A study of information tracking and collection technologies: How they impact citizenship in post-9/11 democratic societies Written by Jennifer Dumoulin, Department of Communication, University of Ottawa 7 December 2007 The British North American Act of 1867, also known as the BNA Act, established Canada as a nation with four provinces; Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. With the exception of Nunavut, a division of the Northwest Territories that was recognized as an independent territory in 1999, Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada in 1949. Unlike the American Constitution, the BNA Act did not contain any provisions on Human Rights. The Parliament of Canada enacted the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960. However, the Bill did not take precedence over other federal laws, had no jurisdiction over provincial laws, and served more as an ideal than as a functional piece of legislation (“Charter of Rights and Freedoms – History”, 2006). Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau is credited with the establishment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In order to do so, he lobbied the British Parliament and successfully repatriated the British North American Act in 1982, giving Canada control over its Constitution. Under the Constitution Act of 1982, this historic piece of legislation became known as the Constitution Act of 1867. The Constitution Act of 1982 also entrenched the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution. This meant that the Charter could not be repealed by an ordinary act of Parliament or of provincial and territorial legislatures (Smyth, Soberman, & Easson, 2007). Section 1 of the Charter “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (“Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, n.d.). The Charter is therefore considered to be overriding, wherein the rights guaranteed in the Charter take precedence over other legislation that is in conflict with those rights. The Canadian Charter guarantees four fundamental freedoms along with democratic, mobility, legal, education, language, and equality rights to all Canadian citizens. Based on the definition in the Charter, Canada is a free and democratic society. In democratic societies, citizens are guaranteed certain rights and freedoms, including the freedom of association and freedom of thought. Contemporary technological advancements are facilitating the collection, tracking, and sharing of personal information between the private and public sectors of society. One method of such data collection, tracking, and sharing is through the use of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology. Despite the benefits that RFID technology has for the private sector, including inventory management and theft prevention, this paper argues that RFID and other forms of information tracking and collection technology are detrimental to the rights and freedoms of citizens in democratic societies. What is RFID technology and how does it work? Radio frequency identification facilitates the tracking and identification of both animate and inanimate objects using radio signals. RFID technology is rooted in both radar and barcode technology; the former in terms of technological background and the latter in terms of purpose. Radar technology became widely used and developed during and prior to the Second World War as a tracking and early detection or warning system. Radar systems, also known as radio detection and ranging systems, were used to detect enemy aircrafts and airships (Shepard, 2005). In radar, a person or a satellite using a transmitter sends out radio signals to search for objects. When theses signals come in contact with another object, a certain portion of the signal is bounced back. This interference pattern, or echo, enables the receiver of the signal to determine various characteristics of the interfering object including size and proximity. Although the earliest form of contemporary barcodes was developed in 1948, they did not become widely used until 1973, coinciding with the emergence and increased availability of laser technology (Shepard, 2005). Norman Woodland worked in partnership with IBM to develop the Universal Product Code, the most commonly used barcode, in 1973 (Shepard, 2005). Barcodes have been used for many purposes including product tracking, research, shipping, tracking landmines, and tracking patients in medical facilities. RFID technology emerged as a solution to the limitations presented by barcodes, including the short-distance operability of laser-based readers, the limited storage capacity for information, and the fact that barcodes are easily lost, damaged, or unreadable due to smudging. Radio frequency identification tags are tiny microchips that can be used for both receiving and transmitting information. The tags are attached to the item, person, animal, or object that is to be tracked and identified. The size of the microchip is directly related to the intended use, but may be obvious, such as the collar tags and ear tags used in animal tracking, or invisible, in the form of a keychain, button, credit card, or implant. Although the transmission strength of the microchip may be limited by size, it is possible to have several small readers setup over a wide geographic area in the form of a reading array (Petersen, 2007). The purpose of the reader includes activating and identifying the transmitter, as well as receiving data from and writing data to the tag (Shepard, 2005). Petersen (2007) presents two instances where RFID technology can be implemented in order to create real-time tracking similar to the capabilities of Global Positioning Systems. In the first instance, the data obtained from a reading array can “create a visual picture, through computer processing, of the movement of the tags within the receiving region” (Petersen, 2007). In the second instance, real-time pictures are created when the tags are used in conjunction with video cameras. The video cameras would be activated when the RFID tag passed through a reader and would be able to take images of the object that activated the trigger (Petersen, 2007). By drawing attention to 2 these circumstances, Petersen dispels arguments stating that RFID technology cannot be used for surveillance purposes. Other forms of surveillance technology Surveillance is the intentional act of “monitoring, observing, or listening to persons, their movements, conversations […], activities […], or communications” (Cousens, 2004) using a variety of different means. Surveillance may be covert or conspicuous. RFID, barcode, and radar technology are three devices which can be used for surveillance purposes. Alternative means of overt and discrete observation are discussed further with the goal of demonstrating the prevalence of such technology in contemporary information societies. In his extensive study of surveillance technologies, Petersen (2007) identifies four categories of surveillance; acoustic, electromagnetic, chemical and biological, and miscellaneous. Petersen (2007) divides acoustic surveillance into three sections: audio surveillance, involving technologies that are within human hearing ranges, infrasonic and ultrasonic surveillance, employing the use of technologies that are outside of human hearing ranges, and sonar surveillance. Devices that are used in audio surveillance include microphones, telephones, and analog, digital and video recorders (Petersen, 2007). Infrasonic and ultrasonic surveillance apparatuses include seismographs and sonograms (Petersen, 2007). Sonar surveillance may be conducted by animals that emit sonar waves such as dolphins or through of the use of electronic sonar systems which emulate biological systems (Petersen, 2007). Electromagnetic surveillance is the largest form of surveillance identified by Petersen, which he further divides into the following categories: radio, radar, infrared, visual, aerial, ultraviolet, and x-ray. Radio surveillance involves the receipt and transmission of radiowaves for the purpose of broadcasting, signaling, and tracking (Petersen, 2007). Equipment used in radiowave surveillance includes the telegraph, wireless and landline telephones, and satellites which are a key component of Global Positioning Systems (Petersen, 2007). Infrared, visual, and ultraviolet surveillance devices operate by detecting energy that is radiated and reflected by all matter, present in both living and nonliving bodies (Petersen, 2007). Each form of surveillance detects different types of electromagnetic wavelengths, respectively infrared, visible, and ultraviolet wavelengths. Examples of devices which employ infrared technology include cameras, night-vision goggles, and motion detectors (Petersen, 2007). Equipment used in visual surveillance includes magnifiers, telescopes, binoculars, still cameras, and video cameras (Petersen, 2007). Ultraviolet surveillance technology is very useful in terms of photography as it affects the film, lenses, filter, and flash, and is involved in the processing of the image. Aerial surveillance relies on satellite and electromagnetic wavelength detection technology to create images used for research, weather prediction, and reconnaissance (Petersen, 2007). 3 X-ray surveillance, similar to infrared, ultraviolet and visual surveillance, also detects electromagnetic wavelengths. X-ray surveillance has been used in cargo and luggage inspection, fraud detection, health care, and military operations such as weapons detection. Petersen divides the third category of surveillance, chemical and biological surveillance also known as biochemical surveillance, into four sections; chemical and biological, biometrics, animals, and genetics. Biochemical surveillance primarily involves the detection and identification of harmful substances and diseases (Petersen, 2007). Biometrics is undoubtedly the most invasive form of physical surveillance measures which involves the “detection, identification, and tracking of individuals based upon unique physical characteristics or attributes [of the person]” (Petersen, 2007). Biometric technologies include finger, thumb, and handprints, iris and retina scans, voice prints, facial recognition, and DNA profiles (Petersen, 2007). Biometric technology is beginning to appear in smaller organizations for the purpose of tracking the hours worked by employees. Such is the case for the Ottawa-based Canadian coffeehouse company Bridgehead, which will be implementing a handprint recognition system in January 2008 to be used by employees to sign-in and sign-out of work. Biometric technology has also been implemented at major border crossings between Canada and the United States to identify individuals entering into Canada (Dobrowolsky, 2007). Animals are employed for surveillance purposes because they have skills and abilities, including heightened senses of smell and hearing, which are not present in human beings. Although dogs are the most commonly animal used in surveillance, the services of dolphins, sea lions, and birds have also been employed (Petersen, 2007). Some applications of animals, especially dogs, include search and rescue operations, and the detection of accelerants, explosives, firearms, and narcotics. Genetic surveillance is a form of biometrics which focuses on the collection, profiling and matching of DNA. It has been used in child abduction cases, as well as other forensic and criminal investigations for identification purposes (Petersen, 2007). The final category of surveillance identified by Petersen (2007), miscellaneous surveillance, is divided into three sections: magnetic, cryptologic, and computer. Magnetic tags and cards are used for access monitoring, data tracking, theft prevention, and security purposes (Petersen, 2007). Cryptologic surveillance involves “seeking, analyzing, and decoding hidden or coded messages” (Petersen, 2007). Computerized surveillance entails using computers to conduct traditional surveillance and data collection activities (Petersen, 2007). Petersen has demonstrated that surveillance technologies come in many forms and devices, and are applied by both the public and private sector in countless circumstances. With so many “eyes” looking over one’s shoulder, it is virtually impossible to ignore the warnings of Big Brother and government surveillance foreshadowed by George Orwell in 1984. Many authors dispute Orwell’s predictions (Petersen, 2007; Lace, 2005), arguing that contemporary society is in effect moving away from Big Brother scrutiny towards a society of Little Brothers. Lace describes this form of citizen surveillance, “sousveillance”, as democratizing because it is a 4 bottom-up phenomenon. One must consider whether the surveillance of citizens by citizens is indeed democratizing, or if it is just another violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed to citizens in democratic societies. Citizenship in democratic states after 9/11 In Canada, citizens are guaranteed rights and freedoms under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although these rights and freedoms are subject to reasonable limits, historically few situations exist where they have been overridden by other federal, provincial or territorial statutes. Prior to the terrorist attacks in New York City on September 11, 2001 and the contemporary War on Terror, Canadian policy-making focused on security of the community and of the person as outlined in section 7 of the Charter. After 9/11, the focus of public policy shifted to national security (Dobrowolsky, 2007). Although still entrenched in the Constitution and considered overriding, the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens fell under the scrutiny of government agencies such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the name of national security. Dobrowolsky (2007) refers to this process as securitization, in which protecting the state takes precedence over protecting the rights and freedoms of the individual. Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, is a victim of securitization. In September 2002, Arar was detained in New York City and questioned by American officials based on his personal relationships with individuals suspected of terrorist links, including Abdullah Almalki, Nazih Almalki, and Ahmad Abou-el-Maati (Arar, n.d.). Under the Canadian Charter, this should have been considered as a violation of Arar’s freedom of association. Arar was deported to Syria by American officials, tortured by Syrians, and then returned to Canada in October 2003. Many other rights guaranteed in the Charter were denied to Arar during this ordeal, including his right to enter, remain in, and leave Canada (“Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Section 6(1)”, n.d.), to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure (“Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Section 7”, n.d.), to not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned (“Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Section 9”, n.d.), and the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment (“Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Section 12”, n.d.). Arar was detained in New York based on information that the RCMP and CSIS had obtained while conducting surveillance on individuals suspected of having terrorist links and then shared with their U.S. counterparts (Mellon, 2006). This surveillance and data sharing took place without the consent of Arar, resulted in a direct violation of his rights and freedoms as outlined in the Charter, and was in effect a violation of his privacy. Anti-Privacy Legislation, Issues and Initiatives As noted by Spinello and Tavani (2004), privacy is difficult to define. Traditionally, privacy has been defined in physical terms, i.e. protecting personal space and property. However, contemporary definitions of privacy and privacy concerns in Western societies focus on the protection of personal information and data (Spinello & Tavani, 2004). For the purpose of this 5 essay, privacy shall refer to one’s need and desire to safeguard and regulate the disclosure of personal information and data. Post-9/11 anti-terrorism initiatives in Canada pose significant threats to the privacy, rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens. Significant changes were made to the Criminal Code of Canada by the Canadian Government as a result of anti-terrorism legislation for the purpose of gathering information on and investigating suspected terrorist activities and groups. These changes, as outlined by College and Cavoukian (2003), include delaying the notification of persons who have been subject to a wiretap for up to three years, eliminating the need to demonstrate that electronic surveillance was used as a last resort in the investigation of suspected terrorists, and extending a wiretap for up to one year. As demonstrated by the Maher Arar case, anti-terrorism initiatives can undermine civil liberties such as the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter. These initiatives are also highly criticized for enabling invasions of privacy. Although privacy is not a right guaranteed under the Charter, Article 12 of the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights states that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy […]” (“Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” n.d.). College and Cavoukian (2003) argue that privacy is a right that is recognized implicitly but yet provisionally in Canada. Anti-terrorism initiatives signal out groups of individuals based on characteristics such as religious belief, country of origin, and physical appearance. These groups, such as Muslim Canadians, fall victim to the increased scrutiny and surveillance of Canadian agencies in the name of national security more frequently than other Canadian citizens. College and Cavoukian (2003) outline seven main privacy concerns associated with national security and surveillance: the scope of government surveillance, loss of personal autonomy, loss of anonymity, lack of consent and knowledge, necessity and relevance of the personal information collected, unrelated use and disclosure of data, and data quality. Anti-terrorism initiatives, combined with the increasing availability of surveillance technologies, permits government agencies to gather vast quantities of information about the behaviour, background, daily activities, and communications of the average citizen (College & Cavoukian, 2003). Technological advancements have also increased the storage capabilities of computer databases resulting in mass amounts of information being kept on file when it is once deleted. The loss of personal autonomy in terms of privacy is related to the potential loss of control over one’s personal information. A loss of control over one’s personal information endangers the freedom to be oneself as well as the freedom to speak and act (College & Cavoukian, 2003). Anonymity is a central component of democratic societies, in terms of autonomy and democratic participation. Anonymity enables freedom of expression, freedom of religious belief, and voting without fear of judgment from one’s peers. Anonymity is especially jeopardized with regards to biometric surveillance. As noted by College and Cavoukian (2003), “if biometric 6 identifiers are widely used and shared, […] all the information about [individuals] could be linked” and the possibility of anonymity would become next to impossible. Anti-terrorism surveillance is primarily conducted without the consent or knowledge of the individual under investigation, as was the case for Maher Arar. The individual under surveillance might never become aware that any investigation has taken place if no criminal charges are brought against him or her. As a result of recent political scandals in Canada, the public has demanded increased transparency of government departments and agencies. However, the government is using national security and the threat of terrorism as a defence for secrecy. As discussed, the growing storage capacities of databases facilitate the collection of information over elapsed periods of time. As a result of technological advancements in storage capabilities, unnecessary or irrelevant data may be collected and stored for future, potential use. There exists much debate over the ethical implications of data sharing between public and private agencies. From a commercial perspective, for example a financial institution, it is useful to determine one’s eligibility for a loan based on an individual’s credit history with other institutions. But what happens when commercial institutions use the information collected for credit purposes for marketing purposes instead? Or what if the financial institution is bought by another corporation in another country? It is difficult and time-consuming for many consumers and citizens to monitor the use of their personal information by or to obtain and understand the privacy policies of the institutions and government agencies that they interact with. Data quality and accuracy are also a concern in terms of privacy. If two different individuals have the same name or date of birth, it is possible for their information to get mixed up. All data entry is performed by human beings, whether it is an individual entering his or her own information into an electronic form, or a representative of an agency transcribing an oral or written report. Human beings are prone to error and as a result “names get misspelled, digits are transposed, and addresses could be outdated or incorrect” (College & Cavoukian, 2003). The use of inaccurate or incorrect data can have negatively impact the public sector, private sector, and the individual. The Importance of Privacy Introna (1997) argues that privacy plays an integral role in shaping intimate relationships, public and private roles in society, and in maintaining individual autonomy. The Johari Window model of self-disclosure demonstrates that the bond between individuals in intimate relationships strengthens as reciprocal self-disclosure of information occurs (Beebe, Beebe, Redmond & Geernick, 2007). It is privacy, the control over one’s personal information, which permits self-disclosure to take place. Individuals display different personas, behaviours, and characteristics in different environments. The way that one presents oneself at home, in their private relationships, often varies drastically from how they present themselves at work, in their public relationships. All relationships are built upon a degree of disclosure, and it is “our ability to control who has access 7 to us and who knows what about us, that allows us to sustain a variety of relationships with others” (Introna, 2007). Introna (2007) draws on philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s notion of the panopticon to explain how privacy impacts behaviour. If a person is aware that they are being observed, then their behaviour will mimic the behaviour that they believe the observer expects. It is this phenomenon, or fear of deviance, that is behind the implementation of inactive security cameras. Simply because one believes that he or she is being watched, they will be on their best behaviour out of fear of punishment. Conclusion The purpose of this essay was to demonstrate that radio frequency identification and other forms of information tracking and collection technologies have the potential to be detrimental to citizenship in democratic societies. Technological advancements in the contemporary information society combined with a post-9/11 surge in anti-terrorism legislation in Western societies have resulted in the increased surveillance of citizens. Although surveillance has been conducted throughout history with a bare minimum of tools, technological advancements during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have facilitated mass surveillance and data collection. The capacity of data storage now seems endless. If one runs out of space, he or she merely needs to acquire a supplementary hard drive or backup the information to a CD-Rom. Mass surveillance and data collection has significant privacy implications for Canadian citizens as these activities may be performed without their consent. Privacy is not a right that is recognized by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is therefore subject to the limitations imposed by any provincial, territorial, or federal legislation. Privacy has been deemed insignificant when national security is at stake. As discussed by Introna (1997), privacy plays an integral part in shaping the relationships, roles, and autonomy of the individual. This paper therefore suggests that further research be conducted to determine the benefits and potential outcomes of modifying the Constitution to entrench privacy as a right in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 8 Bibliography Arar, Maher. (n.d.). October 8, 2002. Retrieved December 6, 2007 from http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers%20story.php Beebe, S.A., Beebe, S.J., Redmond, M.V., & Geernick, T.M. (2007). Interpersonal communication: Relating to other, Fourth Canadian Edition. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (n.d.). Retrieved December 4, 2007 from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/ Charter of Right and Freedoms – History. (2006). Retrieved December 4, 2007 from http://www.charterofrights.ca/en/26_00_01 College, G. & Cavoukian, A. (2003). National Security in a Post-9/11 World: The Rise of Surveillance…The Demise of Privacy? Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario. Retrieved December 6, 2007 from http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/lib/oculottawa/Doc?id=10151537 Cousens, M. (2004). Surveillance Law. Great Britain: Reed Elsevier Ltd. Dobrowolsky, A. (2007). (In)Security and Citizenship: Security, Im/migration and Shrinking Citizenship Regimes. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 8(2), 628-662. Retrieved December 4, 2007 through the academic e-journal database The Information Society. Introna, L. D. (1997) Privacy and the Computer: Why we need privacy in the information society. Metaphilosophy, 28 (3), 259-275. Retrieved December 6, 2007 through the academic e-journal database Information, Communication & Society. Lace, S. (2005). The new personal information agenda. In Susanne Lace (Ed.), The Glass Consumer: Life in a surveillance society (pp.207-245). Great Britain: National Consumer Council. Mellon, J. (2006). Arar inquiry moves closer to report, but some evidence may stay secret. Canadian Intelligence Resource Centre. Retrieved December 6, 2007 from http://circ.jmellon.com/history/arar/ Petersen, J.K. (2007). Understanding Surveillance Technologies: Spy Devices, Privacy, History & Applications, Second Edition. New York: Auerbach Publications. Smyth, J.E., Soberman, D.A., & Easson, A.J. (2007). The Law and Business Administration in Canada, Eleventh Edition. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada. Shepard, S. (2005). RFID: Radio Frequency Identification. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 9 Spinello, R.A., & Tavani, H.T. (2004) Readings in CyberEthics, Second Edition. (R.A. Spinello & H.T. Tavani, Eds.). Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved December 6, 2007 from http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html 10