britain began three days of air strikes. Four years later, questions abound over what Baghdad has done during the inspection hiatus. The Defense Intelligence Agency, in a worst-case estimate, says Iraq may be rebuilding its nuclear program, renewing production of deadly nerve agents like sarin and VX, and racing to make germ weapons. "Most elements are larger and more advanced than before the gulf war," the agency said of Baghdad's germ warfare effort. Before the 1991 war, according to the United Nations, Iraq made at least 5,125 gallons of botulinum toxin, the deadliest substance known to science, and 2,245 gallons of anthrax agent - enough to kill everyone on earth several times over. The United Nations now has about 250 experts trained to search Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. About 100 of them will be on the mission at any one time. Some weapons experts say the technical edge may help newer inspectors compensate for their relative lack of experience. But Tim McCarthy, who went to Iraq 15 times as a missile inspector and now works at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, was cautious about the new technologies, pointing out that they could also beguile with the hope of quick breakthroughs while ultimately wasting time and financial resources. "There's lots of whiz-bang gadgets out there, and sometimes they don't get you to the central issues," he said. A vital tool, Mr. McCarthy added, is the interview. Hundreds of Iraqi scientists are thought to know about programs to develop biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, and inspectors who interview them must develop the knack to detect a lie. "It comes down to the nose," Mr. McCarthy said. United Nations officials would not describe the new surveillance technologies in detail, for fear of tipping their hand. For example, Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, said making public the exact specifications for, say, a laser sensor, might let the Iraqis develop ways to confuse it. "The sensors are much more sensitive," Mr. Buchanan said. "Camera resolution is better. Equipment that might have needed a room now might fit into a briefcase." The general advances, experts said, are driven by the same digital revolution that has drastically increased the power of computers, cellphones and cameras. In tandem with these changes, new interest and redirected government financing have brought rapid advances in weapons detection. "Four years ago the interest in defending against chemical and biological arms wasn't nearly as great," said K. David Nokes, head of national security programs at the Sandia National Laboratories, based in Albuquerque, N.M. Germ detectors, too, have dramatically improved. The most accurate ones map a microbe's genetic material with the same kind of equipment used to decode the human genome. In 1998, when the inspectors left Iraq, only large laboratories could do such analyses. But by 2001, after years of biodefense funding, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California had perfected a two-pound device known as Hanaa, for Hand-Held Advanced Nucleic Acid Analyzer, which can recognize a microbe by its DNA, helping eliminate identification failures and false positives. "Having sensitive detection technology like Hanaa is very useful," said Page O. Stoutland, a Livermore counterterrorism official. "The traditional way is to take lots of samples and then send those home. But that takes days or weeks to sort out." By contrast, he said, Hanaa, now being made commercially, works in about 20 minutes, "letting you go back quickly if you get an interesting reading." Miniaturization has also shrunk radiation detectors, which can help track nuclear materials. The inspectors have acquired two types made by Quantrad Sensors, a company in Madison, Wis. Its portable Ranger unit can detect several radioactive isotopes, while its Alex unit can identify a wide range of metals with potential nuclear uses. "They're simple to use," said Martin Janiak, the company's head. "You turn them on and go." As for the new commercial satellites, which came into being in 1999 and now number a half-dozen, their cameras can see objects on the ground as small as two feet wide, revealing roads, buildings, pipelines, bridges, tanks, jets and missiles. The United Nations is using images from at least two of the commercial craft, officials said, and began experimenting with them about two years ago. While countries at times supply the United Nations with images from their own reconnaissance satellites, a United Nations report last year praised the new self-reliance. "Material from multiple sources," it said, "serves to provide the commission with a broader and independent assessment capability." In September, after studying photos of Iraq, weapons inspectors identified several nuclear-related areas of new construction or other unexplained changes. "We are very curious to see what is under the roof," said Jacques Baute, leader of the nuclear inspectors. A newer technology on the horizon is pilotless reconnaissance drones, which the Security Council has allowed under the resolution adopted last Friday on new Iraq inspections. Among other things, the American military has used the drones for photographic surveillance. Private experts said drones or piloted surveillance craft might carry gear to help the inspectors find underground bunkers, a top issue on the agenda. Last year, an Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer said in an interview that he personally worked on secret installations for biological, chemical and nuclear arms in underground vaults. Other Western intelligence has echoed that theme. Special radar systems can penetrate the ground. Other devices can detect variations in the earth's gravitational field, revealing underground voids. Still other sensors can detect magnetic fields generated by electrical gear in tunnels up to 100 feet deep. Tim Brown of GlobalSecurity.org, a private group in Alexandria, Va., said it was very likely such equipment would be used in Iraq. "If they don't go in with something like that," he said, "they're not going to be perceived as serious." In a talk last month in Vienna, Mr. Blix of the United Nations said the new inspections, aided by the new technologies, could be thorough but not perfect in ferreting out hidden Iraqi arms. "It is not possible to examine every square meter in a big country, or every basement, or every computer program, or archive, or every truck on the road," he said. "All that is attainable is a high degree of assurance that there are no malign bugs or bombs." X-From_: info@notbored.org Mon Nov 25 23:33:29 2002 X-Sender: notbored@popserver.panix.com Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 20:44:21 -0500 To: me<info@notbored.org>From: SCP-New York<info@notbored.org>Subject: clippings Status: RO X-Status: 1. Spying on politicians (Pakistan) 2. Duke University 1 (USA) 3. Duke University 2 (USA) 4. Rocky Mountain protest group (USA) 1. Pakistan PPP demands removal of spy cameras from Parliament ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Peoples Party has expressed grave concern over the reports that intelligence agencies have installed secret hi-tech cameras inside the Parliament house and demanded of the government to immediately remove the surveillance gadgets. Pakistan's intelligence agencies installed several hi-tech invisible cameras inside National Assembly hall to monitor how 60 purchased Parliamentarians voted Tuesday, PPP spokesman office referred a report. The report in the South Asia Tribune said that secret cameras have been placed horizontally and vertically near polling booths inside the National Assembly to keep "the animals bought by the ISI on a tight leash." The PPP demands of the regime to immediately remove the secret cameras installed inside the National Assembly Hall, information secretary of the Party Senator Taj Haider said here in a release. The Parliament, the PPP Information Secretary observed, is a sovereign body representing the collective will of the people and installation of cameras in it to secretly monitoring the legislators is a grave insult to the people. http://www.pakistanlink.com/headlines/Nov/20/08.html 2. Duke University Possible security camera use sparks campus debate by Megan Carroll November 20, 2002 Students are expressing mixed reactions to a resolution Campus Council is currently drafting that calls for security cameras outside dormitory entrances. The cameras would provide footage of people entering and exiting in case it is needed for a criminal investigation. Campus Council tabled its recommendation to residential services at its meeting Thursday to compile more student input. The group will consider the proposal again Thursday. Contrary to the views of many Campus Council leaders, most students said possible infringements upon their privacy rights did not overshadow the security benefits that could result. Freshman Lizzy De La Garza, who lives in Randolph--a dorm that already has cameras outside the entrances--said she believes the cameras do not invade her sense of privacy since they are not placed inside the dorm. "You're just entering the building. You're not completely inside," De La Garza said. "Once you're in your hallway or room, you can do whatever you want." Alex Steingart, another freshman, agreed. "If [the cameras] are outside the dorm, it's not like they're spying on someone naked in the bathroom," he said. The fact that administrators said the tapes would not be under constant surveillance makes cameras more acceptable, according to some students. "It's probably a good idea, especially since they're not reviewing it all the time," said sophomore Jason Jones. "There's a small scope of what it's looking at." Other students argued the possible invasion of privacy is sufficient grounds not to implement the cameras. "It would take an awful lot for me to agree with putting in cameras and invasions by an outside source," said Alex Wenger, a senior. "I don't see that more technology is necessarily the answer here." Leila Fusfeld, another senior, agreed. "It's annoying enough to have a record every time I swipe my [DukeCard]," she said. Many students also said the overall effectiveness of the cameras remains debatable and questioned if this measure would tackle larger security problems on campus. "I'm not sure if there is that much [the University] can do," said Fusfeld, adding that dorms should vote to accept the cameras before they are installed. "I don't know if the cameras are enough to deter sexual assaults." Some students, however, argued that the presence of cameras might be enough to make a potential perpetrator think twice before committing a crime. "[The cameras] will help catch a certain number of people," junior Meredith Miller said. "If any people get caught, [it] will help prevent crimes.... It's hard to provide protection for people if they have no fear of consequences." Others said they doubt that cameras will prevent potential crimes and may only identify possible suspects once the offenses have already occurred. "For the past couple of years, Duke has been highly reactionary.... It doesn't seem like the administration thinks ahead to the consequences of their decisions," Miller said. "The security cameras might be a effective solution if they use them well and plan how they'll be used." Some students criticized the cameras, saying they could be used to implicate students for illegal activities such as underage drinking. "It would be off its use to prosecute for underage drinking. It's not the thing it was intended to be used for," Jones said. However, some students said they believe the complaints are not justified. "If they are doing something that's illegal anyway, it seems like it's something they don't have a right to complain about," Steingart said. He added, however, that it would be difficult for administrators and police to take the time to identify students on video. http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/20/3ddbb07b83603 3. Duke University Campus Council rejects cameras By Robert Morris November 22, 2002 After a prolonged discussion of a controversial resolution recommending installation of security cameras at dorm entrances, Campus Council voted down the recommendation by a 8-5 vote Thursday night, citing doubt of the cameras' effectiveness. "Most people want to do something about sexual assault but think cameras were not the way," said Few Quadrangle representative Jacob Flomenberg, a sophomore. The idea that most sexual assault is perpetrated by members of the Duke community played a primary role in the discussions. "We can't keep blaming sexual assault on people coming on campus to attack us," West-Edens Link representative Pasha Majdi said. Many representatives agreed, claiming that since dorms are largely connected, cameras would do little to help identify perpetrators of sexual assault. While many West Campus representatives felt their quads were evenly divided or opposed to security cameras, East Campus representatives had differing views. "East Campus is overwhelmingly in favor of cameras," said Alexandra Oliveira, East Campus Council representative. However, ECC's other representative, Chris Kallmeyer, took a more reserved view. "Whenever we talked to someone, people's first reaction is that they don't like cameras, but after we talk to them, they support it," he said. Ray Rodriguez, coordinator for health promotion and student health at the Healthy Devil, presented both sides of the issue but ultimately pointed to the need for a change in campus attitude toward sexual assault. Although he agreed that installing cameras would send a positive message, he also made clear that "the sexual assaults that could be stopped by the cameras [would be] a minority." Rodriguez said sexual assault happens every weekend at Duke but cited Monday's all-male discussion about sexual assault in Wannamaker Quadrangle as an example of changing campus attitudes toward the issue. "Most of the discussion tonight seems to imply some educational stuff that needs to happen," Rodriguez said. After moving to consider the campus safety resolution and the security camera issue separately, Campus Council passed the less controversial portion by a vote of 13-2. This part of the resolution included recommendations for DukeCard bathroom access, increased activity by the SafeWalks program, better lighting across campus and increased availability and promotion of self-defense classes. After the meeting, council members defended the decision to vote against security cameras. "I just don't know if there's enough proof that they would be effective," said council member Brandon Jamison, a junior. The council also unanimously passed a resolution concerning sexual assault and harassment. The resolution primarily addresses acquaintance rape and recommends new, small-scale resident adviser-led awareness programs for freshmen; the compilation of Duke-specific statistics about sexual assault; and a review of judicial procedures in sexual assault cases. "We definitely want to do something [about sexual assault]," said Gerald Oliver, council secretary. "We're still in the process of figuring out what that something is." Student response to the council's decision has been mixed, although students primarily responded to threats to their privacy by increased surveillance. "It's probably the better decision," said sophomore Abigail Weliver. "Although [cameras] might have given us some sense of comfort at this time, it's really just an invasion of privacy." "I'm not a fan of Big Brother," agreed sophomore Michaela Kerrissey. Some students, however, said the potential benefits of cameras outweighed the risks. "Security cameras would have been okay," said sophomore David Hsu. "It's not that much of an invasion of privacy if they're just on the quad," he added. http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/22/3dde3deba62a5 4, Rocky Moutain Friday November 22, 2002 'Operation Private Parts' looks to expose video voyeurism by Erica Mirehouse The Anti-Surveillance Defense Group, a group whose mission is to combat the worldwide proliferation of video surveillance cameras, launched a national research project last week. The project, dubbed "Operation Private Parts", will attempt to expose to a worldwide audience how secret video spying in public places has become a normal part of everyday life. As part of the research, a group of free-lance photographers will fan out to each of the 50 states for the purpose of obtaining video similar to those now being used on many voyeurism Web sites. Voyeurism refers to images obtained without the subject knowing, usually for the purposes of sexual gratification. "This project is not intended for sexual gratification or financial gain," said Ron Brazil, Director of U.S. Operations for ASDG. "Instead, we want to show the ease with which ordinary people are being used to create sexually oriented video that is fueling the frenzy of Internet voyeurism Web sites." ASDG's photographers have indicated doing activities in approximately 36 states at this time, Brazil said. Efforts will be made to obtain a cross section of society including politicians, newspaper publishers and editors, radio and television personalities, professional athletes, actors and actresses and a variety of other high-profile individuals. "No one is exempt from the massive amount of secret video spying that goes on in public places," he said. According to the ASDG Web site, a majority of the general public is unaware of how out of control this secret video spying is in public places. Most states have no direct laws handling video surveillance in public because of problems in the definition of a public place, Brazil said. In April, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., introduced a bill entitled the "Family Privacy and Protection Act," which would create two new federal crimes of video voyeurism, one dealing with adults and one dealing with minors. Under the bill, any person who uses a camera or similar recording device to record another individual either for a lewd or lascivious purpose without that person's consent is in violation of the law. This bill has not yet passed and the issue of video voyeurism is still being handled on a state-by-state basis. A recent Washington State Supreme Court decision declared up-skirt photography in a public place as lewd but legal, according to the ASDG Web site. "It's an outrage, I think that it would outrage anyone," Brazil said. "Our wives, mothers, and children go out in public and don't expect people to look under their clothes." The ASDG has also developed a line of personal video surveillance defense products. "Our products will allow an individual to personally opt out of being photographed by any video camera within a specified range," Brazil said. They have marketed the Invizi-Shield, a compact device that is carried on the person and uses the latest in light technology to disrupt all video surveillance transmissions from video recording devices within a user definable range. Experts predict the use of miniature video cameras will continue to increase at a rapid pace over the next several years. There are already many of these mini cameras located on campus in the library, in the tunnel under College Ave., and in other undisclosed high security areas. "We do not use the cameras to invade people's privacy," said Bob Chaffee, CSUPD Police Chief. "The purpose of our cameras is public safety and public security." Franco Rodriguez, a senior Human Development and Family Studies major said, "I think that it is bad that people aren't always aware of surveillance cameras but they may be helpful in certain situations." Rodrigez said Brazil's system, which would cost $150, is not something he is interested in. "The new technology to deter video surveillance is not something that I would purchase," he said. "Not all cameras are used for voyeurism and most college students couldn't afford the $150 anyway." Chaffee also urged caution when considering the personal surveillance defense products. "As a consumer, I would recommend that you don't buy anything that sounds too good to be true," he said. "What does it do, make you disappear? It seems magical to me." http://www.collegian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/22/3ddd89bc3ef4b X-From_: info@notbored.org Sat Dec 7 01:49:56 2002 X-Sender: notbored@popserver.panix.com (Unverified) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 01:46:52 -0500 To: me<info@notbored.org>From: SCP-New York<info@notbored.org>Subject: clipping service Status: RO X-Status: 1. It's the signs, not the cameras, that are the problem! (England, of course) 2. Handschu lives! (NYC, USA) 3. ACLU call concerning Washington DC (USA) 1. CCTV signs 'will be blot' on city BY MARK SMITH WARNING signs which must be posted next to CCTV cameras under new data protection laws will be an "ugly blot" on the face of the city, a heritage group warned today. The two-foot-long signs telling people they are being watched must be displayed under guidelines for the use of surveillance equipment. Shops and businesses that fail to erect the A3-sized signs face being dragged through the courts and fined 5000. But Martin Hulse, of city heritage watchdog the Cockburn Association, claimed: "There is no doubt that such large signs could be an ugly blot on some of our finest buildings. "We already have concerns about the cameras themselves, which are often bulky and out of keeping with the surrounding area. "We would hope that some dispensation could be made that would allow more discreet signs to be used in areas of architectural importance." And Conservative MSP Brian Monteith asked: "Do we really need any more street furniture in our already cluttered streets? You only have to look at the Royal Mile, where there are countless signs telling people to do this and that. It spoils the look of the city. "I do not dispute that some CCTV signs are needed in order to deter criminals. But in a city like ours, they should be discreet and in keeping with the area, not two-foot-long things that stick out like a sore thumb." The CCTV warning signs must be erected near surveillance cameras in public places as part of the Data Protection Act, with government guidelines introduced last October stating what size they must be and what information they should contain. A survey by West Lothian-based security expert Owen Sayers found that 90 per cent of CCTV cameras in the city centre, including banks, shops and hotels, did not have the signs. Mr Sayers, a former policeman who has advised major UK companies on security arrangements, said: "The signs, which should be the size of an A3 piece of paper, must tell people that they are in an area where CCTV cameras are in operation. "The signs must also detail who is operating the CCTV system, why it is in operation and where people can get information on the system. "It is the law that these signs should be in place, but most CCTV operators often do not realise this." John Scott, of the Scottish Human Rights Centre, said the warning signs were vital for the public. He added: "I am alarmed that so many cameras are operating illegally in the centre of Edinburgh. If they do not comply, they should be taken down." There are 25 publicly operated CCTV cameras in Princes Street, Lothian Road, Picardy Place, the Old Town, Fountainbridge and Haymarket. The number of private CCTV cameras in the city is not known, but experts believe there may be more than 1000. A city spokeswoman said its system complied with the guidelines. http://www.edinburghnews.com/index.cfm?id=1350202002 2. Judge Denies NYC Secret Evidence Request By Associated Press December 4, 2002, 11:09 AM EST NEW YORK -- A federal judge has refused the city's request to present secret evidence in its effort to lift restrictions on police surveillance of political groups. Lawyers for the city had argued that the case involved issues of "national security," but Judge Charles Haight rejected the request Tuesday as "unusual" and ordered both sides to return to court Dec. 11. The police department is seeking the right to conduct undercover investigations of political groups when there is no evidence of a crime. Currently, officers must first seek permission from a three-member panel. That panel, known as the Handschu Authority, was established to settle a 1971 Black Panther Party lawsuit. In September, the department argued in court papers that the panel hinders the hunt for terrorists who use mosques and Islamic institutes to shield their activities. 3. Subject: Speak out against comprehensive video surveillance in the nation's capital From: Matt Howes, National Internet Organizer, ACLU To: ACLU Action Network Members Date: December 5, 2002 The next time you visit the nation's capital, your every move may be watched and recorded. The DC Police Department, without public knowledge or city council approval, has set up a centralized video surveillance network. The system can bring together video feeds from police cameras on streets and buildings, in neighborhoods, within the city's subway system and even at public schools. With the flip of a switch, officers can zoom in on people a half-mile away. The implicit justification for the video surveillance system is security. But it is far from clear how the proliferation of video cameras through public spaces in D.C. would have any real impact on crime. In Oakland, CA, officials considered video surveillance for three years and rejected it. Police Chief Joseph Samuels, Jr., stated that his department had hoped to be "among the pioneers in the field of taped video camera surveillance" but ultimately found that "there is no conclusive way to establish that the presence of video surveillance resulted in the prevention or reduction of crime." Instead, tourists, opposition politicians, racial and ethnic minorities, peaceful dissidents and other people could have their every move catalogued and tracked. This system of cameras could be used to monitor peaceful protests and the activities of innocent people throughout the city. This information could then be misused to blackmail, intimidate or bully people who are exercising their freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful assembly, or just going about their daily lives. This is not just a local issue and not only because D.C. is our nations capital. This system would make D.C. the first city in the nation to have comprehensive video surveillance and unless it is stopped, other cities and communities will inevitably follow its example. We must not allow Main Street USA to become Surveillance Central. You can have an impact. Outcry from activists like you helped to squash the Administration's Operation TIPS which would have made domestic spies out of postal office employees, repair crews, and other service providers. Over 63,000 emails and faxes were sent by ACLU Action Network members to Members of Congress to protest this spying and as a result of these and other actions, TIPS was prohibited by the Homeland Security Act. We need your help again and this is a great example of how people can make a difference. The D.C. city council is going to hold hearings on video surveillance next week. By urging the city council to shut down the video surveillance network, we can ensure that funds earmarked for this system are invested in proven police practices instead of expanding an expensive, ineffective, easily abused surveillance system. Click here to find out more about this issue and protest this new system. http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11419&c=130 X-From_: info@notbored.org Sun Dec 15 19:08:51 2002 X-Sender: notbored@popserver.panix.com Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 19:05:56 -0500 To: me<info@notbored.org>From: SCP-New York<info@notbored.org>Subject: clippings Status: RO X-Status: 1. Talking cameras (USA) 2. Cameras in Washington DC part 1 3. Cameras in Washington DC part 2 4. UAVs and national security (USA) 1. Talking cameras http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/12/technology/circuits/12graf.html # # December 12, 2002 # Camera Is Graffiti's Unwelcome Audience # By BONNIE ROTHMAN MORRIS # # WHAT flashes and shouts when it sees something moving, helping # to stop crime? No, it is not some kind of high-tech police robot, # but a much simpler invention: a modified film camera that is # being used in Milwaukee, Los Angeles and other cities to deter # graffiti vandalism. # # The camera is a Vivitar 35-millimeter flash model that has been # equipped with a motion detector and a digital voice recorder- # player and housed in a rugged steel and clear plastic case. The # system, which works on five C batteries, is mounted on a tree # or pole overlooking an area where graffiti vandals might be # tempted to do their work. # # If the system detects motion in the area, it fires the camera # and flash and issues "a pretty darn loud" warning, said Ken # Anderson, president of Q-Star Technology, in Chatsworth, Calif., # which makes the system. The warning, which can be recorded by # the owner of the system, is usually something like: "Stop! This # is a restricted area. We have just taken your photograph,'' and # can be recorded and played back in any two languages. # # Mr. Anderson, a former technology newsletter publisher who # developed the camera system as a hobby, said it was meant as # an alternative for governments and companies that spend a lot # of money on removing graffiti. # # Milwaukee, for example, which has more than 200 bridges that # are targets of graffiti vandals, spent about a million dollars # two years ago on removal. The money paid for crews who sandblasted # graffiti or otherwise removed it from bridges and repainted them, # said Paul Novotny, the bridge maintenance manager for the city. # # Now the city uses about 20 of the modified cameras in eight # locations to deter vandals. The cameras cost $3,000 each and # are frequently moved from location to location, to keep "taggers," # as the vandals are called, guessing. # # "Every place we put them in at least pushes the kids away from # the area that the camera is focused on,'' Mr. Novotny said. "They # don't go under that bridge anymore." The film can be changed # as needed - the system comes with a kind of remote control for # determining, from the ground, how many exposures remain. But # even if all the exposures are used up, the system will keep firing # the camera and flash and activating the audio player as a # deterrent. # # The California Water Service Company's Westlake District recently # installed a camera at a reservoir in Ventura County that is a # favorite gathering place for teenagers, who would hang out at # night with blankets, pizzas and beer on top of the concrete # holding tank and paint to their hearts' content. No more. # # "Since the camera has gone in, we haven't had a problem,'' said # Elaine Marchessault, district manager at the water company. "Not # one bottle, not one can, not one piece of trash and no graffiti." # # So far, no one has been caught with spray can in hand, arrested # and convicted. And no one has complained about being spied upon. # Graffiti vandals, though, are finding ways to protest. Last month, # in Lynwood, Calif., a city of 60,000 people and 26 anti-graffiti # cameras, a tagger climbed to the top of a pole where a camera # was mounted and spray-painted it, said Rudolph Brown, of the # public works department in Lynwood. The camera did not catch # the act: its batteries were dead. 2. In Era of Cameras, Keep an Eye on Civil Liberties By Marc Fisher Thursday, December 12, 2002 Step into almost any office building and the guard at the front desk can watch you on his security cam. Enter a store -- pretty much any store these days -- and you know you're being recorded, ostensibly to protect against the Winona Ryders of the world. I don't especially like being watched, but that doesn't stop me and most rational people from going about our daily rounds. When I flip on the radio in the car and tune in to traffic and weather together, I know that most of the information I'm hearing comes straight off the cameras that monitor almost every major road in the area. Those would be the good surveillance cams. Now explain this: Why is it that the same people who love traffic cameras and click onto online voyeur cams when the boss isn't looking start fulminating when police mount cameras on buildings in an effort to curb crime? The D.C. Council is scheduled to hold a hearing today on how to use the city's 16 street surveillance cameras -- tiny devices attached to roofs and lampposts so police can survey sidewalks for bad guys. The way some folks are talking, it sounds as if we're in a civil liberties crisis. At first glance, the outrage seems misdirected. Our expectation of privacy in public spaces is already limited -- walk outside and you're fair game for news cameras, marketing intrusions, police comparing you to wanted posters. It's in privately owned spaces -- offices, shops, places of entertainment -- that we still harbor some (totally unrealistic) expectation of privacy. Fact is, business is far beyond the police in spying on us. From gas stations to restaurants, lobbies to cubicles, cameras monitor our behavior -- with almost no check on how those images might be abused. Hardly anyone squawks about that. Yet the moment government gets into that game, we're creeped out. I know I was when a proud D.C. public schools security official showed me the snazzy system that lets him peek into the hallways of city schools. Cedric Laurant -- a lawyer at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a District advocacy group seeking to restrict police use of street cams -- was so disturbed that he created observingsurveillance.org, where he's posted chilling photographs of the demure little cameras that masquerade as street lamps downtown. Laurant worries that images captured by "Tiny Brother" cameras might be stolen by hackers, or that the state might use cameras to quash dissent -- just as Soviet bloc countries used street cameras not so long ago. But Laurant knows that in a free society, anyone can put a camera almost anywhere. In a society that slobbers over "Girls Gone Wild" on TV, it sounds a tad precious to worry about police using street cams against bad guys. There is a difference, however: In our society, people are free to do anything that's not illegal, but the government may do nothing but what it is specifically charged to do. It all comes down to how street cams are used. "We oppose general surveillance, but we can see supporting good regulations that protect privacy while allowing law enforcement to fulfill its mission," Laurant says. Reasonable enough. For 30 years, police have swooned over the notion that putting cameras on the street might deter crime. But in Britain, where more than a million cameras have been installed in public spaces, studies show that while open-air drug markets, prostitution and the like can be discouraged, they're not erased -- just relocated. Knowing that cameras are watching everywhere puts a damper on public life: Would you join a demonstration, make out with your lover, act like a fool if you knew you were on somebody's screen? Maybe you would. Those Hollywood producers who make voyeur TV shows believe we'll do anything in public. But there is a difference when the state is watching, because the state can hold our behavior against us. Cameras aren't good or bad. They're put to smart or dumb uses: Casting a wide eye over our streets is a police state tactic -- ineffective in nabbing crooks but chilling to ordinary pedestrians. The council should narrow the net and use cameras to catch specific targets -- red-light runners, ATM robbers, drug dealers. Even if the whole world is watching, freedom is being alone in a crowd. 3. D.C. Police Seek Latitude in Camera Use Ramsey, Deputy Mayor Ask Council for Bill Permitting Neighborhood Surveillance By David A. Fahrenthold Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, December 13, 2002; Page B02 D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey and Deputy Mayor Margret Nedelkoff Kellems urged members of the D.C. Council yesterday to give authorities greater leeway in a bill regulating the use of closed-circuit surveillance cameras. Ramsey and Kellems asked council members to expand the police department's ability to place cameras in residential neighborhoods to look for signs of drug dealing or other crime. A bill now under consideration would permit the creation of a one-year pilot program that would put cameras in two unspecified neighborhoods. But Ramsey and Kellems said they want permission to use cameras in several neighborhoods during the year. They made the requests in testimony at a hearing of the council's Judiciary Committee. Although several council members said last month that they wanted to kill the video surveillance initiative outright, the Judiciary Committee is still weighing a bill to keep the cameras but create restrictions on their use. The two also asked that the council remove a provision that would require police to get a court order to zoom in on individuals with the cameras -- 14 of which are located around Dupont Circle and downtown. Ramsey maintained that officers doing surveillance frequently use binoculars and that zooming in with a camera was no different. Ramsey and Dan Tangherlini, director of the D.C. Department of Transportation, provided indications of how surveillance in the city could grow: Tangherlini talked about a plan to put 100 new cameras at key intersections within a year, and Ramsey said his department still has 25 cameras in reserve, waiting for a ruling from the council about how and where they could be used. Kellems, however, said that officials did not intend to set up a system similar to London's, where thousands of cameras are positioned throughout the city. She said that Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) "has no intention of putting cameras out when, number one, they infringe on people's privacy and, number two, are ineffective and inefficient." D.C. police began using surveillance cameras to follow large events in 2001 and had a network of permanent cameras set up by the fall of that year. Although the cameras were installed without notice to the council, they had not generated much controversy until last month, when several members voiced concerns about privacy and other issues. D.C. police said the cameras -- which provide live feeds to the Joint Operations Command Center at police headquarters -- are turned on only during major public events, such as demonstrations, or during civic emergencies. The American Civil Liberties Union urged the council to consider its own "Anti-Surveillance Act" yesterday, a bill that would prohibit many kinds of video surveillance, including that of "groups engaged in expressive public events," such as demonstrations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48168-2002Dec12.html 4. December 12, 2002 Agencies see homeland security role for surveillance drones By Richard H.P. Sia, CongressDaily An increasing number of federal agencies are pursuing plans to use pilotless surveillance aircraft to help patrol the Mexican and Canadian borders, protect the nations major oil and gas pipelines and aid in other homeland security missions. Incoming Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., said in an interview Tuesday that he will ask President Bush to explore the possible deployment of such aircraft, known as unmanned aerial vehicles or drones, by civilian agencies responsible for homeland security. The drones would be similar to those used in high-profile missions by the CIA and U.S. military to target suspected Taliban and al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. But unlike many of the UAVs deployed overseas, such as the one that fired a missile at a carload of suspected terrorists in Yemen last month, the drones flown for homeland security operations would not be armed with weapons, only cameras or sensors, several federal officials said. I think it would be very important that the president initiate a study on the future use of UAVs by elements of the federal government other than the military, Warner said. Warner said he believes UAVs could be an effective means of watching the home front in the war on terror. But he acknowledged that theyre quite intrusive. Warner said concerns about individual privacy, such as those raised when the Pentagon offered to do aerial surveillance during the recent hunt for the Washington-area snipers, are an open issue and should be addressed by the [presidents] study. Among the agencies now committed to deploying UAVs are the Coast Guard and Border Patrol, both of which are moving to the Homeland Security Department. Other non-Defense Department agencies, such as the Transportation Department, are in the early stages of exploring possible security roles for drones. Meanwhile, the Energy Department, which set up a UAV program in 1993 to study clouds and climate change, has been developing high-altitude instruments to measure radiation in the atmosphere. Despite an industry rumor that the FBI is looking into UAVs at its Quantico, Va. facilities, an agency spokesman said there is no such activity. Drones, which are controlled remotely on the ground, can hover over an area for hours, sometimes days, to provide accurate and timely information. In the war on terror, the military and CIA have used UAVs for reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting, bomb damage assessment and telecommunication relays over hostile areas, without risking the lives of aircrews. San Diego-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. has supplied the Predator, which can operate up to 25,000 feet, compared to the 40,000-foot ceiling of commercial airplanes. Northrop Grumman Corp. of Los Angeles has produced the still-experimental Global Hawk, which can fly up to 66,000 feet and rival the venerable U-2 spy plane in reconnaissance capabilities. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, interest in UAVs among federal agencies has swelled, industry sources said. Theres been a lot more activity over the last couple of months, said one manufacturing executive who asked not to be named. Its been really intense. Were doing things now that we wouldnt have been doing a year ago. These [UAVs] are hot, said Daryl Davidson, executive director of the Association for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems International. Marketers for Boeing, Northrop Grumman and other top U.S. defense firms have been busy talking to agencies about civilian applications of UAV technology, he said. Indeed, Boeing, which received a defense contract earlier this year to develop a fuel-cell propulsion system for UAVs, hopes to sell to civilian agencies high-endurance drones that can fly for weeks instead of days, said Chick Ramey, a company spokesman. Lockheed Martin has been shopping around its small Sentry Owl, which the Air Force has used to provide surveillance at air bases, as a tool for property monitoring and pipeline security. At the Transportation Department, Ellen Engleman, administrator for Research and Special Programs, said she will host a conference on UAVs and transportation security early next year. Her agency began working with NASA nearly four years ago to develop high-altitude sensors, at first to monitor traffic flow and help highway planners but also now to follow trucks carrying hazardous cargo and watch for irregular activity at major pipelines, according to her spokesman, James Mitchell. UAVs could be very valuable to enhancing security, as long as you can get a real or near-real time look at the pipes with some sensors that can detect irregular activity, Mitchell said. At Englemans direction last April, the agency solicited research proposals for using UAVs to monitor pipelines but so far has failed to find an acceptable submission, he said. Last month, the Coast Guards prime contractor for its $17 billion Deepwater modernization program began formal contract talks with Bell Helicopter Textron to buy the first eight Eagle Eye UAVs, part of a fleet of 69 high-speed drones that would take off vertically from the decks of the services planned new National Security Cutters. Beginning in 2006, these drones would be used to locate drug runners, illegal migrants or boaters in distress, a Coast Guard spokesman said. Plans also call for the deployment by 2016 of seven Global Hawks for high-altitude maritime surveillance missions. In August, the Border Patrol, aided by three Pioneer UAVs operated by the U.S. Marines, nabbed about 100 pounds of high-grade marijuana and several people who were trying to smuggle it across the Canadian border into Idaho. Mario Villareal, a Border Patrol spokesman, said an interagency surveillance operation was launched in July after the Forest Service detected illegal entries along the Idaho border. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., who observed the Border Patrol operation, asserted recently that the smugglers had been sending their drug proceeds back to Muslim groups in Canada, and the money is used to finance terrorist activities all over the world. Since 1999, the Border Patrol and military services occasionally have teamed up for UAV surveillance demonstrations along the Mexican border near Laredo, Texas, according to industry officials. Villareal said his agency had no plans to buy its own surveillance drones, explaining that working with trained military UAV operators along both the southern and northern borders has proven to be effective. Asked if his agency expected to make greater use of UAVs, he replied: I wouldnt rule it out. Tancredo is delighted that military UAVs are supporting the Border Patrols security mission. An outspoken advocate of using military muscle along the border, Tancredo declared, We have the technology to aid in this. I saw it with my own eyes. It can work. A spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services research and development subcommittee, offered more conditional support, emphasizing that the technology must work and civilian agencies seeking to buy UAVs must use their own money, not the militarys. Besides money, regulatory and reliability hurdles must be overcome before UAVs can fly homeland security missions, market analysts said. The industry has been talking with the Federal Aviation Administration about simplifying the process for authorizing UAV flights in U.S. civilian airspace, but its going to take a while to get there, said Davidson, the trade group executive. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1202/121202sia.htm X-From_: info@notbored.org Thu Dec 19 21:04:20 2002 X-Sender: notbored@popserver.panix.com (Unverified) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 21:01:21 -0500 To: me<info@notbored.org>From: SCP-New York<info@notbored.org>Subject: clipping service Status: RO X-Status: 1. wireless police cameras (Columbia, South Carolina) 2. space weaponry (Israel) 3. wireless cameras (Canada) 4. shipping routes (Finland) 1. wireless police cameras (Columbia, South Carolina) Thu, Dec. 19, 2002 The Columbia Police Department has installed and begun using a new camera surveillance system around the city. Using a federal law-enforcement block grant, the department purchased and installed 16 cameras in different neighborhoods. The system cost $125,000. It costs about $3,500 annually from the city budget to operate. Police Chief Charlie Austin said the cameras are linked to computers inside patrol cars. Officers can activate the cameras and remotely view what is happening. By doing this, officers can see if there are problems in an area without scaring the criminals off with the arrival of a patrol car, Austin said. The cameras can be moved. http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/4771819.htm 2. space weaponry (Israel) Israel Activates New System to Detect Incoming Missiles Julie Stahl Jerusalem Bureau Chief Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - With an eye on a probable U.S. offensive against Iraq, Israel has activated a special observation system that can track and photograph incoming ballistic missiles and determine exactly where they will land within seconds, Israel announced on Thursday. The system, which was developed in Israel, combines three observations stations in one at a specific site, such as Tel Aviv. Each station has a camera, which is designed to photograph an incoming missile, calculate exactly where it will land, and transmit the picture and information to authorities. Operated by the Home Front Command, the new system will give the HFC and emergency services a head start on arriving at the scene where a missile has fallen to offer emergency assistance and to determine if there is a chemical or biological agent present. It will also enable Israeli authorities to release the general population as quickly as possible from shelters once the threat of the incoming missile is past.Israel was hit by at least 39 Iraqi Scud missiles in retaliation for the allied attack on Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War. Israelis spend many hours in shelters or sealed rooms in their homes, with gas masks on their faces waiting for the all-clear from authorities. Then, as now, there were fears that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would equip the missiles with non-conventional warheads.U.S. Intelligence officials in the Pentagon told reporters on Wednesday that they believe Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein could use chemical and biological weapons against U.S. soldiers, Israel, Kuwait and sectors of Saddam's own population if he is backed into a corner.As a result of the Gulf War, Israel established the HFC to deal with problems discovered at that time. The new observation system was among the measures developed during the last decade.Gen. Yosef Mishlev, commander of the Home Front Command, said the system would be in addition to surveillance systems already in place in Israel. "The new system is an additional upgrade to the preparations of the Home Front Command according to the threats that stand before us," Mishlev said in a statement from the army. "It is combined with several means that we already have in our possession to detect and identify," he added.The system, which was activated on Wednesday evening, was revealed to the public after several successful tests on Thursday. According to a report on the daily Ha'aretz website, the system is named "Roman Temple," and it involves the use of a series of high-powered, high-altitude cameras. http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1177291.html 3. wireless cameras (Canada) Smile, you're live on screen with digital video security Clearer pictures, remote-site access among benefits for companies, law enforcement ZACK MEDICOFF Thursday, December 19, 2002 [...] The wireless push is a big advantage for companies such as Vancouver-based Scion Communications,which just released its Scion Falcon wireless security software. Sandy Fleischer, vice-president of operations, says the technology, which ranges in price from $50,000 to $100,000, has several functions to aid guards. Compatible with wireless devices that support the Pocket PC 2002 operating system, it enables guards to log real-time incident reports and e-mail them to managers, as well as to stream video to handhelds at up to 10 to 15 frames a second. Scion Falcon also includes an instant messenger component, so guards can relay audio and video messages about suspicious people inside or outside the premises. "They could take a picture of the person in question through a camera on the handheld and ask to see their photo identification card, which has a unique ID number. They could then cross-reference the image with the employee database to compare and see if they're an employee or imposter," Mr. Fleischer says. The wireless environment also could be of increasing use to police. "As police cars become more outfitted with computer technology, screens and printers, you are able to e-mail the data to them," Mr. Katsof says. Police in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver have yet to add Net connections to their vehicles, but the Vancouver force can transmit images to cruisers, and Montreal is expected to add dash-mounted laptops in the next year. Ironically, the transition to wireless comes with its own share of security risks. Some critics say it opens a big flank on the security front by giving criminals an opportunity to tap into the airwaves. Broadcasts using the common 802.11B transmission protocol are vulnerable, says on-line security expert Steve Gibson, president of Gibson Research Corp. in Laguna Hills, Calif. The Hollywood movie scenario of placing a benign Polaroid image in the camera's line of sight may seem like an amusing fiction. But in the digital arena, a skilled hacker could easily perform that type of trick, Mr. Gibson says. It would be possible to "leave a briefcase [near the cameras] with a PC inside it so it can suck in traffic for analysis later," he says. "Or it could suck it in and rebroadcast it on a different channel." Potentially, a hacker could leave a device near or inside a building and tap into the network to see through the camera's eyes. The hacker can then transmit a bogus image to the guards' PC or handhelds to make it appear as though nobody's breaking in, he says. "You wouldn't need to have a physical presence in the area. You could be on a different floor sniffing the traffic and having as much time as you need to break the network's encryption." 4. Shipping (Finland) Monday 16.12.2002 "Helsingin Sanomat" New security measures against terrorism for ships by 2004 Camera surveillance and security checks ofpassengers, cars and luggage will be increased on ships and in ports from July 2004. By then all ships and ports handling international traffic will have to show readiness for added security measures to prevent possible terrorist attacks on maritime traffic. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) accepted early Friday morning the amendment to the international general agreement of securing lives at sea. The amendment was signed by 108 countries in all. The antiterrorism measures apply to all ports where there is international traffic. In Finland there were 54 such ports last year. Both in passenger and cargo ports there will henceforth need to be the means to tighten security for instance by increasing camera surveillance, adding more perimeter fences, and improving lighting. Furthermore, at least in passenger ports the possibility for security checks of people and vehicles has to be provided. Ships alike will have added security measures: passengers and crucial points for cargo transport will be monitored either by cameras or by staff. Airport-type security checks, however, will not be introduced at this point, although all ports will have to have readiness to bring in counter-measures against terrorism when the need arises. For instance in ferry traffic between Finland and Sweden or Finland and Estonia, the possibility for luggage inspection has to be provided. According to the Chief of Maritime Security Jukka Hkmies of the Finnish Maritime Administration, the Finns have to learn a new attitude of being cautious. "This entails security systems on ships, and that someone is always on watch and a state of readiness exists. On ships there will be security cameras, surveillance, and locked doors." For ports, the IMO agreement lists three levels of readiness according to which the security controls are carried out: normal, alertness, and emergency. In emergency situations virtually everybody will be checked, which of course may affect the timetables as well. http://www.helsinki-hs.net/news.asp?id=20021216IE7 X-From_: info@notbored.org Mon Dec 23 15:04:52 2002 X-Sender: notbored@popserver.panix.com Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:17:32 -0500 To: me<info@notbored.org>From: SCP-New York<info@notbored.org>Subject: clipping service 1. Letter to the editor, "The Guardian" (England) 2. University of Pensylvania (USA) 3. Washington DC (again) 4. US military wargames (USA) 5. Total Information Awareness (USA) 1. From the Guardian weekend magazine, Nov 2002: CCTV The definition of tacit is understood or implied without being stated'. So when a CCTV engineer mentions casually that there's been a tacit acceptance of closed-circuit security television in England since its inception, it sounds as if a secret nod were given to the people who run the pan, tilt and zoom, 360 degree-angle devices. Or perhaps it's that the sheer number of them makes it impossible for us to care about each oneif we do notice the camera on the side of Sainsbury's, we'll have missed four others tracking us down the street. The ominous phrase used is, 'We're not watching you if you're not doing anything wrong.' A touch Orwellian, but the truth is, no CCTV operator can sit through the 12,000 tapes on the go at any one time in a typical CCTV centre. Tapes go through 12 rounds of recording, electronic degaussing and re-recording before they're retired. Terry Jepson, a retired police officer who runs the Kirklees CCTV centre, hasn't received a single complaint, and is convinced the 32 cameras under his control are a force for good ('We don't look in your windows'). He's also adamantthat they don't simply make criminals move on to other areas: "The positive effect diffuses out' When cameras are trained on the high street, operators use 'an innate sixth sense' to question the motives of the young Artful Dodgers who hang around the shops.'You have to ask, "Why is that lad hanging around like that in the car park?'" says Jepson. "'Why is that lad standing on the street corner?'" Regards, Francis Beaumont<mailto:fb@road-test.co.uk>fb@road-test.co.uk Website:<http: /www.road-test.co.uk>http://www.road-test.co.uk 2. HUB cameras hope to deter vandalism Allison Czapp Penn Editor in Chief October 01, 2002 The HUB will be under surveillance by the end of this week, according to Co-op director Dennis Hulings. Security cameras were installed throughout the HUB, The Co-op Store and outside of the HUB in an effort to promote a safe environment, Hulings said. Cameras will be monitored by several directors in the HUB from a "secure place" in the building, but monitoring can also be done over the Co-op network. The Co-op Store has is own monitoring system inside the store. These security measures cost about $81,000, Hulings said, which was figured into the original plans of HUB expansion. "It seems like a lot of money, but ... I think it will end up being a good investment," he said. The "good investment" is in preventing vandalism and other crimes to the HUB. Hulings said when the new HUB first opened in January, two windows were broken. During spring break more windows were broken and "potato gunned." Other incidences include torn-down fences and smashed cigarette urns. "Plus," Hulings said, "there have also been some thefts that if we had cameras in place we'd be able to help out." During the summer, a student was robbed outside of the HUB at the MAC machine. Hulings said the banks' exterior camera, however, was re-directed before the robbery took place so nothing was recorded. "Hopefully if that were to happen again we would have other cameras in position that would have assisted," Hulings said. Some cameras are already in operation, but Hulings said he didn't know the exact number of cameras installed. The cameras were installed in places like the computer lab, the lobby to the student offices, The Penn office, commuter lounge, fitness center and others. Notices will be placed around the HUB to alert people they are under surveillance. Security was first used in the HUB during the mid-'90s when students attending late-night events had to pass through metal detectors to enter the HUB. "The whole idea and the whole intent here is one of safety," Hulings said. "We want [people] to feel comfortable when they come here." 3. Minister 'outraged' by surveillance December 21, 2002 By Brian DeBose THE WASHINGTON TIMES The leader of a national pro-life group said he will seek an injunction to stop the Metropolitan Police Department from using its surveillance cameras to monitor next month's annual right-to-life march on Washington. The Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the D.C. -based Christian Defense Coalition, said he was stunned to find out that police plans to monitor the pro-life march and any other peaceful demonstration on the Mall. "I am absolutely outraged about these cameras," said Mr. Mahoney, a Presbyterian minister. "It is a crushing blow to the First Amendment and free speech activities." The Washington Times reported yesterday that D.C. police will activate surveillance cameras next month for the first time since city officials passed new legislation on their use. Police officials said they would operate their network of 14 cameras and install more to monitor the International Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) rally Jan. 17 to 19 and the D.C. March for Life on Jan. 22. Mr. Mahoney, who heads a group of more than 10,000 members, has been involved in pro-life rallies in the District for 28 years and in the March for Life for 13 years. "There has never been any type of disruption or violence or criminal activity at any of the marches," he said. He has contacted his attorneys at the American Center for Law and Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union to determine if the surveillance can be halted. Art Spitzer, a lawyer with the ACLU, said the organization will not seek an injunction against the police surveillance of the two events next month. "But we are devoting a great deal of our resources to convince members of the [D.C.] council to oppose that bill," he said. Police spokesman Kevin Morison said the department will install and activate additional cameras on a temporary basis at Farragut Square, Dupont Circle, Malcolm X Park in Northwest and the Marine Barracks in Southeast to maximize their ability to monitor the demonstrations in the interest of security. Mr. Morison added that there is no history of violence or any other security problems associated with ANSWER or the pro-life march. But since September 11, police officials believe the need for heightened security has changed as terrorism has become more of a threat. Other participants in the March for Life such as Priests for Life and Lutherans for Life said they don't believe surveillance is necessary but do not oppose it because they have nothing to hide. Mr. Mahoney dismissed that argument. "We're talking about moms and dads traveling to the city to speak out against a particular issue," he said. He said he agreed with D.C. Council member Jim Graham, Ward 1 Democrat, that the cameras will have a negative effect on peaceful demonstrations and free-speech activities. "It's not an issue of 'We're not doing anything wrong, so we don't care,'" Mr. Mahoney said. "Every citizen should stand up and speak out against this because it violates the spirit of the First Amendment." http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20021221-91603038.htm 4. 'Town' will give soldiers urban warfare training Michael Gilbert; The News Tribune Construction is set to begin on a new urban combat training center at Fort Lewis that will be the largest in the Army. Leschi Town - named to honor the legendary Nisqually chief - is the first effort in a six-year, $400 million building boom to improve urban combat training across the Army, officials said. Leschi Town and 14 similar villages on Army drawing boards reflect the strategic fact of life that U.S. forces can no longer avoid fighting in cities. "It used to be our doctrine that we would avoid urban combat, we would bypass the city," said Maj. Jim Lechner, a battalion executive officer in the 1st Stryker Brigade at Fort Lewis. Cities minimize U.S. advantages in firepower, communications and surveillance. Fighting is at close quarters, with a greater likelihood of civilian casualties and heavy losses of American troops. "Now the enemy realizes that that's the best place for them," Lechner said. "The reality is we're going to have to fight in cities." [...] In the 1980s and early '90s the Army's urban training facilities were small collections of cinder-block or plywood buildings made to look like a Central European town square, Macia said. The '90s brought the Joint Readiness and Training Center at Fort Polk, La., with larger knots of buildings and cameras to record and play back the action. The new center at Fort Lewis - budgeted at about $35 million for construction and equipment - represents the next generation, Macia said. [...] Leschi Town will be wired with five miles of fiber optic cable and covered with cameras on telephone poles. There will also be camera mounts throughout the village so trainers can tailor the view to the exercises. The cameras are the key. "A guy who goes to a doorway and gets shot in the chest by a paintball round, there are things he's going to learn from that," said Lechner, who was shot in the leg in Mogadishu. The cameras and playback will allow a soldier to see what the guys on the other side of the doorway were doing before they shot him. "To be able to watch those films, watch that feedback, is incredibly helpful," Lechner said. "Leschi Town is going to be a great asset for learning those kinds of lessons." http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/2366601p-2420615c.html 5. December 23, 2002 Many Tools of Big Brother Are Up and Running By JOHN MARKOFF and JOHN SCHWARTZ In the Pentagon research effort to detect terrorism by electronically monitoring the civilian population, the most remarkable detail may be this: Most of the pieces of the system are already in place. Because of the inroads the Internet and other digital network technologies have made into everyday life over the last decade, it is increasingly possible to amass Big Brother-like surveillance powers through Little Brother means. The basic components include everyday digital technologies like e-mail, online shopping and travel booking, A.T.M. systems, cellphone networks, electronic toll-collection systems and credit-card payment terminals. In essence, the Pentagon's main job would be to spin strands of software technology that would weave these sources of data into a vast electronic dragnet. Technologists say the types of computerized data sifting and pattern matching that might flag suspicious activities to government agencies and coordinate their surveillance are not much different from programs already in use by private companies. Such programs spot unusual credit card activity, for example, or let people at multiple locations collaborate on a project. The civilian population, in other words, has willingly embraced the technical prerequisites for a national surveillance system that Pentagon planners are calling Total Information Awareness. The development has a certain historical resonance because it was the Pentagon's research agency that in the 1960's financed the technology that led directly to the modern Internet. Now the same agency the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or Darpa is relying on commercial technology that has evolved from the network it pioneered. The first generation of the Internet called the Arpanet consisted of electronic mail and file transfer software that connected people to people. The second generation connected people to databases and other information via the World Wide Web. Now a new generation of software connects computers directly to computers. And that is the key to the Total Information Awareness project, which is overseen by John M. Poindexter, the former national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. Dr. Poindexter was convicted in 1990 of a felony for his role in the Iran-contra affair, but that conviction was overturned by a federal appeals court because he had been granted immunity for his testimony before Congress about the case. Although Dr. Poindexter's system has come under widespread criticism from Congress and civil liberties groups, a prototype is already in place and has been used in tests by military intelligence organizations. Total Information Awareness could link for the first time such different electronic sources as video feeds from airport surveillance cameras, credit card transactions, airline reservations and telephone calling records. The data would be filtered through software that would constantly look for suspicious patterns of behavior. The idea is for law enforcement or intelligence agencies to be alerted immediately to patterns in otherwise unremarkable sets of data that might indicate threats, allowing rapid reviews by human analysts. For example, a cluster of foreign visitors who all took flying lessons in separate parts of the country might not attract attention. Nor would it necessarily raise red flags if all those people reserved airline tickets for the same day. But a system that could detect both sets of actions might raise suspicions. Some computer scientists wonder whether the system can work. "This wouldn't have been possible without the modern Internet, and even now it's a daunting task," said Dorothy Denning, a professor in the Department of Defense Analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. Part of the challenge, she said, is knowing what to look for. "Do we really know enough about the precursors to terrorist activity?" she said. "I don't think we're there yet." The early version of the Total Information Awareness system employs a commercial software collaboration program called Groove. It was developed in 2000 by Ray Ozzie, a well-known software designer who is the inventor of Lotus Notes. Groove makes it possible for analysts at many different government agencies to share intelligence data instantly, and it links specialized programs that are designed to look for patterns of suspicious behavior. Total Information Awareness also takes advantage of a simple and fundamental software technology called Extended Markup Language, or XML, that is at the heart of the third generation of Internet software. It was created by software designers at companies like Microsoft, Sun Microsystems and I.B.M., as well as independent Silicon Valley programmers. The markup language allows data that has long been locked in isolated databases, known in the industry as silos, to be translated into a kind of universal language that can be read and used by many different systems. Information made compatible in this way can be shared among thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of computers in ways that all of them can understand. It is XML, a refinement of the Internet's original World Wide Web scheme, that has made it possible to consider welding thousands of databases together without centralizing the information. Computer scientists said that without such new third-generation Web technologies, it would have never been possible to conceive of the Total Information Awareness system, which is intended to ferret out the suspicious intentions of a handful of potential terrorists from the humdrum everyday electronic comings and goings of millions of average Americans. Civil libertarians have questioned whether the government has the legal or constitutional grounds to conduct such electronic searches. And other critics have called it an outlandishly futuristic and ultimately unworkable scheme on technical grounds. But on the latter point, technologists disagree. "It's well grounded in the best current theory about scalable systems," said Ramano Rao, chief technology officer at Inxight, a Sunnyvale, Calif., company that develops text-searching software. "It uses all the right buzzwords." People close to the Pentagon's research program said Dr. Poindexter was acutely aware of the power and the invasiveness of his experimental surveillance system. In private conversations this summer, according to several Department of Defense contractors, he raised the possibility that the control of the Total Information Awareness system should be placed under the jurisdiction of an independent, nongovernmental organization like the Red Cross because of the potential for abuse. Dr. Poindexter declined to be interviewed for this article. A Darpa spokeswoman, Jan Walker, wrote in an e-mail reply to questions that "we don't recall ever talking about" having a nongovernmental organization operate the Total Information Awareness program and that "we've not held any discussions with" such an organization. The idea of using an independent organization to control a technology that has a high potential for abuse has been raised by previous administrations. An abortive plan to create a backdoor surveillance capability in encrypted communications, known as Clipper, was introduced by the Clinton administration in 1993. It called for keys to the code to be held by an organization independent of the F.B.I. and other law enforcement agencies. Speaking of Dr. Poindexter, John Arquilla, an expert at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey on unconventional warfare, said, "The admiral is very concerned about the tension between security and civil liberties." He added that because of the changing nature of warfare and the threat of terrorism, the United States would be forced to make trade-offs between individuals' privacy and national security. "In an age of terror wars, we have to learn the middle path to craft the security we need without incurring too great a cost on our civil liberties," he said. Computer scientists who work with Darpa said that Dr. Poindexter was an enthusiastic backer of a Darpa-sponsored advisory group that had been initiated by a Microsoft researcher, Eric Horvitz, in October 2001 in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The group, which was composed of 41 computer scientists, policy experts and government officials, met three times to explore whether it was possible to employ sophisticated data-mining technologies against potential terrorist attacks while protecting individuals' privacy. A number of the scientists proposed "black box" surveillance systems that would alert human intelligence analysts about suspicious patterns. Once the alerts were issued in such a system, they suggested, legal processes like those used for wiretapping could be employed. But a number of the scientists and policy experts who attended the meetings were skeptical that technical safeguards would be adequate to ensure that such a system would not be abused. The debate is a healthy one, said Don Upson, who is senior vice president of the government business unit of a software company in Fairfax, Va., webMethods, and the former secretary of technology for Virginia. "I'm glad Darpa is doing this because somebody has to start defining what the rules are going to be" about how and when to use data, he said. "I believe we're headed down the path of setting the parameters of how we're going to use information." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/23/technology/23PEEK.html?ei=5062&en=bda370ae051bc7f7&ex=1041310800&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=top X-From_: info@notbored.org Mon Jan 6 20:36:22 2003 X-Original-To: info@notbored.org X-Sender: notbored@popserver.panix.com (Unverified) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 20:32:42 -0500 To: me<info@notbored.org>From: SCP-New York<info@notbored.org>Subject: clipping service: happy new year Status: RO X-Status: 1. Denver police spying (USA) 2. No face recognition at SuperBowl (USA) 3. High school cameras (USA) 4. Face recognition at airport (Australia) 5. Smart/Scary cameras (USA) 1. http://truthout.org/docs_02/12.22A.denver.spy.htm Going Electronic, Denver Reveals Long-Term Surveillance By Ford Fessenden with Michael Moss New York Times Saturday, 21 December, 2002 DENVER, Dec. 14 -- The Denver police have gathered information on unsuspecting local activists since the 1950's, secretly storing what they learned on simple index cards in a huge cabinet at police headquarters. When the cabinet filled up recently, the police thought they had an easy solution. For $45,000, they bought a powerful computer program from a company called Orion Scientific Systems. Information on 3,400 people and groups was transferred to software that stores, searches and categorizes the data. Then the trouble began. After the police decided to share the fruits of their surveillance with another local department, someone leaked a printout to an activist for social justice, who made the documents public. The mayor started an investigation. People lined up to obtain their files. Among those the police spied on were nuns, advocates for American Indians and church organizations. To make matters worse, the software called many of the groups "criminal extremists." "I wasn't threatened in any way by them watching," said Dr. Byron Plumley, who teaches religion and social values at Regis University in Denver, and discovered that the police had been keeping information about his activities against war. "But there's something different about having a file. If the police say, `Aha, he belongs to a criminal extremist organization,' who's going to know that it's the American Friends Service Committee, and we won the Nobel Peace Prize?" The incident has highlighted some pitfalls of police intelligence software, which has been hailed widely as a major tool in the war against terrorism. One of Orion's newest clients, in fact, is the New York City Police Department, where 200 people in the intelligence division are being trained to use the program, according to city records and Orion officials. The New York police, who paid $744,707 for an updated version known as Investigations III+, would not say just how they planned to use the system. But Eric Zidenberg, an Orion vice president, said, "They have been a sponge, ready to learn as much as they possibly can." Beyond the issues of technology, though, the episode has prompted a debate in Denver over the merits of such intelligence gathering. Many other big cities and the federal government imposed restrictions on police snooping after spying scandals decades ago. In some of those places, including New York, the authorities are now trying to remove the restraints. Denver has been in the unique position of debating post-Sept. 11 privacy and security in the heat of a spying scandal, and not everyone thinks the police should be restricted. "I think it's imperative after 9/11 that the police department and security agencies have an obligation to track suspicious people, in order to keep the citizenry alive," said Councilman Ed Thomas, who argued against restrictions. In a City Council debate, Mr. Thomas waved a list of the dead at the World Trade Center to emphasize his point. The Council nevertheless passed a resolution imposing restrictions on police intelligence. "There is a role for intelligence gathering," said Mayor Wellington E. Webb, who has said he did not know that the police were spying on peaceful citizens in his 11 years in office. "There isn't a role for intelligence gathering on Catholic nuns." The controversy began last March at a gathering place for Denver activists for a variety of causes, the Human Bean coffee shop. Stephen Nash, a local glazier, was attending a meeting of Amnesty International when, he said, the shop owner told him, "There was a salesman here earlier, and he left this for you." The package contained printouts from the Denver Police Department's Orion software about Mr. Nash and his wife, Vicki. The unusual thing was that the file had come from nearby Golden, where police detectives looking into a vandalism incident during a protest had received information from Denver's intelligence files. "We realized the police were actually spreading false information about us to other police departments -- that we were members of a `criminal extremist' organization," Mr. Nash said. He took the documents to the American Civil Liberties Union and sued the Denver police, setting off a series of continuing disclosures about police spying dating back decades. Police officers have admitted in depositions that they made up rules for monitoring organizations, sometimes deciding to create files on people who merely spoke at rallies. Policy guidelines that would have prevented spying on ordinary citizens not suspected of criminal wrongdoing sat in the desk of the captain who was head of the police intelligence bureau, never implemented, according to a deposition by Deputy Chief David Abrams. Among those monitored by the police were Dr. Plumley and his wife, Shirley Whiteside, who ran a soup kitchen in Denver. Marge Taniwaki, who was interned with her parents in a Japanese-American camp in World War II, had a police file, as did her former husband, from whom she had long been divorced. His only connection, she said, was that he owned the car that she drove to a protest. Sister Antonia Anthony, a 74-year-old nun who has taught destitute Indians in this country and Mexico, was monitored for her activities with a nonviolent group advocating for Indians in Chiapas, Mexico. "In a democracy, people have to speak out against evil," said Sister Antonia. But, she added, discovering that the police had kept a file on her put fear in her mind. "I have to admit," she said, "I'm really cautious on the road now. You're already on a list, you're `known' to police." Orion officials say they trained the police to use the program, but some officers say they had no training. Working under the direction of the Denver police intelligence bureau secretary, officers classified organizations like the American Friends Service Committee as "criminal extremist" groups, one of the choices offered in a pull-down menu by the software. Orion says the classification is no longer part of the program. David Pontarelli, a detective in the intelligence bureau, defended the characterization, saying in a deposition, "They have been linked to activities that involved extremist activity, criminal activities." The police said that each officer had used his own judgment in characterizing a group and that it had often been labeled "criminal extremist" because it did not seem to fit any other choices. In addition to their intelligence files, the police entered in the database the names of troubled, but unprosecuted, students in Denver schools, along with the names of those who obtained permits to carry concealed guns, and, inexplicably, people who had received honorariums from the Police Department. Orion got its start two decades ago developing an analysis tool for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, where a new office run by Adm. John Poindexter is developing controversial plans to gather vast amounts of personal information as a means to hunt terrorists. With the Pentagon's approval, Orion says, it began selling a revamped version of its tool to law enforcement agencies in the early 1990's, with little success at first. Then California state officials hired Orion to develop an easy-to-use database for identifying suspected gang members by their tattoos and other telltale signs. Now being used by 14 states, the system, GangNet, remains controversial in California, where youth advocates say the information fed into the database by law enforcement officials is riddled with wrong or outdated information that can lead officials to falsely believe someone belongs to a gang. Orion's Investigations, now being used by 20 local law enforcement agencies, lets officials enter information about people, groups and incidents. The data can then be searched and linked, with charts that draw lines to illustrate interconnections. The company's sales model on its Web site has a gripping new pitch: terrorism. The demo charts some of the known whereabouts of Mohamed Atta and other Sept. 11 hijackers, as well as several onetime terrorist suspects. In Denver, a panel appointed by the mayor concluded that the police had failed to understand both the power and the pitfalls of the software. "I don't think they had a clue what the capacity of this was and what they were doing with it, honestly," said Jean Dubofsky, a former Colorado Supreme Court justice and member of the panel, which concluded that not one of the 3,400 police records could be legitimately retained. Justice Dubofsky's panel recommended some strict guidelines for intelligence gathering, similar to those that the New York police have told a federal court they want removed. The guidelines have been adopted, but otherwise, the panel could find no real harm done, even in the misuse of the software program. "This is the kind of program that could have been very helpful before Sept. 11," said Justice Dubofsky. "It's also a very powerful tool that can cause problems for people. If you're going to use it, you use it very carefully." 2. Biometrics Benched for Super Bowl http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,56878,00.html By Randy Dotinga | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 1 02:00 AM Dec. 31, 2002 PT When the Super Bowl comes to San Diego next month, hundreds of eyes will scan the stands looking for criminals and terrorists. But none of those eyes will belong to computers. Facial-scan technology, which made a flashy and controversial debut at the 2001 Super Bowl in Tampa Bay, Florida, is essentially out of the business of working the crowds. "We're stepping back from surveillance and concentrating more on controlling access," said Cristian Ivanescu, chief technology officer of Graphco Technologies. The company is one of several manufacturers of systems that confirm identities by using biometrics -- measurements of parts of the body such as the face, retina and fingerprints or of other physical characteristics such as the voice. It turns out that facial-scan technology works best when it's used to confirm whether people are who they say they are. Picking a crook out of a cast of thousands is a lot harder, and false alarms are more common. That wasn't so obvious two years ago when Graphco teamed up with several other companies to bring facial scans to the Super Bowl. Civil libertarians howled in outrage before the game. Afterward Tampa Bay police reported that the technology pinpointed 19 people with criminal records out of a crowd of 100,000. This year, in preparation for one of the most security-conscious Super Bowls in history, police barely considered the idea of facial scans. Assistant police chief Bill Maheu, head of Super Bowl security for the San Diego Police Department, said he'd heard too many bad reports about such systems' inability to correctly "capture" faces (in other words, match them to those in databases of bad guys). "If you have your settings low enough to capture people, it captures everybody -- way too many people," Maheu said. "If you set it too high, it doesn't capture anyone." Ivanescu said the problem isn't so much sensitivity as getting clear face scans. The technology works well "as long as you can control the lighting, the glare and the position of the camera," he said. In a public place where many things can go wrong with the scanning process, "the technology is more of a deterrent than anything else," Ivanescu said. But the story is different in places where people being scanned stand still for a few seconds. Casinos compare the faces of suspicious gamblers to databases of infamous cheats, government facilities scan faces to make sure imposters don't get into secure areas and cops use facial scans to confirm the identity of misdemeanor suspects, said Cameron Queeno, vice president of marketing for Viisage, a manufacturer of facial-recognition technology. It appears, however, that biometrics technology isn't making a big dent in the fight against terrorism, although it could conceivably screen passengers at airports. Back in San Diego, where the big game looms on Jan. 26, technology won't be entirely absent from Super Bowl security. An estimated 50 video cameras will watch the crowd, and everyone who enters the stadium will go through a metal detector. But the lion's share of the security work will fall to ordinary cops and government agents, said Maheu. "They're not only looking at faces. They're looking at other indicators too -- a guy with a trench coat on a sunny San Diego day, a guy with a backpack. Any kind of indicator that would raise your eyebrows a bit." Just the type of thing that wouldn't get a second glance from a face-scanning computer. 3. Leave cameras out of the classroom http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_1645715,00.html January 2, 2003 Educational choice is the name of the game in charter schools, so if parents at such a school want their kids and their kids' teachers under constant video surveillance, so be it. All we can say is that we hope the idea never spreads to neighborhood schools and regular classrooms, and that any district administrator who considers such a plan is ushered quickly out the door. Those associated with the Denver Arts and Technology Academy, which features a security camera in every classroom, obviously feel differently. Or at least most have come to support the camera policy, whatever reservations a few might have held initially. A 12-year-old quoted in a recent News story, for example, admitted that when she was caught on camera misbehaving, "It sort of felt weird at first, sort of like we were in a jail cell. People watching over us creeped us out." But, she now maintains, "it's actually a great system." Well, people can get used to almost anything, we suppose, including having surveillance cameras trained on them during every waking hour. But the point is not whether such cameras will work as advertised - they will, more or less -but whether we want to create a society in which virtually every moment we spend outside the confines of our homes is being recorded for potential review by someone in authority. That's certainly not the type of world in which we want to live - which is why we supported, for example, a bill in last year's legislature limiting the official use of facial-identification technology. Without such legislation, we felt, the budding technology would accelerate attempts to link private and public surveillance cameras into one grand snooping system. The futile persuit of perfect security is often blamed on the attacks of 9-11, but in fact it long predates them. Remember how the Columbine shootings spurred demands for metal detectors at every school entrance and for mandatory ID badges worn by every student? We said then, and still believe, that schools need to nurture a sense of shared community, not to emulate the atmosphere of a prison camp. For the most part, calmer heads prevailed as the initial hysteria over Columbine subsided. Two years after the tragedy, for example, the governor's Columbine Review Commission said it would "not recommend the universal installation of metal detectors, video surveillance cameras and other security equipment as a means of forestalling school violence generally; for the present, such security devices can serve only to offer transient solutions to specific problems at individual schools." We have no doubt that there are a few schools across the nation where disorder and threats to teachers are so pervasive that a comprehensive surveillance system may seem the only attractive option. Most of those schools already are prisons of sorts, given the pitiful amount of learning going on, and might as well go all the way and install prison-like security devices, too. The vast majority of schools are in no such crisis. Surely they have better things to spend their money on. 4. Passengers secretly filmed in anti-terror trial By Jim O'Rourke January 5 2003 The Sun-Herald Authorities are trialling concealed high-tech, computer-linked video cameras that can film the face of every passenger arriving in Australia at Sydney Airport to help identify terrorists and other undesirable travellers. Customs is also testing a world-first computerised face-recognition system that scans the faces of all passengers as they present their passports. As part of the security trial, cameras have been set up in the arrivals hall to scan for terrorists or criminals. The cameras, which have wide-angle lenses, sweep across the faces of all arriving passengers and send the images to a computer which matches the faces with pictures of wanted people stored in its memory. The computer uses a series of complicated algorithmic equations to help identify people by searching through its data base and instantly analysing a person's unique facial features, including eyes and face shape. If the computer matches the face with that of a known person, the operator of the surveillance system receives a silent alarm and alerts officers that the person should be questioned. The computer is said to be able to identify a passport holder even if they change hairstyle, grow a beard or wear glasses. Customs confirmed it had been holding the so-called face-in-the-crowd identification trials for several months, and that it is evaluating the results. A customs spokesman said the cameras were not yet searching for undesirable passengers, but were being trialled using volunteers from the service who mingle with arriving passengers. The camera scans the crowds, trying to pick out the officers whose images have already been stored in the computer memory. At the same time, customs is trialling the SmartGate face-recognition system, which uses the same computer software as the security-scan camera and is designed to ensure that a passport holder's image matches the person presenting the passport to authorities. During the trial, which involves Qantas aircrew arriving back in Sydney, the passport holder places the document on an electronic scanner. At the same time, a camera scans the person's face and matches it against the photograph in the passport. The computer also examines other security features of the passport, including visa stamps and immigration details. Supplied by German company Cognitec, the system is designed to speed up passenger processing at border checkpoints. Cognitec boasts that passengers will be held up for a maximum of 10 seconds. If an accurate identity match is made, the passenger is automatically allowed through the customs barrier. The company said the facial-recognition technology was the most natural and non-intrusive way to identify a person. The customs spokesman said the service wanted to streamline passenger processing to help cope with expected increases in international passenger numbers in coming years. In 2000-2001, there were about 17.9million passenger movements in and out of Australia. The Customs Minister, Chris Ellison, said that similar security systems which identify hand geometry, fingerprints and the iris are being used successfully at major overseas airports, including Heathrow in London. If the trial is successful, SmartGate is expected to be introduced to Sydney Airport by the end of this year before being rolled out at other capital-city airports. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/04/1041566268528.html 5. Posted on Mon, Jan. 06, 2003 Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary By Dean Takahashi Mercury News From wealthy private homes to military installations, security cameras are going high tech. Prompted in part by new fears after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, camera makers, security specialists, hard-disk makers and chip designers are transforming the art of video surveillance, long known for its grainy, black-and-white images and reams of tape. With the new smart cameras, data is recorded in a digital format on hard disk drives so that reviewing hours of surveillance is much easier. Solar batteries let cameras run without the risk of failing because somebody cut the power. Data can be sent over the Internet -- often through wireless data networks -- directly to a company's hard drive archives. Processing chips inside the cameras make the images much easier to discern, and new software analyzes faces so that the cameras can send alerts to security guards when they spot known criminals or suspicious movements. ``On one level, this is taking analog camera technology and adding digital capabilities with new chips,'' said Bruce Flinchbaugh, a fellow at Texas Instruments in Dallas. ``On another level, it's adding new intelligence to redefine security.'' Geoff Beale, owner of The Alarm Company in Los Gatos, has installed a whole digital setup at the San Jose estate of one client. If someone moves past the light beams that line the home's perimeter, the movement will activate the estate's 15 security cameras, which work even at night and record their data onto hard disks. The motion detector will also trigger the garage door to let out the owner's German shepherds. A camera trained on the road leading to the house can discern a car's license plates and cameras trained on doors can capture faces. The cameras send alarms to the owners with varying degrees of urgency based on the nature of the security threat. ``If they have an incident, I can jump to the spot on the hard disk drive where the video is recorded and deliver the scene to them by e-mail,'' said Beale. Concerned about homeland security, the California Department of Transportation is installing video cameras that will monitor the Bay Area's transportation infrastructure and transmit the data to Caltrans engineers and the California Highway Patrol. Hundreds of cameras will watch over the Golden Gate Bridge and the Bay Bridge. Proxim, which makes wireless networking gear in Sunnyvale, will provide wireless Internet networking technology for the project, saving on huge wiring costs. Nick Imearato, a research fellow at the Hoover Institute, said he expects the federal government to require cameras be placed every 400 feet or so in airports to monitor all aspects of airport security, from cargo areas to boarding areas. Over time, as the technology gets cheaper, he said, ``This will migrate to millions of businesses and even homes.'' Such constant surveillance, even in the name of homeland security, scares civil libertarians, who feel it amounts to an illegal search of everyone who passes within view of a camera. ``Our position is this kind of continuous recording can be very dangerous, especially if coupled with technology to recognize faces,'' said Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a technology watchdog group in San Francisco. ``You have to always ask what is the compelling justification for such surveillance.'' But the surveillance business continues to grow. Last year, the closed-circuit TV camera market generated about $1.5 billion in revenue, according to JP Freeman, a market researcher in Newtown, Conn. While sophisticated cameras that use technologies like Internet connectivity are only about 10 percent of the market today, they are growing at 30 percent a year, or twice the rate of standard security cameras, said Joe Freeman, president the firm. By 2005, the market could top $500 million in the U.S. alone. The market for smart cameras is fragmented. Leaders include big companies like Panasonic, Sony, JVC and General Electric. But the niche is small enough for companies like Rvision of San Jose, supplier of cameras to CalTrans, to compete. At the heart of the smart cameras are video-processing chips from companies like Texas Instruments in Dallas, National Semiconductor in Santa Clara, Pixim in Mountain View, Equator Technologies in Campbell and Smal Camera Technologies in Cambridge, Mass. Equator designs media-processor chips that security companies use inside cameras that monitor entrances to buildings. The camera detects motion and determines whether two people walk through an open door when only one flashes a security badge over a card reader. If it finds a possible violation, like someone walking the wrong way in an airport corridor, it can flag guards with an alarm. Avi Katz, chief executive of Equator, says that security application revenue are generating a substantial portion of the closely held company's revenue, with money coming in from customers like Siemens in Germany, which is installing cameras to monitor smoke, fires and accidents in car tunnels. John O'Donnell, chief technology officer of Equator, notes that cameras need good processing intelligence because cameras need to distinguish between truck exhaust and car fires before they send an alarm to those monitoring cameras. Cameras come with image-processing chips like Equator's as well as sensor chips, which capture the image in digital form. Pixim makes an image sensor that has the benefit of wide dynamic range, or the ability to capture an image whether there are bright or dark spots in the picture. ``Bad guys like to hide in the shadows,'' said Rob Siegel, executive vice president of marketing at Pixim. ``Dynamic range brings out the images in the shadows or those that are obscured by glare of the sun.'' Pixim has deals with a number of camera makers and has a sample networked camera in its lobby. There, employees can log on to a Web site and view the images from the lobby camera so they can see who is visiting them. Capturing good images is one step in improving security. But another is recognizing known criminals based on surveillance photos. A variety of companies like Identix in Minnetonka, Minn., are creating software that can recognize faces and compare them to pictures in law enforcement databases. Ultimately, the problem with smart cameras is the same problem with normal cameras: human beings. Flinchbaugh at Texas Instruments visited Northampton, England, a town that installed cameras all over town to catch known criminals. ``They found that the guards watching the videos didn't do so well at spotting people because they just became hypnotized by watching so long,'' Flinchbaugh said. http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/business/4883623.htm X-From_: info@notbored.org Sat Jan 11 16:51:32 2003 X-Original-To: info@notbored.org X-Sender: notbored@popserver.panix.com (Unverified) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 16:03:21 -0500 To: me<info@notbored.org>From: SCP-New York<info@notbored.org>Subject: clipping service 1. Review of episode of "Nova" on UAVs (USA) 2. US Army's "Smart Truck" (USA) 3. Private investigators/workplace surveillance (Canada) 4. The Stasi (Germany) 5. Unions/workplace surveillance (England) 1. Review of "Nova" on UAVs The New Jersey Star-Ledger Remote warfare Tuesday, January 07, 2003 IMAGINE a tiny flying robot the size of a bumblebee that could be used by police or military intelligence to take pictures of you while you're taking out the garbage, or weeding the garden, or making love with your significant other. Doesn't that sound like a fantastic invention? If it doesn't, it's probably because I posed the question in such a loaded way. PBS' "Nova" does pretty much the same thing in its program "Spies that Fly" (tonight at 8 on Channel 13), an hour-long look at remote-controlled surveillance and combat aircraft that ends with speculative footage of winged micro-robots the size of birds and bees. These robots, the narrator tells us, could take pictures with a camera the size of a pinhole. The only thing stalling their production is scientists' inability to come up with a power source; a battery with enough power to keep one of these bug spies going would probably be heavy enough to sink it before it could even go aloft. The narrator's tone suggests we should feel disappointed about this, maybe even write our congressman and demand an increase in funding. As explained by "Nova," the virtues of remotely piloted robot planes are as follows: (1) They eliminate the need to risk pilots' lives in combat, and (2) they can fly faster and stay airborne longer than piloted aircraft, because their design doesn't have to consider a pilot's eating needs, bathroom habits and ability to withstand g-forces and nuclear fallout. They can also respond to military orders with prompt, lethal efficiency. Exhibit "A" is the performance of the Predator drone, an unmanned spotter aircraft used to identify (and in some cases, instantly eliminate) suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters since 9/11. In typical "Nova" fashion, the program is so in love with the cleverness of inventors and their creations that it fails to ask basic questions about how the new technology will transform the world. And from the looks of it, that's exactly what this technology will do. Military technology has advanced for thousands of years, coming up with increasingly sophisticated ways of spying on, or killing, other people. The only thing constraining or guiding surveillance (or violence) was the human factor -- the ability of individuals, either at the command center or out in the field, to make snap decisions distinguishing friend from foe, or a necessary target from an unnecessary one. Having soldiers face other soldiers directly also enforced a certain caution. Some studies estimate, for example, that only about one in four soldiers deployed in World War II combat fired their weapons in the field -- which suggests that the already staggering casualty numbers from that conflict might have been vastly larger had human judgment been removed entirely from the equation, or placed in the hands of a remote operator observing live battlefield videos of Guadalcanal or Normandy from the comfort of an air-conditioned studio somewhere in Virginia. Yet "Nova" seems coolly fascinated by the prospect of a fully mechanized war, sometimes ecstatic. The show certainly doesn't address the political or philosophical implications of this new warfare technology -- something the program can usually be counted on to do when the subject is cloning, cancer research or some other medical topic. A historical section about the use of the so-called Lightning Bug drone plane in Vietnam reveals that the plane rarely produced useful film footage of enemy gun emplacements and that it was very pricey to boot. An expert then tells viewers that if the program existed today, it would cost taxpayers $4.5 billion. The tone of this revelation is rather off; it's almost as if "Nova" is inviting us to be amazed by how much cheaper computers have gotten. With its portrait of ever-more-sophisticated flying robots armed with cameras, bombs and missiles, "Spies that Fly" paints an increasingly chilling scenario which, near the end of the program, starts to suggest the machine-dominated futureworld of the "Terminator" pictures -- a global junkyard where airborne "hunter-killer" robots continually prowl the sky, anxiously searching the rubble of civilization for that handful of humans not yet slaughtered. Again, we're supposed to be excited about that? -- Matt Zoller Seitz http://www.nj.com/entertainment/ledger/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1041929225270910.xml 2. Army Unveils Menacing Truck at Auto Show Tue January 7, 2003 05:54 PM ET By Greg McCune DETROIT (Reuters) - It looks like a contraption that should be entered in a monster truck rally -- menacing black with reinforced silver bumpers, big tires and floodlights mounted on top of the cab. But it can track down and zap the enemy in so many ways. At the Detroit auto show, the U.S. Army on Tuesday unveiled a hulky, prototype "SmarTruck II" -- designed since the September 11, 2001 attacks with President Bush's War on Terrorism definitely in mind. It will not be rumbling through the desert toward Baghdad any time soon, but the military is trying to create an all-purpose vehicle that could make a statement if it suddenly appeared over the sand dune. "Once this vehicle comes on the scene, we want everyone to know that we mean business,"Germaine Fuller, the director of the project that created it, told Reuters at a news conference featuring a marching color guard and a military band playing patriotic songs such as "God Bless America." Last year at the Detroit show, the U.S. Army showcased its first attempt at a high-tech truck, which the military brass now acknowledges was eye-catching with a pop-up pepper spray dispenser and surveillance cameras, but hardly ready for the real world. "It was more a James Bond vehicle, more 'gee whiz' but not designed for a specific mission," Army General N. Ross Thompson III, chief of the command that designed the truck, told Reuters. SmarTruckII is equipped with all the latest hi-tech bells and whistles too. This time, however, the designers have tried to create a military vehicle that can be changed in an hour or so to fight a new enemy with new weapons in a post-Sept. 11 world. Built on the modified platform of a Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck with a 350 horsepower, V-8 engine, the watchword of the SmarTruckII is flexibility. Designers created what they call "nodules," based on a stainless steel box that sits on what would normally be the bed of the truck. The boxes are swapped on and off the truck depending on the mission. The idea is for the vehicle to be useful in conventional combat, or be transformed quickly to detect chemical and biological weapons, or even help in recovery from a disaster. Fuller said the boxes can be changed in about an hour, depending on the situation. For example, out of the top of one of boxes on the prototype vehicle popped SPIKE, which the military described as a "fire and forget" small missile and launcher system that can fire two missiles simultaneously. Others boxes housed equipment useful in communications or surveillance. In another twist, the vehicle can house an unmanned drone-like small aircraft that can hover over a nearby area and send live video back to the vehicle. In the cab of the truck are housed a 3-D mapping system and a communications system that Fuller described as "hacker in a box." It includes a computer program linked with surveillance equipment to monitor what people in the area around the vehicle are saying in e-mail. SmarTruckII could just sit and listen, send bogus e-mails to confuse an enemy, or, if it is not amused, kill the enemy communications system altogether. The prototype vehicle cost between $500,000 and $1 million, Fuller said, although she said it is tough to estimate precisely because it involved partnerships with several firms. The military said it has no plans to produce the truck any time soon, although Bran Ferren, a designer of SmarTruckII, said that if an order came through it could be put in production in a year. PHOTO CAPTION The Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command's National Automotive Center unveiled SmarTruck II, a versatile, prototype, multi-purpose vehicle capable of both counter-terrorism support and domestic security, January 7, 2003, at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. The heavily armed SmarTruck II's cockpit and its fighting that would be the back-seat area in a civilian sport-ute - are jammed with high-tech systems. It carries a POINTER unmanned air vehicle and a SPIKE pinpoint laser-guided missile. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006184 3. Is someone watching you? Companies are increasingly hiring PIs to check out present and potential employees By MARJO JOHNE Special to The Globe and Mail Friday, January 10, 2003 As a travelling sales representative, Marilyn's workdays were largely unsupervised -- that is, until her employer hired a private eye to follow her. Through the detective agency, Marilyn's employer, a Toronto-based tile distributor, found out that she had been picking up her husband and driving him to work during the time she was supposed to be visiting clients. Shortly after, Marilyn was fired for stealing company time and money (the firm had been giving her a car allowance). She doesn't dispute the reasons for her dismissal, but she says the experience of being spied on was unnerving. "I felt violated," says Marilyn, who has asked that her real name not be used. "I mean, it's creepy -- just the thought of someone following you and watching you." While companies have long used private investigators to keep watch on their employees or look into questionable activities, private investigators say demand for this type of service has increased in recent years, especially in the area of background checks. "It's an extremely high-growth industry -- almost every major corporation in the country today is using private investigators," says Brian King, president of King-Reed & Associates Ltd., the country's largest private investigations company. In the past three years, King-Reed has seen annual growth of 25 per cent in corporate services. The company's Toronto office alone handles about 250 employee surveillance cases a month, and recently opened a division devoted exclusively to employee screening. "Companies are saying: 'We've got to do more due diligence when hiring, and even promoting people,' " Mr. King says. "And we're not just talking about large companies; even small operations are screening more carefully because many large firms won't do business with them unless they do their due diligence on their employees." Mr. King attributes the increase in background checks to three things: the growing reluctance of companies to give references, the increased consciousness about security that followed Sept. 11, and the higher standards of accountability companies have set for themselves -- and which shareholders have demanded -- in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals. A study by U.S. firm Aon Consulting Inc. underlines the importance of thorough background checks. The survey found that 7 per cent of employees have a criminal record, 37 per cent have falsified their educational experience and 30 per cent have lied about their work experience. The scope and depth of these background checks -- for which employees have to give their consent -- tend to vary according to the type of company and the responsibilities of the employee in question. Generally, however, background checks look for criminal convictions and verify past employment and education. Some employers may also want to know about an employee's credit history or get a peek at his or her driver's abstract. Where a high-level position is involved, employers will sometimes ask investigators to search legal records to see if a candidate has been sued by a former employer or business partner -- or if they themselves have sued any of these parties. If the candidate belongs to a regulated profession, a check with the regulatory body may also be in order. Suspicions of employee theft or fraud and complaints of sexual harassment or office bullying are also making companies turn to private eyes for help, as are cases of drug or alcohol abuse and misuse of company time. In a survey of 1,627 U.S. companies by the American Management Association, more than 30 per cent of the firms admitted to watching their employees through video cameras for security reasons (to prevent theft, violence or sabotage), while 15 per cent videotaped their employees' performance. The survey does not indicate whether or not the companies informed their employees of these practices. Mark McDougall, president of Stolen Cargo and Equipment Tracking, a detective agency west of Toronto, says many of the cases he's acted on involved companies trying to substantiate disability claims, where an employee is suspected of malingering. The agency has also been asked to follow employees believed to be playing hooky or engaging in some other type of misconduct. One company's board of directors, for instance, asked the agency to tail its president, who had a habit of disappearing for several hours during the workday. It turns out the president was going to the gym during these unaccounted-for periods, and the company fired him, Mr. McDougall says. Another assignment involved a chief executive officer suspected of having an affair with an employee. Mr. McDougall's detective followed the CEO and videotaped him and the employee hugging and kissing in a bar. Mr. McDougall doesn't know what became of the CEO, but he says the company that hired him had a policy against romantic relationships between executives and employees. Many companies use private investigators to detect drug or alcohol abuse. Mr. King says this service is usually requested by firms risking workplace injuries in the use of sensitive, employee-operated machinery. For this type of investigation, detectives normally install hidden cameras in the workplace. They may also set up a surveillance van in the company parking lot, where much of this kind of illicit activity takes place. "Companies are being really careful these days," Mr. King says, "because they could be held liable for injuries or damage resulting from substance abuse by their employees." Companies that use private investigators may be breathing a little easier but they need to be careful about violating employee rights, says Joe Conforti, a partner with the Toronto law firm Goodmans LLP. Mr. Conforti says employers must start with the presumption that every person has a right to a zone of privacy. That zone is substantially reduced in the workplace, but companies must acknowledge that employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such areas as washrooms and locker rooms, and off company property. In court, employees and judges don't always agree on which workplace areas should be considered private. Keith Richardson found this out the hard way in 1994, when he was fired from his job as a production foreman at Davis Wire Industries Ltd. in New Westminster, B.C. The company installed a hidden video camera in the lunch room after several employees complained that Mr. Richardson was sleeping during his shifts. Mr. Richardson took Davis Wire to court for, among other things, invasion of privacy, but the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that Davis Wire had a legitimate right to investigate its employee's suspected misconduct. It also ruled that Mr. Richardson could have no expectation of privacy when he was sleeping on company time and on company property. Where a company suspects that an employee may be doing something that constitutes a breach of the employment agreement, a "reasonable degree of surveillance" outside the workplace is considered legally acceptable, Mr. Conforti says. But the employer has to ensure its investigators don't harass the employee or trespass on private property. "Everything is a question of what's reasonable under the circumstances," Mr. Conforti says. "But the most important thing to keep in mind is that privacy is not to be taken away lightly, and that workers have a right not only to privacy but to a workplace that is ethical and free of harassment." What the law says So you've got a problem in your workplace and you've turned to a private investigator for help. Before you give your PI the go-ahead to set up video surveillance, says Toronto lawyer Joe Conforti, consider the following guidelines set out by the country's courts: Make sure you have a serious and legitimate reason for the surveillance -- chronic theft or substance abuse in the workplace. Use video surveillance only after you've tried other, less intrusive ways of addressing the problem. Limit surveillance to problem areas, and use only the minimum number of cameras required to monitor these areas. Unless you have legitimate reasons for keeping it a secret, it's best to let your employees know they're being watched or taped. Avoid focusing the camera on a particular employee. If you are monitoring an employee outside the workplace or during off-duty hours, make sure your investigators don't embarrass or harass the employee, or trespass on the employee's property. The surveillance should also be limited to activities or information relevant to the employee's job. Once you have resolved your problems, stop the surveillance. http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20030110/CASPYY/Business/business/businessGeneralHeadline_t 4. The Stasi Jan. 10, 2003 Stasi's hidden talents on exhibit East German spies' handicraft skills were useful for creating elaborate surveillance devices By Sascha Lehnartz Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Members of the former East German secret police (Staatssicherheitsdienst or Stasi) have been accused of many things in the past. Never, though, have they been accused of lacking imagination or a talent for improvisation. Further proof of their skills in these areas is on display at the Stasi's former headquarters in Berlin in an exhibition that focuses on a little-known talent of the eavesdroppers and spies: Stasi members were great with their hands. Central department VII of the Stasi tapped this talent to create a type of personal crafts and local history museum called Traditional Site. According to a resolution from April 15, 1982, the Traditional Site sought to convey a lively outline of the head department, to foster its tradition and to appreciate its efforts in carrying out the party's decisions on a political and operative level. In capitalism, this is called employee motivation. Experienced commanding officers must have spent countless hours sawing plywood boards to size, stenciling them meticulously, and creating cheerful collages by colorfully painting cardboard, labeling it with newspaper reports and photographs of official gatherings. They feature intelligence heroes of outstanding merit. One, for example, shows a smiling couple. It is labeled Scouts Couple Guillaume, showing her with a bouquet of roses in her hand, and him with a lapel full of state decorations on the breast of his elegant western-style suit. A cardboard reconstruction of the Brandenburg gate bears the inscription 13.VIII.61 (Aug. 13, 1961). Six raised fists holding a rifle and bayonet replace the gate's columns: Stasi's artistic rendition of the Berlin Wall's successful construction. A black, red and golden cardboard boundary post boasts Operation Concrete, the fortification of the East-West border in 1973. In golden letters, it cites Erich Honecker: The safety of the socialist countries was and still is the safety of their borders. When Honecker was right, he was right. When it came to hiding surveillance cameras and microphones in everyday household appliances, the Stasi's inventive genius was inexhaustible: handbags for men, watering cans, stumps, gas cans - there was nothing that the Stasi did not manage to get a camera on. The master piece is the door of a Wartburg car with a built-in infrared lamp. Used with a special camera, it allowed the Stasi to take clear pictures of a transit highway from West to East Germany even in the dark and from a distance of 40 meters. This was only one way in which department VII - perhaps not too far from the fictional lab of James Bond's equipment man, Q - fulfilled its announced duty of securing and shielding the interior ministry, being the defense and people's police in the interior ministry, and combating smuggling and securing borders. The research and memorial site in the building that used to house the Stasi headquarters has been run by a group of civil rights activists called Anti-Stalinist action Berlin-Normannenstrasse since summer 1999, initially independently and without secured funding. Although the structure itself is nothing spectacular, the house is still haunted by German history. Highlights of the exhibition include the office rooms and the adjacent individual area of Stasi boss Erich Mielke, with an empty armored closet behind Mielke's desk, on which Lenin's death mask used to sit. There is a hopelessly antiquated tape recorder and big, manual telephone switchboards. They only air a vague notion of the former omnipotence of those who used to work here. Jan. 10 http://www.faz.com/IN/INtemplates/eFAZ/docmain.asp?rub=%7BB1311FFE-FBFB-11D2-B228-00105A9CAF88%7D&doc=%7BBC99B045-F311-4164-9211-E8ECA594D133%7D 5. Unions: Publish snooping code of practice 11:54 Thursday 9th January 2003 Graham Hayday, silicon.com Unions are calling for the code of practice on monitoring employees' email and Internet use to be published as a top priority Union chiefs in the UK are today urging the new information commissioner to resist employer lobbying and publish the delayed code of practice on the monitoring of staff email and Internet use. The new information commissioner, Richard Thomas, took over the role in December, and this week laid out his plans for 2003. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) believes that publishing the final document governing 'snooping' in the workplace should be a top priority. The TUC today said that the latest draft of the as-yet unimplemented code of practice gets it "about right", as it says employers must have a justifiable reason before breaching employee privacy. It also provides clear guidance on how the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) regulates employers' use of email and Internet monitoring, CCTV cameras and covert surveillance to monitor staff. But the absence of the final version of the code has meant employers and workers have lacked clear guidance on their legal rights and responsibilities, according to the TUC. The organisation fears that employers may manage to get the code of practice changed in their favour. Brendan Barber, TUC general secretary elect, said: "We have been waiting more than a year for a code of practice. Employees and employers have been left in legal limbo. There has been adequate consultation and the first item on the new information commissioner's agenda should be the publication of the code of practice." He added: "He should resist the last gasp employer lobbying to weaken the code. He should publish and be praised." A first draft of the code was issued by the Information Commission in 2000, in preparation for the relevant provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 coming into effect in October 2001. Since then the code has been subject to three rounds of consultation. No date has yet been set for the publication of the final draft. The Information Commission had not responded by the time of publication. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2128397,00.html