DATA - PSST! Debating and Assessing Transparency Arrangements - Privacy, Security, Surveillance, Trust
Lead Research Organisation:
Bangor University
Department Name: Sch of Creative Studies and Media
Abstract
Research Context
Since whistle-blower Edward Snowden's revelations of 2013 we arguably live in a qualitatively and materially different techno-cultural period. Snowden revealed the surveillance activities of US and UK government signals intelligence agencies, catching unaware academic computer scientists, information specialists and privacy experts. Meanwhile, social media have normalized the practice of people watching each other by mediated means. Given this novel techno-cultural condition of increased, normalized and forced transparency, what are the academic responses? Building on Jeremy Bentham, we suggest that today, there are at least 3 forms of transparency:
1.Liberal transparency - that opens up machinations of power for public and democratic inspection, using knowledge as a force for promoting societal net benefit and happiness;
2.Radical transparency - that opens up both public processes and the private lives of citizens for inspection;
3. And what we term forced transparency - the negative consequences of radical transparency, ie where resistance to transparency is tantamount to guilt and where choice and autonomy are stripped away.
Aims & Objectives
While we have begun a typology of transparency, the boundaries in practice are unclear, as is the extent, and consequences, of society's move towards Bentham's vision of radical transparency. We envisage expanding this typology while exploring cases where boundaries blur. Recognizing that privacy is a qualified right, our starting point is that transparency is not inherently dystopian. Rather, we aim to understand the implications and responses to how positively conceived norms might be perverted. As such, our 2-year Seminar Series will explore, from multi-disciplinary/end user perspectives, how different aspects of transparency (whether voluntarily entered into, or state/commercially/peer-imposed) affect questions of privacy, security, surveillance and trust. These areas have been chosen, as transparency violates privacy; is argued as necessary for security; indiscriminately mass surveills; and both demands and compromises trust.
To explore these topics, we will draw on perspectives from Journalism, Media, Sociology, Criminology, Law, Politics, International Relations, Intelligence, Business, History, Computer Science and Philosophy, and on end users from media, journalism, law, governing bodies, regulators, Non-Governmental Organisations, business and security.
Seminars will be hosted in Bangor, Aberystwyth, Sheffield and London, and will be free to participants. We will produce: a web site hosting seminar summaries, a blog, and a Final Report outlining areas of academic consensus/dissensus; policy briefs compiled for end users; and a short documentary on transparency hosted on a video-sharing site, with a 6-second Vine clip. We will produce a Special Issue on transparency in an open-access, international, peer reviewed academic journal to illuminate and theorise social norms and consequences of transparency. We will generate an inter-disciplinary research agenda on transparency, to progress future research bids and conferences.
Potential Applications & Benefits
Beyond academics, beneficiaries include: commercial and government organizations engaged in transparency; trans-national regulatory bodies, and NGOs, lawyers and media outlets concerned with transparency; and citizens engaged in, and affected by, transparency practices. Academics and end users will better understand: (a) benefits of data collection, storage and analysis; (b) challenges on issues of privacy, security, surveillance and trust; and (c) cross-overs on these issues between state and commercial institutions. Impacts are expected from starting a public debate on transparency that may change transparency-related social and cultural practices of key actors (including citizens), so contributing to social, policy and economic change (as key actors better understand evolving norms).
Since whistle-blower Edward Snowden's revelations of 2013 we arguably live in a qualitatively and materially different techno-cultural period. Snowden revealed the surveillance activities of US and UK government signals intelligence agencies, catching unaware academic computer scientists, information specialists and privacy experts. Meanwhile, social media have normalized the practice of people watching each other by mediated means. Given this novel techno-cultural condition of increased, normalized and forced transparency, what are the academic responses? Building on Jeremy Bentham, we suggest that today, there are at least 3 forms of transparency:
1.Liberal transparency - that opens up machinations of power for public and democratic inspection, using knowledge as a force for promoting societal net benefit and happiness;
2.Radical transparency - that opens up both public processes and the private lives of citizens for inspection;
3. And what we term forced transparency - the negative consequences of radical transparency, ie where resistance to transparency is tantamount to guilt and where choice and autonomy are stripped away.
Aims & Objectives
While we have begun a typology of transparency, the boundaries in practice are unclear, as is the extent, and consequences, of society's move towards Bentham's vision of radical transparency. We envisage expanding this typology while exploring cases where boundaries blur. Recognizing that privacy is a qualified right, our starting point is that transparency is not inherently dystopian. Rather, we aim to understand the implications and responses to how positively conceived norms might be perverted. As such, our 2-year Seminar Series will explore, from multi-disciplinary/end user perspectives, how different aspects of transparency (whether voluntarily entered into, or state/commercially/peer-imposed) affect questions of privacy, security, surveillance and trust. These areas have been chosen, as transparency violates privacy; is argued as necessary for security; indiscriminately mass surveills; and both demands and compromises trust.
To explore these topics, we will draw on perspectives from Journalism, Media, Sociology, Criminology, Law, Politics, International Relations, Intelligence, Business, History, Computer Science and Philosophy, and on end users from media, journalism, law, governing bodies, regulators, Non-Governmental Organisations, business and security.
Seminars will be hosted in Bangor, Aberystwyth, Sheffield and London, and will be free to participants. We will produce: a web site hosting seminar summaries, a blog, and a Final Report outlining areas of academic consensus/dissensus; policy briefs compiled for end users; and a short documentary on transparency hosted on a video-sharing site, with a 6-second Vine clip. We will produce a Special Issue on transparency in an open-access, international, peer reviewed academic journal to illuminate and theorise social norms and consequences of transparency. We will generate an inter-disciplinary research agenda on transparency, to progress future research bids and conferences.
Potential Applications & Benefits
Beyond academics, beneficiaries include: commercial and government organizations engaged in transparency; trans-national regulatory bodies, and NGOs, lawyers and media outlets concerned with transparency; and citizens engaged in, and affected by, transparency practices. Academics and end users will better understand: (a) benefits of data collection, storage and analysis; (b) challenges on issues of privacy, security, surveillance and trust; and (c) cross-overs on these issues between state and commercial institutions. Impacts are expected from starting a public debate on transparency that may change transparency-related social and cultural practices of key actors (including citizens), so contributing to social, policy and economic change (as key actors better understand evolving norms).
Planned Impact
Beneficiaries below have been categorized into (a) those who have agreed to participate and (b) those who have not yet confirmed, but would benefit:
1. Commercial organizations concerned with transparency: (a) Tesco (H.Crooks), Planet Labs (A.Obeidah); GeoIncognita (A.Taverner); (b) Vodafone, G4S, Google.
2. Government agencies concerned with transparency: (b) Information Commissioner UK (C.Graham); National Crime Agency, UK.
3. Trans-national regulatory bodies concerned with data flow: (b) European Commission (DGs Home Affairs & Justice, N.Kroes, Comm for Digital Agenda); European Parliament (LIBE Committee, M.Schaake); Council of Europe (eg Data Protection Commissioner E.Souhrada-Kirchmayer); European Data protection supervisor (P.Hustinx).
4. National and international non-profit organisations campaigning for open data or against surveillance: (a) Privacy International (S.Davies); Statewatch (T.Bunyan); (b) Open Data Institute (G.Starks); Open Rights Group; Digital Rights Watch; Big Brother Watch.
5. National and international media and journalism outlets and lawyers concerned with transparency: (a) Julian Assange's (Wikileaks) lawyer (M.Stephens); International Modern Media Institute (B.Jónsdóttir); Bureau of Investigative Journalism (C.Hird); (b) Guardian editor (A.Rusbridger); Whistle Blowers Press Agency; English PEN.
6. Citizens engaged in sousveillant practices, and subjected to liberal, radical and forced transparency.
End users 1-5(a) will benefit by participating in seminars on issues of technical capabilities, consent, trust, appropriate use, boundaries, and political and commercial power on transparency practices. These end users will both convey and better understand: beneficial possibilities for data collection, storage and analysis; challenges on issues of privacy, security, surveillance and trust; cross-overs on these issues between state, commercial and non-profit institutions; corporations, states' and citizens' responsibilities and practices regarding gaining proper consent for their transparency practices; and public opinion on, media representations of, and campaigners' efforts on, these issues. These aspects impact public trust of transparency technologies; the corporations that provide these technologies; and uses to which governments put these technologies. Achieving better understanding is crucial as we are in a period of flux regarding transparency capabilities and practices, and peoples' awareness of forced transparency, with attitudes potentially ripe for change.
End users beyond seminar participants (eg 1-5(b)) will be engaged via policy briefs sent to targeted end users; on-going discussion on the project's blog; and our contributions to The Conversation (an online news outlet sourced from experts).
Access to the latest research framed in clear and policy-relevant terms, and to key players involved in agenda-building on these issues, will enable corporations and governments to better assess and respond to wider attitudes to transparency, so enabling them to hone their transparency-related products/policies, enhancing economic performance, policy and public acceptability of policy.
End user 6 will benefit from a documentary hosted for free, indefinitely on Vimeo, explaining key points on transparency, especially concerning privacy, security, surveillance and trust. The 6-second Vine will elicit interest in the documentary and project website. These will enable citizens to become better informed about the implications of their own, and others' transparency practices, so equipping citizens to engage more carefully with transparency technologies.
Thus, impacts will arise from achieving mutual understanding of perspectives and practices of multiple actors in the area of transparency. If taken on board, this knowledge may change their transparency practices, so contributing to social, policy and economic change.
1. Commercial organizations concerned with transparency: (a) Tesco (H.Crooks), Planet Labs (A.Obeidah); GeoIncognita (A.Taverner); (b) Vodafone, G4S, Google.
2. Government agencies concerned with transparency: (b) Information Commissioner UK (C.Graham); National Crime Agency, UK.
3. Trans-national regulatory bodies concerned with data flow: (b) European Commission (DGs Home Affairs & Justice, N.Kroes, Comm for Digital Agenda); European Parliament (LIBE Committee, M.Schaake); Council of Europe (eg Data Protection Commissioner E.Souhrada-Kirchmayer); European Data protection supervisor (P.Hustinx).
4. National and international non-profit organisations campaigning for open data or against surveillance: (a) Privacy International (S.Davies); Statewatch (T.Bunyan); (b) Open Data Institute (G.Starks); Open Rights Group; Digital Rights Watch; Big Brother Watch.
5. National and international media and journalism outlets and lawyers concerned with transparency: (a) Julian Assange's (Wikileaks) lawyer (M.Stephens); International Modern Media Institute (B.Jónsdóttir); Bureau of Investigative Journalism (C.Hird); (b) Guardian editor (A.Rusbridger); Whistle Blowers Press Agency; English PEN.
6. Citizens engaged in sousveillant practices, and subjected to liberal, radical and forced transparency.
End users 1-5(a) will benefit by participating in seminars on issues of technical capabilities, consent, trust, appropriate use, boundaries, and political and commercial power on transparency practices. These end users will both convey and better understand: beneficial possibilities for data collection, storage and analysis; challenges on issues of privacy, security, surveillance and trust; cross-overs on these issues between state, commercial and non-profit institutions; corporations, states' and citizens' responsibilities and practices regarding gaining proper consent for their transparency practices; and public opinion on, media representations of, and campaigners' efforts on, these issues. These aspects impact public trust of transparency technologies; the corporations that provide these technologies; and uses to which governments put these technologies. Achieving better understanding is crucial as we are in a period of flux regarding transparency capabilities and practices, and peoples' awareness of forced transparency, with attitudes potentially ripe for change.
End users beyond seminar participants (eg 1-5(b)) will be engaged via policy briefs sent to targeted end users; on-going discussion on the project's blog; and our contributions to The Conversation (an online news outlet sourced from experts).
Access to the latest research framed in clear and policy-relevant terms, and to key players involved in agenda-building on these issues, will enable corporations and governments to better assess and respond to wider attitudes to transparency, so enabling them to hone their transparency-related products/policies, enhancing economic performance, policy and public acceptability of policy.
End user 6 will benefit from a documentary hosted for free, indefinitely on Vimeo, explaining key points on transparency, especially concerning privacy, security, surveillance and trust. The 6-second Vine will elicit interest in the documentary and project website. These will enable citizens to become better informed about the implications of their own, and others' transparency practices, so equipping citizens to engage more carefully with transparency technologies.
Thus, impacts will arise from achieving mutual understanding of perspectives and practices of multiple actors in the area of transparency. If taken on board, this knowledge may change their transparency practices, so contributing to social, policy and economic change.
Publications
Bakir V
(2015)
"Veillant Panoptic Assemblage": Mutual Watching and Resistance to Mass Surveillance after Snowden
in Media and Communication
Bakir V
(2017)
Introduction to Special Theme Veillance and transparency: A critical examination of mutual watching in the post-Snowden, Big Data era
in Big Data & Society
Bakir V
(2017)
Spaces of Surveillance: States and Selves.
Bakir V
(2016)
Political-intelligence elites, Strategic Political Communication and the press: the need for, and utility of, a benchmark of public accountability demands
in Intelligence and National Security
Bakir, V.
(2015)
Public Feeling on Privacy, Security and Surveillance (Nov 2015).
Birchall C
(2016)
Shareveillance: Subjectivity between open and closed data
in Big Data & Society
Dencik L
(2016)
Towards data justice? The ambiguity of anti-surveillance resistance in political activism
in Big Data & Society
Gradecki J
(2017)
Crowd-Sourced Intelligence Agency: Prototyping counterveillance
in Big Data & Society
| Title | Empathic Media: Emotiveillance in Retail and Marketing |
| Description | about the rapid rise of a new form of data surveillance - of our emotions |
| Type Of Art | Film/Video/Animation |
| Year Produced | 2017 |
| Impact | Greater awareness among emergent empathic media industrial sector of the ethical issues with empathic media |
| URL | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jREIPFl0rwc&t=125s |
| Title | Sousveillance: Utah |
| Description | about the difficulties of publically documenting the NSA's surveillance cenrte in Utah |
| Type Of Art | Film/Video/Animation |
| Year Produced | 2017 |
| Impact | Jones presented this at a documentary'makers conference in 2017 |
| URL | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3686ja8wi8&t=34s |
| Title | Veillance |
| Description | Veillance Veillance is a web application which transforms data produced by a user's digital device into an interconnected typographic artwork. In an immersive exhibition, users connect to Veillance's wifi. This projects their unencrypted public data streams onto the room's four walls, re-rendered creatively to pick out watchwords from state surveillance lists. It also makes visible the commerical companies to whom the data flow goes. Thus, it raises awareness of being surveilled digitally by governmental and commercial organisations. Veilance exhibited in Pontio Arts and innovation Centre from 24 Feb 2017 - mid March. Prototypes were exhibted in FACT, Liverpool in 2016. The project team were: Ronan Devlin (Artist) Carwyn Edwards (IT Developer) Ant Dickinson (Sound) Michael Flueckiger (Front end - visualisation) Jamie Woodruff (Ethical Hacker) Vian Bakir, Adnrew McStay & Gillian Jein (Academics from Bangor University) |
| Type Of Art | Artistic/Creative Exhibition |
| Year Produced | 2017 |
| Impact | We will be collecting audeince data on their experience of the art work. it has directly affected the creative practice of Ronan Devlin. |
| Title | Veillance: Mutual Watching |
| Description | about the art installation to raise public awareness of their data flows |
| Type Of Art | Film/Video/Animation |
| Year Produced | 2017 |
| Impact | Participation in the DATA-PSST seminars led to two years of inter-disciplinary collaboration with Pontio artist-in-residence (Devlin). Devlin then led an international team comprising software developers (Edwards, Woodruff), a visualiser (Fluckiger) and a sound engineer (Dickinson) to win money from Arts Council England and The Space to create immersive, audio-visual art installations, Veillance, exhibited at FACT (Liverpool) for one week in 2016 (50 attendees) and at Pontio White Room (Bangor) for three weeks in 2017 (488 attendees). These installations drew on McStay's (2017) work on Digital Advertising, and Bakir's (2015) work on intelligence agency's surveillance of populations' commercial data, as well as Bakir's (2015, 2018) work on the possibilities of resisting this surveillance in contemporary digital environments. |
| URL | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EVb3gq--OU&t=194s |
| Description | 1. The breadth of disciplines engaged in discussing contemporary transparency arrangements. This was truly multi-disciplinary, embracing Computer Engineering, Business Studies, Sociology, Criminology, Digital Media, Journalism, Cultural Studies, English, International Relations, Politics, Ethics and Law. 2. The breadth of end users engaged: Some came to almost all seminars (eg Information Commissioners' Office - the UK's data regulator). Many came to multiple seminars. This included politicians interested in data protection and digital rights (the Pirate Party (UK, Iceland), International Modern Media Institute (Iceland), journalism organisations/journalists (Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Reuters Institute), private companies (Californian satellite imagery company Planet Labs, Finnish privacy software company F-Secure), NGOs in UK and Spain (Privacy International, Statewatch, X-Net), artists (from the USA, Netherlands, Canada, Wales and Ireland), security firms (UK), think tanks (International Institute for Strategic Studies, Estonia; Internet of Things Privacy Forum), and an ethical hacker (PatchPenguin). 3. Our new typology of actual and desirable social transparency arrangements, derived from positions held by all participants in the seminar series. We concluded that transparency has two important dimensions: (a) degree of citizen control over how visible they are; and (b) degree of oversight of the surveillant entity. Post-Snowden, we have moved towards a transparency arrangement of radical translucency. This is where (a) people have no personal control over their own personal visibility because they have signed this away for the greater good, but the surveillant organisation helps secure secure the individual's privacy by adding opacity; and (b) public processes are maximally opened up for inspection. We recommend a transparency arrangement where (a) citizens better understand and control their own personal visibility; and (b) there is more oversight and limits on surveillers. We concluded that internal and public oversight of surveillant state and commercial entities is insufficient. 4. Recurring themes emerging from DATA-PSST's seminars were as follows: (a) Because of its complex, abstract nature, it is difficult to understand how our digital data flows are surveilled, especially the relationship between commercial and state surveillance; (b) People working in the media and cultural sectors need to better explain these abstract dataveillance processes; (c) Only then can public opinion on mass surveillance be meaningfully known. Arising from this, we generated significant interventions: (1) We won extra funding to put on an art installation, Veillance, that makes people aware of their personal digital data flows via their smart devices, and the extent to which these are surveilled by commercial and state actors. (2) We made three short documentaries shared on social media, presenting the most important issues arising from this inter-disciplinary and multi-end user discussion. They are on: - Empathic Media: Emotiveillance in Retail and Marketing (about the rapid rise of a new form of data surveillance - of our emotions); - Sousveilance: Utah (about the difficulties of publically documenting the National Security Agency's surveillance centre in Utah); - And Veillance: Mutual Watching (about the art installation, Veillance, that seeks to raise public awareness of their data flows via their smart devices). (3) We many academic works exploring DATA-PSST issues. Of particular note is the Special issue on Veillance and Transparency: A Critical Examination of Mutual Watching in the Post-Snowden, Big Data Era in Big Data & Society (2017). This presents a series of provocations and practices on veillance (processes of mutual watching) and transparency in the context of 'big data' in a post-Snowden period. It inspired theoretical and empirical research papers, artistic, activist and educational provocations and commentaries. |
| Exploitation Route | Big Data and Society is an inter-disciplinary journal, so the fact that we achieved a Special Issue therein makes our findings available to multiple disciplines. Indeed, one was picked up by lawyers, resulting in significant international impact in the area of citizen rights regarding surveillance of their data. Artists and journalism/media/creative industries sectors could experiment with better/innovative public explanations of abstract processes of dataveillance. The artwork Veillance provides an example of how to do this (see our documentary on Veillance: Mutual Watching), but so do some of the theory-practice artworks discussed in our Special Issue on Veillance and Transparency (see publications by Light; Gradecki & Curry; Grosser). Documentary-makers could address the need for better public understanding of emergent forms of dataveillance, eg surveillance of data about our emotions (see publication by McStay (2017) and our documentary Empathic Media: Emotiveillance in Retail and Marketing). Governments/regulators should work towards a transparency arrangement where (a) citizens better understand and control their own personal visibility; and (b) there is more oversight and limits on surveillers. On public oversight of surveillant state entities, the robustness of whistle-blowing mechanisms to the press be strengthened; and mainstream journalism should ensure that information provided by intelligence elites is challenged and balanced by views from other legitimate actors. Government/regulators/companies should improve oversight of commercial entities, paying attention to consent mechanisms, collection of just enough data to fulfil a service, and less opaque Terms and Conditions. I sent a final report summarizing these issues to the DATA-PSST network, and to other actors who may find it relevant. The report includes hyperlinks to all the open access information, both academic and non-academic. |
| Sectors | Creative Economy,Digital/Communication/Information Technologies (including Software),Education,Government, Democracy and Justice,Culture, Heritage, Museums and Collections,Security and Diplomacy |
| URL | http://data-psst.bangor.ac.uk/index.php.en |
| Description | Our UKRI-funded research into 'veillance' has highlighted the harms to citizens arising from digital profiling by state and commercial entities including privacy violations and exposure to targeted online disinformation. This has enabled civil society to develop a better understanding of how to hold secretive state and commercial surveillant entities publicly accountable. The research has directly informed a range of national and international stakeholders and policymakers, including tthe Indian and Jamaican Supreme Courts; the South African High Court; British and Irish professional journalist practices; nongovernmental organisations; artists, and the wider public via global media coverage. Because state and commercial surveillance of digital communications is complex and abstract, policymakers, lawmakers, civil society and the public were unaware of how online behaviour feeds these practices. They were also unclear on how to resist and/or hold surveillant organisations publicly accountable. This research project impacted national and international bodies by illuminating the causes of, and problems with, such 'veillance', including the power imbalances therein, thereby guiding and enabling more informed solutions. These fall into two clear categories. Public accountability of intelligence elites a) Guidance for National Union of Journalists (NUJ). Members of the UK/Ireland trade union representing over 30,000 journalists often try to hold intelligence elites accountable in the public interest. Until recently, however, they lacked clear guidance on how to avoid surveillance. The 2016 Investigatory Powers Act allows bulk acquisition, storage and analysis of personal digital data by over 40 public bodies, including the police, with enhanced powers for intelligence agencies, including the hacking of encrypted messages. Informed by this project's research, in 2019 PI Bakir and Co-I Lashmar co-created the first NUJ-endorsed plain English guidance to help all UK and Irish journalists protect their confidential sources and information. This novel guidance was subsequently promoted to an international audience of journalists and editors at the International Journalism Festival in Perugia in 2019 and insights informing the guidance were conveyed to the European Broadcast Union in Berlin in 2015. Supporting the need for such guidance, PI Bakir and Co-I McStay submitted invited evidence to the House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights, Inquiry on Human Rights on Attitudes to Enforcement, in 2018 ('The Sorry Tale of British Journalism & our Right to Privacy') that improved its understanding of how British journalism minimally promotes privacy rights, preferring the intelligence elite's narrative on the need for surveillance for national security. b) NGO CAGE review of media strategy. This project's research prompted NGO CAGE, which campaigns on behalf of people subject to extraordinary rendition and indefinite detention in the 'War on Terror', to review the adequacy of its media strategy when dealing with UK intelligence agencies. Mutual watching, privacy and possibilities for resistance a) Citation of this project's academic outputs in Supreme and High Courts in India, Jamaica, South Africa judgements affecting over 1,400,000,000 people. PI Bakir's (2015) concept of 'veillant panoptic assemblage' was applied by Co-I McDermott (2017) to a legal context on data protection and consent in the information age, clarifying the nature of contemporary, ubiquitous 'veillance' and its privacy impacts. This research was cited by India's Supreme Court in ruling on a mandatory national identification system that informational privacy is a constitutional right that should be protected as part of the right to life and personal liberty. The ruling stated: 'There is what is now described as 'veillant panoptic assemblage', where data gathered through the ordinary citizen's Veillance practices finds its way to state surveillance mechanisms, through the corporations that hold that data' The dangers to privacy in an age of information can originate not only from the state but from non-state actors as well. We commend to the Union Government the need to examine and put into place a robust regime for data protection'. The ruling, including McDermott's work, was subsequently cited by Jamaica's Supreme Court in its 2019 declaration that a mandatory identification system is unconstitutional and a breach of privacy. Bakir's (2015) work on veillant panoptic assemblage was cited in South African High Court case no. 25978/2017 regarding the constitutionality of the regime for state surveillance of private communications between members of the South African public; accordingly, on 16 September 2019, the Court declared that bulk interception by the South African National Communications Centre is unlawful and invalid. b) Our project has achieved global media coverage through wide public engagement contributing to greater understanding of the need for public accountability of intelligence elites, problems with commercial data surveillance and its links to disinformation, and privacy implications of mutual watching and possibilities for resistance. Its work has been referenced 2 times in media with global reach; BBC.com and al-Jazeera.com, together reaching 700,000,000 people in over 100 countries. In addition it has received coverage in: Vecer (Slovenia, online readership 25,000 daily), The Indian Express (India, circulation 309,252 daily), The Hindu.com (16,350,000 average daily readers), Gauri Lankesh News (India, circulation 15,000) and Spring News Online (Thailand, over 2,000,000 Facebook followers). Its work is also covered in Open Democracy (3,500,000 unique yearly views largely from activists, journalists and policy influencers). c) Influencing artists. Co-I McStay's (2017) work on privacy and digital advertising, PI Bakir's (2015) work on the veillant panoptic assemblage, and PI Bakir, Co-I Feilzer and Co-I McStay's (2017) Special Issue on Veillance and Transparency, clarified the nature of contemporary data transparency arrangements to influence the creative practice of artists. This includes an artist from Canada (Light) who created a mobile installation that allows people to examine the leaked intelligence files from whistle-blower Edward Snowden without being tracked by the veillant panoptic assemblage. The Special Issue attracted artists from the USA who created a crowd-sourced intelligence agency to highlight the surveillant nature of social media (Gradecki & Curry); and who created an artistic computational surveillance system to make transparent to attendees the potential visibility of their present location on Earth, while also giving each site visitor the ability to watch other visitor 'traces' in real time (Grosser). This project;s research also influenced an artist from Ireland (Pontio artist-in-residence, Devlin) who created an immersive artwork that makes visible state and commercial surveillance of people's digital communications. Based on Bangor's research, with the academic contributions coordinated by Jein, Devlin led an international team comprising software developers (Edwards, Woodruff), a visualiser (Fluckiger) and a sound engineer (Dickinson) to win money from Arts Council England and The Space to create immersive, audio-visual art installations, Veillance, exhibited at FACT (Liverpool) for one week in 2016 (50 attendees) and at Pontio White Room (Bangor) for three weeks in 2017 (488 attendees). This installation developed real-time responsive software to surveil unencrypted data flowing through attendees' smart devices when connected to the exhibition's wifi. Through real-time responsive, immersive visualisation and sounds, it showed the public the extent to which their data and communications are routinely surveilled by commercial and state surveillance organisations. Attendees' web browsing revealed words that are identified by UK and US global security services as 'triggers' for potential suspicious activity. These words were re-rendered creatively in real-time to appear as floating texts, projected on the four walls of the exhibition space. A list of websites with which attendees' devices were communicating was also created in real-time, illustrating the constant communication between attendees, their data and outside surveillant organisations. These installations were designed to raise people's awareness of state and commercial surveillance of data flowing through their mobile phones. Audience feedback on Veillance said it made them think in 'news ways', 'helped me to create another point of view on the use of media and how it can 'define' you as a person'; and 'Very unique. Interesting and intriguing Great visuals will think more before googling and opening websites'. . On raising their awareness of the extent of data surveillance, thy said it made 'data surveillance more real'; made them 'more likely to read privacy consent notices' and be 'more careful what they browse online', 'knew a fair bit about data interception but still shocked with outcomes', 'I think we unconsciously give consent to many things without realising it'; 'It was exciting - but also quite stark to see how much data I was producing through just browsing'. Co-I McStay's (2016) work on 'emotiveillance', PI Bakir, Co-I Feilzer and Co-I McStay's (2017) Special Issue on Veillance and Transparency, and Jein's work co-producing art installation Veillance with Devlin led to a UK documentary-maker (Co-I Jones) making three short documentaries on core issues with data surveillance and sousveillance (peer-to-peer watching). These documentaries were shared on social media and project websites, and presented and discussed at a documentary-making conference (Belfast, 2017). |
| First Year Of Impact | 2016 |
| Sector | Communities and Social Services/Policy,Creative Economy,Digital/Communication/Information Technologies (including Software),Education,Government, Democracy and Justice,Culture, Heritage, Museums and Collections,Security and Diplomacy |
| Impact Types | Cultural,Societal,Policy & public services |
| Description | Bakir and McStay submitted evidence to House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights, Inquiry on Human Rights on Attitudes to Enforcement, on how British journalism minimally promotes privacy rights, but rather prefers the intelligence elite's counternarrative on the importance of surveillance for national security. |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Policy Influence Type | Contribution to a national consultation/review |
| URL | http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/human-rights-commit... |
| Description | Citation in India's Supreme Court Judgment (2017) on right to data privacy |
| Geographic Reach | Asia |
| Policy Influence Type | Citation in other policy documents |
| Impact | Impacting international data regulators, on 24 August 2017 India's Supreme Court ruled that privacy was a constitutional right, deserving of protection. This ruling was informed by Bakir's (2015) unique concept of 'veillant panoptic assemblage' and McDermott's cutting-edge (2017) application of this concept to a legal context (on data protection and consent in the information age). Bakir (2015) coined the term 'veillant panoptic assemblage' to clarify the inter-linkages between state, commercial and peer-to-peer modes of mutual watching of data flows, and the difficulties this raises for journalists in holding surveillant organisations publicly accountable. It demonstrates that Snowden's 2013 leaks on US/UK mass surveillance policies showed that citizens' communications and data that flows via commercial technology platforms can be reappropriated by the state for security reasons, and how weak civil society's resistance to this has been in the post-Snowden leak era. McDermott's applicaiton of this concept to a legal and big data context clarified for India's Supreme Court the nature of contemporary data surveillance and its impact on privacy. This enabled the Supreme Court to reach its landmark judgment in 2017 that privacy is a constitutional right in India, and so must be protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty (under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of India's Constitution). (McDermott-Rees, and through her Bakir, are cited in the Supreme Court's landmark judgment alongside seven long-standing academic luminaries on privacy doctrine (Richard Posner, Robert Bork, Catherine McKinnon, Alan Westin, Roger Clarke, Anita Allen and Bert-Jaap Koops, et al.; and three academics specifically on the formulation of an informational privacy right, (Christina Moniodis, Daniel Solove, and Posner). India's Supreme Court ruling was a response to a constitutional challenge to the Government of India's Aadhaar card biometrics project - which is the means to see that beneficial Government schemes filter down to persons for whom such schemes are intended, in accordance with India's Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services Act [2016]. As such, Aadhaar aims to build a database of personal identity and biometric information covering every Indian resident - the world's largest endeavour of its kind. Drawing on our research, the petitioners argued that Aadhaar would violate the right to privacy, while the Union of India, through its Attorney General, objected that Indians could claim no constitutional right of privacy. India's Supreme Court landmark judgement rules against the Indian government. Impacts are being experienced in the following International areas: India: The Indian Supreme Court now better understands the interlinkages between state and commercial surveillance, and citizen 'sousveillance' (i.e. watching of self, peers, and power-holders), and applied that understanding in its landmark decision recognising privacy as a constitutional right in India. This judgment will have an impact on the rights of all Indian citizens (1 billion people). India Supreme Court. 2017. Judgment. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 494 OF 2012. Available at: http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2012/35071/35071_2012_Judgement_24-Aug-2017.pdf |
| URL | https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/35071/35071_2012_Judgement_26-Sep-2018.pdf |
| Description | Citation in Jamaican Supreme Court ruling (Sep 2019) that a mandatory identification system is unconstitutional and a breach of privacy |
| Geographic Reach | Multiple continents/international |
| Policy Influence Type | Citation in other policy documents |
| Impact | Helping Supreme Courts (India, Jamaica) reach landmark judgements. Bangor's research on 'veillance' (i.e. processes of mutual watching) generated greater understanding among international Supreme Courts in Jamaica (and also India - see other entry) of the harms to citizens arising from being digitally profiled by state and commercial entities (namely, privacy violations). State and commercial surveillance of digital communications is complex and abstract. Policy-makers, law-makers, civil society and the public are unaware of how online behaviour feeds these practices; and unclear on how to resist, or hold surveillant organisations publicly accountable. Bangor's research illuminated causes of, and problems with, such 'veillance'. McDermott (2017) applied Bakir's (2015) concept of 'veillant panoptic assemblage' to a legal context on data protection and consent in the information age, clarifying the nature of contemporary, ubiquitous 'veillance' and its privacy impacts. This helped India's Supreme Court reach its landmark judgment (2017) (ruling on a mandatory national identification system) that informational privacy is a constitutional right in India that should be protected as part of the right to life and personal liberty. (McDermott is one of four academics cited on information privacy rights) in India's Supreme Court judgment (2017) [pp.251-2, pp.264-5]. This ruling affects the entire population of India (1.339 billion). India's Supreme Court ruling, including McDermott's work, was then cited by Jamaica's Supreme Court in Sep 2019 in its declaration that a mandatory identification system is unconstitutional and a breach of privacy [para. 175, p.151, pp.116-117]. This ruling affects the entire population of Jamaica (3m.) |
| URL | https://supremecourt.gov.jm/sites/default/files/judgments/Robinson%2C%20Julian%20v%20Attorney%20Gene... |
| Description | Citation in South African High Court re. constitutionality of state surveillance of private communications of South African public |
| Geographic Reach | Africa |
| Policy Influence Type | Citation in other policy documents |
| Impact | PI Bakir's (2015) work on 'veillant panoptic assemblage' was cited in South African High Court case no. 25978/2017 regarding the constitutionality of the regime for state surveillance of private communications between members of the South African public. Accordingly, on 16 September 2019, the Court declared that bulk interception by the South African National Communications Centre is unlawful and invalid. This ruling affects the whole of South Africa (58,000,000 people). |
| URL | https://amabhungane.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/190212_amaB-heads-of-argument.pdf |
| Description | Engagement with APPG Extraordinary Rendition |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Policy Influence Type | Participation in a guidance/advisory committee |
| Description | Part of Veillance artwork |
| Geographic Reach | Local/Municipal/Regional |
| Policy Influence Type | Participation in a guidance/advisory committee |
| Description | Provided duidance for National Union of Journalists (NUJ) - the UK/Ireland trade union that represents >30,000 journalists. NUJ members often try to hold the security state accountable in the public interest, but lack guidance. This is particularly problematic since the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Following on from DATA-PSST seminars, Bakir and Lashmar exchanged knowledge with NUJ across 2016-18; identified a need for NUJ guidance on how to avoid surveillance (most commonly by the police); and created plain English guidance (available to NUJ members only, to prevent it from being used against journalists). This constitutes the first NUJ-endorsed plain English guidance to help all UK and Irish journalists protect their confidential sources and information, and avoid 'chilling effects' of mass surveillance on their efforts to hold power accountable. |
| Geographic Reach | Europe |
| Policy Influence Type | Influenced training of practitioners or researchers |
| URL | http://intel-elites.bangor.ac.uk/douments/NUJ%20GUIDE%20Abridged%202019.pdf |
| Description | DATA-PSST collaborated with Cardiff University's ESRCfunded project DCSS |
| Organisation | Cardiff University |
| Department | School of Journalism, Media & Cultural Studies |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Sector | Academic/University |
| PI Contribution | Bakir led the report and the analysis that led to the policy recommendations, and write the section on in-depth EU studies of public opinion. McStay wrote the section on public opinion of commercial surveillance |
| Collaborator Contribution | Cable, Hintz and Dencik (Cardiff Univ.) wrote the section on public opinion on Snowden's surveillance. |
| Impact | This is a 23-page Policy Report on Public Feeling on Privacy, Security and Surveillance (Nov 2015). This summarises a range of polls and in-depth studies on public feeling on privacy, security and surveillance post-Snowden, making observations and recommendations of interest to anyone legislating or campaigning on Privacy, Security and Surveillance. This report was sent to a wide range of legislators, regulators, intelligence advisors, NGOs, activists and journalists, in the hope of intervening in public and policy discourse around the new Investigatory Powers Bill being debated in parliament |
| Start Year | 2015 |
| Description | DATA-PSST Seminar 1 |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | 33 people attended a full-day workshop debating 'Transparency Today: Exploring the Adequacy of Sur/Sous/Veillance Theory and Practice'. Comprising multi-disciplinary academics, a practicing digital designer, an internationally renowned engineering innovator and an international satellite surveillance co, the end users reported increased insight into ways of thinking about surveillance, and how this can be challenged. The digital designer was inspired to make several (successfl) grant applications to Arts Councils for a digital art project exploring 'Veillance' (mutual watching) via peple's mobile phones. All participants posted their Postion Statements on the project blog site, which is now being used by other universities to teach about digital surveillance (eg Farnham). |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://data-psst.blogspot.co.uk/ |
| Description | DATA-PSST Seminar 5: Tackling Transparency Beyond the Nation-State, 31 March 2016. Multi-end user engagement |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | The seminar series brings together academics and practitioners to understand the promises and pitfalls of current transparency practices and their implications for society (especially privacy, sur/sous/veillance, security and trust) from a multi-disciplinary perspective. The aim of Seminar 5 was to focus on the ongoing attempts at the European and international level to regulate, confine and oversee the global flow of information. To do so, it brought together scholars and practitioners of international relations, political science, international law, human rights, media and journalism to examine key debates, analyse strengths and weaknesses of existing mechanisms of regulation and oversight and explore questions about which political level is best suited to such a demanding mandate. The event attracted 30 participants, some international (Japan, Germany, Estonia, Spain): 25 academics and 5 end users (artist, company, think tank, NGO, Information Commissioners Office) We produced a 3-page report on Policy Recommendations DATA-PSST! seminar 5. 2016. Key recommendations are: 1. We suggest greater transparency about data collection and processing, and about the effectiveness of policies based on such surveillance. 2. We recommend a particular form of transparency - with opacity built in to protect necessary secrets, but with regular and periodical review of all stages of the data process by diverse actors drawn from citizenry, civil liberties groups, technologists, industry and of course intelligence agencies. 3. For surveillance systems to work in a predictive capacity, they need and want people to behave freely, so that peoples' real intentions can be discerned. The objective for those interested in maximizing civil liberties and those working in intelligence and security is that people behave in an unconstrained fashion (that is, without being subjected to any 'chilling effect'). After all, the objective of bulk data collection is to discern unusual patterns against normalcy. We argue there is a danger of an 'observer effect' taking place. 4. We suggest that the aims of any governmental or commercial surveillant organisation involved in data collection and processing are publicly articulated more fully and clearly. They should provide more detail than blanket terms such as 'protecting national security', and more meaningful clarity than complex Terms and Conditions and associated tick-boxes of consent and compliance. 5. For these aims to be better understood within society we suggest the need for greater public engagement by surveillant entities with citizens. This would help generate challenges, dialogue and perhaps even consensus and greater trust. 6. Technological change on what it is possible to capture, through data, continues apace: contemporary examples include application of artificial intelligence and machine learning, data analytics, biometric devices and emotion detection. Given rapid technological progress that outstrips common understanding of what it is possible to collect, and what it reveals about an individual, we need regular review of both the adequacy of regulation and public preparedness. In other words, as technology develops, do people and politicians understand what is really going on and how it will affect them on a personal, and societal level? |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://data-psst.bangor.ac.uk/policy.php.en |
| Description | DATA-PSST Seminar 6 - Cohering Inter-disciplinary responses and rebuilding the agenda. Multi-end user engagement. May 2016 |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Third sector organisations |
| Results and Impact | This seminar aimed to synthesise what we have learned from previous Seminars 1-5; to decide on key messages for the general public and policy makers; and to think about how these ideas can be best communicated. It attracted13 participants: academics and 3 end users (artist/designer, journalist, NGO). We produced a short policy report with the following recommendations: 1. The argument that citizens willingly trade their privacy for the sake of security has been shown to be an over-statement. Public debate should acknowledge and address citizens' very real concerns surrounding surveillance. 2. Legislators (at national and supra-national levels) should be mindful of the opacity and inaccessibility of the legislation outlining certain obligations, such as data protection legislation, and the emerging requirement for 'privacy by design'. Public bodies should do more to make these obligations more accessible and understandable to engineers and designers faced with such legal obligations. 3. There is a need for greater focus on public accountability from the actions of the state and other bodies collecting information. Transparency alone will not lead to greater accountability. 4. Governments and others involved in surveillance and data collection should embrace transparency insofar as is possible. Recognising that total transparency may not always be feasible, we recommend a push towards greater translucency - in other words, transparency should not be seen as an 'all or nothing' exercise. 5. Academics should consider ways of making theories and concepts surrounding privacy, transparency, surveillance and security more accessible to a broader audience through, for example, engaging with the artistic community and providing more accessible messages via social media, to create a public space for engagement on these issues. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| URL | http://data-psst.bangor.ac.uk/policy.php.en |
| Description | DATA-PSST seminar 3 - Media Agenda-Building, National Security, Trust and Forced Transparency |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | 35 people attended a full-day workshop debating Media Agenda-Building, National Security, Trust and Forced Transparency. Comprising multi-disciplinary academics, and end users including an ethical hacker, international NGOs concerned with national security and surveillance, investigative journalists who have acted as national security wistle-blowers, mainstream journalists who write about intelligence agencies, and HE journalsm educators, most (although not all)agreed that journalists needed better training in digital surveillance and privacy matters, with better protocols for making reporting on intelligence agencies and the security state more transparency and accountable. To progress this last point, PI Bakir made two further (successful) grant applications to Bangor Univeristy's Impact Accelerator Account in 2015-16 to co-create with end users a benchmark of accountability demands to better hold political-intellgience elties to account. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://data-psst.blogspot.co.uk/ |
| Description | Interview with APPG Extraordinary rendition |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Following my conference presentation on 'Public Accountability of Intelligence Agencies and the Sousveillance Generation' at an EU Project Conference on Intelligence, Surveillance and Oversight, (Kings College, London), which draws on thinking developed during the DATA-PSST award, I was invited to speak to the APPG on Extraordinary rendition. This then generated advice to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition on reforming the Intelligence and Oversight Committee to ensure that extraordinary rendition involving British intelligence agencies can never happen again. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2022 |
| Description | Participation in European Broadcasting Union's 10th Annual News Congress in Berlin. Spoke on Journalism post-Snowden. |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | Drawing on DATA-PSST seminars that concluded that internal and public oversight of surveillant state and commercial entities is insufficient, this led Bakir to speak on a Panel on Journalism post-Snowden, focusing on security issues and public opinion of surveillance, at the European Broadcast Union's (EBU)/Eurovision 10th Annual conference (26-27 October 2015, Berlin). She also wrote about it on DATA-PSST's blog (a site that has attracted over 53,296 page views by Nov 2017, most from the USA, followed by UK, Russia, Germany, China, Canada, France, Ukraine, Ireland and S.Korea). Bakir spoke on 3 things international broadcasters need to know about journalism post-Snowden (see accompanying blog post on the media-intelligence relationship) at European Broadcasting Union's 10th Annual News Congress in Berlin. 26 Oct 2015. (Audience: all Heads of Broadcast News. Televised, and with Potential audience of 1.2 billion.) She highlighted the need to communicate that Euriopean publics do not want a trade-off between securty and privacy, but demand both; and I drew attention to the relationship between media and intellgience agencies as being both too close and too distant for effective public oversight. THis drew |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://data-psst.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/3-things-european-broadcast-editors-and.html |