A framework for analysis of quotidian exposure in an instrumented world

Abstract

Abstract-For a variety of often reasonable motives such as increased security or increased profit, individuals and organizations fill our world with sensors and data collection systems that sample and track our day-to-day activities. Some people freely invite tracking into their lives. Others are enticed by offers of discounts or even free products and services. But frequently our lives are quietly sampled, unbeknownst to us, by those with the power to do so. As a result, individuals face a rapidly declining freedom to lead a private life. While significant sampling and tracking occur online, this study focuses on the convergence of sensor systems in the physical world. It explores the privacy implications of sensors found on our person, in our home, in our communities, and while travelling. This paper provides the following contributions: a model of human-targeted sensor systems and a framework for sensor categorization, privacy threat analysis, and countermeasure development. It concludes with a detailed case study that employs the framework to analyze the quotidian exposure encountered in an ordinary citizen's life.

Überveillance, the web of things, and people: What is the culmination of all this surveillance?

“…It is fitting to conclude with a recent citation by Shay et al [27] of the Cyber Research Center of the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York, which points to the maturation of the term überveillance and the realization of its potential consequences: "Roger Clarke's concept of dataveillance and M.G. Michael and Katina Michael's more recent überveillance serve as important milestones in awareness of the growing threat of our instrumented world.…”

Using a Social-Ethical Framework to Evaluate Location-Based Services in an Internet of Things World

“…For example, Clarke (2007a) offers varying definitions of the term, suggesting that überveillance can be understood as any of the following: omni-surveillance, an apocalyptic notion that "applies across all space and all time (omnipresent), and supports some organisation that is all-seeing and even all-knowing (omniscient)", which can be achieved through the use of embedded chips for instance (p. 33); exaggerated surveillance, referring to "the extent to which surveillance is undertaken... its justification is exaggerated" (p. 34) ; and/or meta-, supra-, or master-surveillance, which "could involve the consolidation of multiple surveillance threads in order to develop what would be envisaged by its proponents to be superior information" (p. 38). Shay et al (2012) acknowledge:…”

Beyond sunglasses and spray paint: A taxonomy of surveillance countermeasures

“…As noted in [17], owners, enablers, and information consumers often share similar purposes and so there are countermeasures common to all three of those classes. Those form the "common" category in Table I.…”

“…Note that each day a person can encounter dozens of sensors, so many that we hardly pay any attention to them. In [17] we presented a case study of "Hal," an ordinary citizen going about a very ordinary life; going to the gym, going to work, shopping at a supermarket; who was monitored by at least 20 sensors in an 18-hour period.…”

“…In previous work, we developed a framework for networked surveillance systems, a simplified version is shown in Figure 1 [17]. The framework consists of classes (the colored rectangles) with attributes that describe how the class performs in the surveillance system.…”