Download raw (27.2 KB)

\AuthorStyle{Manu Luksch, Mukul Patel}

\licenseStyle{Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - ShareAlike license}

\Eng{\Title{Faceless: Chasing the Data Shadow}

\SubTitle{Stranger than fiction}

Remote{}-controlled UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) scan the city for
anti{}-social behaviour. Talking cameras scold people for littering the
streets (in children's voices). Biometric data is extracted from CCTV
images to identify pedestrians by their face or gait. A housing
project's surveillance cameras stream images onto the local cable
channel, enabling the community to monitor itself. 
\blank
\PlaceImage{luksch3.jpg}{CCTV sculpture in a park in London}
\PlaceImage{luksch1.jpg}{Poster in London}
These are not projections of the science fiction film that this text discusses, but techniques that are used today in Merseyside \footnote{\quotation{Police spy in the sky fuels \quote{Big Brother fears}}, Philip Johnston,
{\em Telegraph}, 23/05/2007 \Url{http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/22/ndrone22.xml}
}.
{\em The Guardian} has reported the MoD rents out an RAF{}-staffed
spy plane for public surveillance, carrying reconnaissance equipment
able to monitor telephone conversations on the ground. It can also be
used for automatic number plate recognition: \quotation{Cheshire police recently
revealed they were using the Islander [aircraft] to identify people
speeding, driving when using mobile phones, overtaking on double white
lines, or driving erratically.}, Middlesborough \footnote{\quote{Talking} CCTV scolds offenders', BBC News, 4 April 2007
\Url{http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6524495.stm}}, Newham and Shoreditch \footnote{\quotation{If the face fits, you're nicked}, {\em Independent}, Nick Huber, Monday, 1 April 2002 \Url{http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/if-the-face-fits-youre-nicked-656092.html}

\quotation{In 2001 the Newham system was linked to a central control room operated
by the London Metropolitan Police Force. In April 2001 the existing
CCTV system in Birmingham city centre was upgraded to smart CCTV.
People are routinely scanned by both systems and have their faces
checked against the police databases.}

Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility \Url{http://www.ccsr.cse.dmu.ac.uk/resources/general/ethicol/Ecv12no1.html}} in the UK. In terms of
both density and sophistication, the UK leads the world in the
deployment of surveillance technologies. With an estimated 4.2 million
CCTV cameras in place, its inhabitants are the most watched in the
world. \footnote{{\em A Report on the Surveillance Society.} For the Information
Commissioner by the Surveillance Studies Network, September 2006, p.19.
Available from \Url{http://www.ico.gov.uk}} Many London buses have five or more cameras inside, plus
several outside, including one recording cars that drive in bus lanes.

But CCTV images of our bodies are only one of many traces of data that
we leave in our wake, voluntarily and involuntarily. Vehicles are
tracked using Automated Number Plate Recognition systems, our movements
revealed via location{}-aware devices (such as cell phones), the trails
of our online activities recorded by Internet Service Providers, our
conversations overheard by the international communications
surveillance system Echelon, shopping habits monitored through store
loyalty cards, individual purchases located using RFID
(Radio{}-frequency identification) tags, and our meal preferences
collected as part of PNR (flight passenger) data. \footnote{\quote{e{}-Borders} is a 
{£} 1.2bn passenger{}-screening programme to
be introduced in 2009 and to be complete by 2014. The single border
agency, combining immigration, customs and visa checks, includes a
{£} 650m contract with consortia Trusted Borders for a
passenger{}-screening IT system: anyone entering or leaving Britain are
to give 53 pieces of information in advance of travel. This
information, taken when a travel ticket is bought, will be shared among
police, customs, immigration and the security services for at least 24
hours before a journey is due to take place. Trusted Borders consists
of US military contractor Raytheon Systems who will work with
Accenture, Detica, Serco, QinetiQ, Steria, Capgemini, and Daon.
Ministers are also said to be considering the creation of a list of
\quote{disruptive} passengers. It is expected to cost travel companies
{£} 20million a year compiling the information. These costs will
be passed on to customers via ticket prices, and the Government is
considering introducing its own charge on travellers to recoup costs. A
pilot of the e{}-borders technology, known as Project Semaphore, has
already screened 29 million passengers.

Similarly, the arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin, the biggest defence
contractor in the U.S., that undertakes intelligence work as well as
contributing to the Trident programme in the UK, is bidding to run the
UK 2011 Census. New questions in the 2011 Census will include
information about income and place of birth, as well as existing
questions about languages spoken in the household and many other
personal details. The Canadian Federal Government granted Lockheed
Martin a \$43.3 million deal to conduct its 2006 Census. Public outcry
against it resulted in only civil servants handling the actual data,
and a new government task force being set up to monitor privacy during
the Census.

\Url{http://censusalert.org.uk/}

\Url{http://www.vivelecanada.ca/staticpages/index.php/20060423184107361}} Our digital
selves are many dimensional, alert, unforgetting.

Increasingly, these data traces are arrayed and administered in
networked structures of global reach. It is not necessary to posit a
totalitarian conspiracy behind this accumulation {--} data mining is an
exigency of both market efficiency and bureaucratic rationality. Much
has been written on the surveillance society and the society of
control, and it is not the object here to construct a general critique
of data collection, retention and analysis. However, it should be
recognised that, in the name of efficiency and rationality {--} and, of
course, security {--} an ever{}-increasing amount of data is being
shared (also sold, lost and leaked \footnote{{\bf Sales}: \quotation{Personal details of all 44 million adults living in Britain could be
sold to private companies as part of government attempts to arrest
spiralling costs for the new national identity card scheme, set to get
the go{}-ahead this week. [...] ministers have opened talks with
private firms to pass on personal details of UK citizens for an initial
cost of {£} 750 each.}

\quotation{Ministers plan to sell your ID card details to raise
cash}, Francis Elliott, Andy McSmith and Sophie Goodchild, {\em Independent}, Sunday 26 June 2005

\Url{http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ministers-plan-to-sell-your-id-card-details-to-raise-cash-496602.html}

{\bf Losses}: In January 2008, hundreds of documents with passport photocopies, bank
statements and benefit claims details from the Department of Work and
Pensions were found on a road near Exeter airport, following their loss
from a TNT courier vehicle. There were also documents relating to home
loans and mortgage interest, and details of national insurance numbers,
addresses and dates of birth.

In November 2007, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) posted, unrecorded and
unregistered via TNT, computer discs containing personal information on
25 million people from families claiming child benefit, including the
bank details of parents and the dates of birth and national insurance
numbers of children. The discs were then lost.

Also in November, HMRC admitted a CD containing the personal details of
thousands of Standard Life pension holders has gone missing, leaving
them at heightened risk of identity theft. The CD, which contained data
relating to 15,000 Standard Life pensions customers including their
names, National Insurance numbers and pension plan reference numbers
was lost in transit from the Revenue office in Newcastle to the
company's headquarters in Edinburgh by \quote{an external courier}.

{\bf Thefts}: In November 2007, MoD acknowledged the theft of a laptop computer
containing the personal details of 600,000 Royal Navy, Royal Marines,
and RAF recruits and of people who had expressed interest in joining,
which contained, among other information, passport, and national
insurance numbers and bank details.

In October 2007, a laptop holding sensitive information was stolen from
the boot of an HMRC car. A staff member had been using the PC for a
routine audit of tax information from several investment firms. HMRC
refused to comment on how many individuals may be at risk, or how many
financial institutions have had their data stolen as well. BBC suggest
the computer held data on around 400 customers with high value
individual savings accounts (ISAs), at each of five different companies
{--} including Standard Life and Liontrust. (In May, Standard Life sent
around 300 policy documents to the wrong people.)}) between the keepers of such
seemingly unconnected records as medical histories, shopping habits,
and border crossings. Legal frameworks intended to safeguard a
conception of privacy by limiting data transfers to appropriate parties
exist. Such laws, and in particular the UK Data Protection Act (DPA,
1998) \footnote{The full text of the DPA (1998) is at
\Url{http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980029.htm}}, are the subject of investigation of the film
{\em Faceless}.

\SubSubTitle{From Act to Manifesto}
\IndentStyle{\quotation{I wish to apply, under the Data Protection Act, for any and all CCTV
images of my person held within your system. I was present at [place]
from approximately [time] onwards on [date].} \footnote{From the template for subject access requests used for {\em Faceless}}}

For several years, ambientTV.NET conducted a series of exercises to
visualise the data traces that we leave behind, to render them into
experience and to dramatise them, to watch those who watch us. These
experiments, scrutinising the boundary between public and private in
post{}-9/11 daily life, were run under the title \quote{the Spy School}. In
2002, the Spy School carried out an exercise to test the reach of the
UK Data Protection Act as it applies to CCTV image data.

\QuoteStyle{The Data Protection Act 1998 seeks to strike a balance between the
rights of individuals and the sometimes competing interests of those
with legitimate reasons for using personal information. The DPA gives
individuals certain rights regarding information held about them. It
places obligations on those who process information (data controllers)
while giving rights to those who are the subject of that data (data
subjects). Personal information covers both facts and opinions about
the individual. \footnote{Data Protection Act Fact Sheet available from the UK Information
Commissioners Office, \Url{http://www.ico.gov.uk}}}

The original DPA (1984) was devised to \quote{permit and regulate} access to
computerised personal data such as health and financial records. A
later EU directive broadened the scope of data protection and the remit
of the DPA (1998) extended to cover, amongst other data, CCTV
recordings. In addition to the DPA, CCTV operators \quote{must} comply with
other laws related to human rights, privacy, and procedures for
criminal investigations, as specified in the CCTV Code of Practice
(\Url{http://www.ico.gov.uk}).

As the first subject access request letters were successful in
delivering CCTV recordings for the Spy School, it then became pertinent
to investigate how robust the legal framework was. The Manifesto for
CCTV Filmmakers was drawn up, permitting the use only of recordings
obtained under the DPA. Art would be used to probe the law.

\SubSubTitle{A legal readymade}

\QuoteStyle{Vague spectres of menace caught on time{}-coded surveillance cameras
justify an entire network of peeping vulture lenses. A web of
indifferent watching devices, sweeping every street, every building, to
eliminate the possibility of a past tense, the freedom to forget. There
can be no highlights, no special moments: a discreet tyranny of now has
been established. Real time in its most pedantic form. \footnote{(Ian Sinclair: {\em Lights out for the territory}, Granta, London, 1998, p. 91)}}

\PlaceImage{luksch8.jpg}{Still from Faceless, 2007}
\PlaceImage{luksch3.jpg}{Multiple, conflicting timecode stamps}
{\em Faceless} is a CCTV science fiction fairy tale set in London,
the city with the greatest density of surveillance cameras on earth.
The film is made under the constraints of the Manifesto {--} images are
obtained from existing CCTV systems by the director/protagonist
exercising her/his rights as a surveilled person under the DPA.
Obviously the protagonist has to be present in every frame. To comply
with privacy legislation, CCTV operators are obliged to render other
people in the recordings unidentifiable {--} typically by erasing their
faces, hence the faceless world depicted in the film. The scenario of
{\em Faceless} thus derives from the legal properties of CCTV
images.

\quotation{RealTime orients the life of every citizen. Eating, resting, going to
work, getting married {--} every act is tied to RealTime. And every act
leaves a trace of data {--} a footprint in the snow of noise...} \footnote{{\em Faceless}, 2007}

The film plays in an eerily familiar city, where the reformed RealTime
calendar has dispensed with the past and the future, freeing citizens
from guilt and regret, anxiety and fear. Without memory or
anticipation, faces have become vestigial {--} the population is
literally faceless. Unimaginable happiness abounds {--} until a woman
recovers her face...

There was no traditional shooting script: the plot evolved during the
four{}-year long process of obtaining images. Scenes were planned in
particular locations, but the CCTV recordings were not always
obtainable, so the story had to be continually rewritten.

{\em Faceless} treats the CCTV image as an example of a legal
readymade (\quote{\em{objet trouv\'e}}). The medium, in the sense of raw
materials that are transformed into artwork, is not adequately
described as simply video or even captured light. More accurately, the
medium comprises images that exist contingent on particular social and
legal circumstances {--} essentially, images with a legal
superstructure. {\em Faceless} interrogates the laws that govern the
video surveillance of society and the codes of communication that
articulate their operation, and in both its mode of coming into being
and its plot, develops a specific critique.

\SubSubTitle{Reclaiming the data body}

Through putting the DPA into practice and observing the consequences
over a long exposure, close{}-up, subtle developments of the law were
made visible and its strengths and lacunae revealed.

\IndentStyle{\quotation{I can confirm there are no such recordings of yourself from that date,
our recording system was not working at that time.} (11/2003)}

Many data requests had negative outcomes because either the surveillance
camera, or the recorder, or the entire CCTV system in question was not
operational. Such a situation constitutes an illegal use of CCTV: the
law demands that operators: \quotation{comply with the DPA by making sure [...] equipment works properly.} \footnote{CCTV Systems and the Data Protection Act 1998, available from \Url{http://www.ico.gov.uk}}

In some instances, the non{}-functionality of the system was only
revealed to its operators when a subject access request was made. In
the case below, the CCTV system had been installed two years prior to
the request.

\IndentStyle{\quotation{Upon receipt of your letter [...] enclosing the required 10{£}
fee, I have been sourcing a company who would edit these tapes to
preserve the privacy of other individuals who had not consented to
disclosure. [...] I was informed [...] that all tapes on site were
blank. [.. W]hen the engineer was called he confirmed that the machine
had not been working since its installation.

Unfortunately there is nothing further that can be done regarding the
tapes, and I can only apologise for all the inconvenience you have been
caused.} (11/2003)}

Technical failures on this scale were common. Gross human errors were
also readily admitted to:

\IndentStyle{\quotation{As I had advised you in my previous letter, a request was made to
remove the tape and for it not to be destroyed. Unhappily this request
was not carried out and the tape was wiped according with the standard
tape retention policy employed by [deleted]. Please accept my apologies
for this and assurance that steps have been taken to ensure a similar
mistake does not happen again.} (10/2003)}

Some responses, such as the following, were just mysterious (data
request made after spending an hour below several cameras installed in
a train carriage).

\IndentStyle{\quotation{We have carried out a careful review of all relevant tapes and we
confirm that we have no images of you in our control.} (06/2005)}

Could such a denial simply be an excuse not to comply with the costly
demands of the DPA? \PlaceImage{luksch4.jpg}{The Rotain Test, devised by the UK Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch, measures surveillance camera performance.}

\IndentStyle{\quotation{Many older cameras deliver image quality so poor that faces are
unrecognisable. In such cases the operator fails in the obligation to
run CCTV for the declared purposes.

You will note that yourself and a colleague's faces look quite
indistinct in the tape, but the picture you sent to us shows you
wearing a similar fur coat, and our main identification had been made
through this and your description of the location.} (07/2002)}

To release data on the basis of such weak identification compounds the
failure.

Much confusion is caused by the obligation to protect the privacy of
third parties in the images. Several data controllers claimed that this
relieved them of their duty to release images:

\IndentStyle{\quotation{[... W]e are not able to supply you with the images you requested
because to do so would involve disclosure of information and images
relating to other persons who can be identified from the tape and we
are not in a position to obtain their consent to disclosure of the
images. Further, it is simply not possible for us to eradicate the
other images. I would refer you to section 7 of the Data Protection Act
1998 and in particular Section 7 (4).} (11/2003)}

Even though the section referred to states that it is:

\IndentStyle{\quotation{not to be construed as excusing a data controller from communicating so
much of the information sought by the request as can be communicated
without disclosing the identity of the other individual concerned,
whether by the omission of names or other identifying particulars or
otherwise.}}

Where video is concerned, anonymisation of third parties is an
expensive, labour{}-intensive procedure {--} one common technique is to
occlude each head with a black oval. Data controllers may only charge
the statutory maximum of 10 {£}
per request, though not all seemed
to be aware of this:

\IndentStyle{\quotation{It was our understanding that a charge for production of the tape
should be borne by the person making the enquiry, of course we will now
be checking into that for clarification. Meanwhile please accept the
enclosed video tape with compliments of [deleted], with no charge to
yourself.} (07/2002)}

Visually provocative and symbolically charged as the occluded heads are,
they do not necessarily guarantee anonymity. The erasure of a face may
be insufficient if the third party is known to the person requesting
images. Only one data controller undeniably (and elegantly) met the
demands of third party privacy, by masking everything but the data
subject, who was framed in a keyhole. (This was an uncommented second
offering; the first tape sent was unprocessed.) One CCTV operator
discovered a useful loophole in the DPA: 
\PlaceImage{luksch5.jpg}{Off with their heads!}

\IndentStyle{\quotation{I should point out that we reserve the right, in accordance with
Section 8(2) of the Data Protection Act, not to provide you with copies
of the information requested if to do so would take disproportionate
effort.} (12/2004)}

What counts as \quote{disproportionate effort}? The gold standard was set by
an institution whose approach was almost baroque {--} they delivered
hard copies of each of the several hundred relevant frames from the
time{}-lapse camera, with third parties heads cut out, apparently with
nail scissors.

Two documents had (accidentally?) slipped in between the printouts {--}
one a letter from a junior employee tendering her resignation (was it
connected with the beheading job?), and the other an ironic memo:

\IndentStyle{\quotation{And the good news {--} I enclose the 10 {£}
fee to be passed to the branch sundry income account.} (Head of Security, internal
communication 09/2003)}

From 2004, the process of obtaining images became much more difficult.

\IndentStyle{\quotation{It is clear from your letter that you are aware of the provisions of
the Data Protection Act and that being the case I am sure you are aware
of the principles in the recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of
Durant vs. Financial Services Authority. It is my view that the footage
you have requested is not personal data and therefore [deleted] will
not be releasing to you the footage which you have requested.} (12/2004)}

Under Common Law, judgements set precedents. The decision in the case
Durant vs. Financial Service Authority (2003) redefined \quote{personal
data}; since then, simply featuring in raw video data does not give a
data subject the right to obtain copies of the recording. Only if
something of a biographical nature is revealed does the subject retain
the right.

\IndentStyle{\quotation{Having considered the matter carefully, we do not believe that the
information we hold has the necessary relevance or proximity to you.
Accordingly we do not believe that we are obligated to provide you with
a copy pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1988. In particular, we
would remark that the video is not biographical of you in any
significant way.} (11/2004)}

Further, with the introduction of cameras that pan and zoom, being
filmed as part of a crowd by a static camera is no longer grounds for a
data request.

\IndentStyle{\quotation{[T]he Information Commissioners office has indicated that this would
not constitute your personal data as the system has been set up to
monitor the area and not one individual.} (09/2005)}

As awareness of the importance of data rights grows, so the actual
provision of those rights diminishes:

\IndentStyle{"I draw your attention to CCTV systems and the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA) Guidance Note on when the Act applies. Under the guidance notes
our CCTV system is no longer covered by the DPA [because] we:

\startitemize[packed]
\item only have a couple of cameras 
\item cannot move them remotely 
\item just record on video whatever the cameras pick up 
\item only give the recorded images to the police to investigate an
incident on our premises"
\stopitemize
(05/2004)}

Data retention periods (which data controllers define themselves) also
constitute a hazard to the CCTV filmmaker:

\IndentStyle{\quotation{Thank you for your letter dated 9 November addressed to
our Newcastle store, who have passed it to me for reply.
Unfortunately, your letter was delayed in the post to me and only
received this week. [...] There was nothing on the tapes that you
requested that caused the store to retain the tape beyond the normal
retention period and therefore CCTV footage from 28 October and 2
November is no longer available.} (12/2004)}

\PlaceImage{luksch0.jpg}{Still from Faceless, 2007}
Amidst this sorry litany of malfunctioning equipment, erased tapes, lost
letters and sheer evasiveness, one CCTV operator did produce reasonable
justification for not being able to deliver images:

\IndentStyle{\quotation{We are not in a position to advise whether or not we collected any
images of you at [deleted]. The tapes for the requested period at
[deleted] had been passed to the police before your request was
received in order to assist their investigations into various
activities at [deleted] during the carnival.} (10/2003)}

\SubSubTitle{In the shadow of the shadow}

\PlaceImage{luksch6.jpg}{Still from Faceless, 2007} 
There is debate about the efficacy, value for money, quality of
implementation, political legitimacy, and cultural impact of CCTV
systems in the UK. While CCTV has been presented as being vital in
solving some high profile cases (e.g. the 1999 London nail bomber, or
the 1993 murder of James Bulger), at other times it has been strangely,
publicly, impotent (e.g. the 2005 police killing of Jean Charles de
Menezes). The prime promulgators of CCTV may have lost some faith:
during the 1990s the UK Home Office spent 78\% of its crime prevention
budget on installing CCTV, but in 2005, an evaluation report by the
same office concluded that, \quotation{the CCTV schemes that have been assessed
had little overall effect on crime levels.} \footnote{Gill, M. and Spriggs, A., {\em Assessing the impact of CCTV}.
London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate 2005, pp.60{}-61. www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf}

An earlier, 1992, evaluation reported CCTV's broadly positive public
reception due to its assumed effectiveness in crime control,
acknowledging \quotation{public acceptance is based on limited and partly
inaccurate knowledge of the functions and capabilities of CCTV systems
in public places.} \footnote{\Url{http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fcpu35.pdf}}

By the 2005 assessment, support for CCTV still \quotation{remained high in the
majority of cases} but public support was seen to decrease after
implementation by as much as 20\%. This \quotation{was found not to be the
reflection of increased concern about privacy and civil liberties, as
this remained at a low rate following the installation of the cameras,}
but \quotation{that support for CCTV was reduced because the public became more
realistic about its capabilities} to lower crime.

Concerns, however, have begun to be voiced about function creep and the
rising costs of such systems, prompted, for example, by the disclosure
that the cameras policing London's Congestion Charge remain switched on
outside charging hours and that the Met are to have live access to
them, having been exempted from parts of the Data Protection Act to do
so. \footnote{Surveillance State Function Creep {--} London Congestion Charge
\quotation{real{}-time bulk data} to be automatically handed over to the
Metropolitan Police etc. \Url{http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2007/07/surveillance_state_function_creep_london_congestion_charge_realtime_bulk_data.html}} As such realities of CCTV's daily operation become more widely
known, existing acceptance may be somewhat tempered.

Physical bodies leave data traces: shadows of presence, conversation,
movement. Networked databases incorporate these traces into data
bodies, whose behaviour and risk are priorities for analysis and
commodification, by business and by government. The securing of a data
body is supposedly necessary to secure the human body, either
preventatively or as a forensic tool. But if the former cannot be
assured, as is the case, what grounds are there for trust in the hollow
promise of the latter? The all{}-seeing eye of the panopticon is not
complete, yet. Regardless, could its one{}-way gaze ever assure an
enabling conception of security?
}