Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

uni'wissen 02-2015_ENG

“When we think we are under observation, we do not behave as we otherwise would.” interviews in which citizens answered questions on relevant topics and compiled a list of the side effects of surveillance. “First of all, there is the violation of the private sphere,” she says – whether through body searches, the searching or surveillance of private spaces, or control over personal data such as in the recording of tele- phone conversations or e-mail messages. Second, there is the fear that personal data and information are not sufficiently protected or can be misused. In addition, it is possible to make out a “surveillance paradox,” says Orrù: “Surveillance technologies are introduced to give people a feeling of security – but they can also achieve the opposite.” When a space is placed under video surveillance, for example, it can give people the impression that it is especially dangerous there, and when intelligence agencies conduct large-scale operations, the fear of personal data being misused can be greater than the hope for more security. The effect of surveillance is not limited to the individual either, says Orrù, but also has an indirect impact on society through so-called chilling effects, sometimes also referred to as deterrent effects. “When we think we are under observation, we do not behave as we otherwise would.” Even just the feeling of being under surveillance can lead to unquestioning obedience or self-censorship, whether this is a conscious reaction or not. “That can have negative conse- quences for rights like freedom of assembly,” says Orrù – because in case of doubt, the citizens will prefer to back off. Future surveillance technologies should take into account potential problems like these by design, says Orrù, not afterwards. Here she refers to a concept developed by Ann Cavoukian, the former Information and Privacy Commissioner of the Canadian province of Ontario, that is currently the subject of much debate in the EU, namely that of “privacy by design.” However, Orrù would recommend replacing the term privacy: “If there is surveillance, there can never be complete privacy. The term can thus lead to misunderstandings.” Besides, it cannot encompass all of the side effects it entails, she adds. Three New Principles Orrù recommends replacing the concept of privacy with three other concepts. The first princi- ple should be to limit the extent of intrusions and violations as much as possible: “minimum harm by design”; second, it should be visible from the outset which measures are being introduced with what purpose, how they work, and how efficient they are: “transparency by design”; and third, it should remain clear at all times who is doing what with which data and who is responsible for it: “accountability by design.” This could be docu- mented technically, for example on log files. In the SURVEILLE project report, Orrù advises the EU to apply these three principles to all future research and development in the area of security technologies. Orrù also deals with the effects of surveil- lance in her habilitation project, which is being supervised by the Freiburg philosophy professor and director of the Husserl Archive Prof. Dr. Hans-Helmuth Gander. Her working title for the thesis is Surveillance and Power: A Philosophical Analysis Based on Three Surveillance Initiatives Big brother is watching you: The panopticon principle enables a single guard to watch every prisoner. They do not know when they are being watched – and are always under pressure to be on their best behavior. Photo: Friman/Wikimedia Commons 37uni wissen 02 2015 37uni wissen 022015