Naked Citizens - World

For downloads and more information visit: http://www.journey.webbler.co.uk/?lid=65226&bid=2

Increasing numbers of 'terror suspects' are being arrested on the basis of online and CCTV surveillance data. Authorities claim they act in the public interest, but does this intense surveillance keep us safer?

"I woke up to pounding on my door", says Andrej Holm, a sociologist from the Humboldt University. In what felt like a scene from a movie, he was taken from his Berlin home by armed men after a systematic monitoring of his academic research deemed him the probable leader of a militant group. After 30 days in solitary confinement, he was released without charges. Across Western Europe and the USA, surveillance of civilians has become a major business. With one camera for every 14 people in London and drones being used by police to track individuals, the threat of living in a Big Brother state is becoming a reality. At an annual conference of hackers, keynote speaker Jacob Appelbaum asserts, "to be free of suspicion is the most important right to be truly free". But with most people having a limited understanding of this world of cyber surveillance and how to protect ourselves, are our basic freedoms already being lost?

ORF

Welcome to London,
the world's capital of surveillance

Eventhough the year isn't 1984,
you may be forgiven

for imagining Big Brother
really is watching you.

I can see one, two...

six, seven...
fourteen, fifteen... eighteen cameras.

On this spot.

Every bit of public ground
is monitored all the time,

so that every single street.

But also just because all the different
companies, different Londoners,

have their own CCTV cameras,
so every spot is watched by everybody.

In the most monitored city
in the world,

there is one camera
for every 14 people.

But does this intense surveillance
keep Londoners safe?

I mean, in a way
these streets are kind of dangerous,

because they're covered in CCTVs,
but no one is watching.

That's what's interesting
about CCTV culture.

It takes away the drive
for having initiatives

like natural surveillance
being built in.

Photographer Henrietta Williams
and cartographer George Gingell

have mapped a 'Ring of Steel'
around London's financial district,

forged from automatic bollards,

security gates,
and surveillance cameras.

Anyone who enters
is registered electronically,

and anything out of the ordinary
triggers security protocols,

even seemingly innocuous things
like video cameras.

You have to use the other side,
not facing the building door.

You can, as long as you're here.

We can film whichever way we want.

I'm not arguing with you,
I'm telling you what I'm told.

I'm only doing my job.

The police can rely on the private security
to jump in there before them.

So it's like a faster response unit

for less money by the government
and for the city of London.

In fact in most cases,
the streets along this block

were given to the developers

so they could enact the policy
of complete pedestrian streets,

but also installing the defense
and surveillance against terrorist attack

and again sort of petty loitering.

The surveillance systems here
aren't just simple cameras.

Anyone who behaves unexpectedly
triggers an alarm.

Imperceptibly, humans can observe
and evaluate behaviour

through these smart cameras
without anyone noticing.

If the camera detects
an unusual event,

the subject is marked.

One of the world's leading scientists
behind the development of smart cameras

is Prof. James Orwell,
of Kinston University.

The system his teams are developing
can detect suspicious activity,

even before a crime occurs.

The way is to present
large volums of data

over many months,
possibly years.

And so that enables the system
to develop a statistical model

of what is normal
or maybe what is abnormal.

And so then
there is automatic flagging

of anything
that is considered abnormal.

Pr. Orwell has been monitoring
the university carpark

with one of these new cameras.

This system is learning
normal patterns of behaviour:

who leaves,
who arrives, and how they act.

We're able to measure

how long they spend in this area,

and so we can flag
if there is some suspicious behaviour,

for example if somebody
is loitering in this area.

Loitering is not allowed
in the carparks of Kingston University.

But the system doesn't perfectly
understand human behaviour.

An individual only needs
to linger moments early

before the system flags them
as potentially undesireable.

In locations where thousands of people
pass in front of the cameras everyday,

it's even more difficult
for the systems to determine

what is normal behaviour
and what is not.

Are these people
simply on their way to work?

Or does this group hide a terrorist?

Either way, inaccurate identification
can have serious consequences.

It's the case that French national
David Mery demonstrates.

In July 2005, the IT expert
enters the Southwark underground station.

Eastward security cameras
passed over him.

He was flagged up as different,

wearing a jacket
despite the warm summer weather.

And he does not immediately
board the first train

to arrive at the platform.

David now knows as first hand
that he has been constantly evaluated.

They found my behaviour suspicious,
because I was not looking at them

or at others when I entered the station,
I looked at the steps.

This was enough for David

to warrant the full attention
of the security cameras.

I would prefer to avoid the cameras
but it's impossible,

there are too many cameras in London.

David Mery was arrested and searched.

When nothing was found on his person,
police raided his apartment.

One diagram in particular
suggested the officials

that they had apprehended
a dangerous criminal.

I had been on the phone
or something else.

And they were
very interested in that.

They asked whether
this was a map of the tub station.

As it's doodles, you can see
anything you want in them.

It's impossible
to disproof what it isn't.

It's just doodles.

Only three weeks before the police
were quizzing David Mery

about his suspicious drawing,

London had experienced

the most devastating terrorist attack
in the city's history.

52 people lost their lives
when four suicide bombers

detonated explosives
on public transports.

Three of them
were filmed ahead of the attack,

during a test run on the underground.

But despite the thorough documentation
of their preparations,

there was still no way

for their devastating crime
to be prevented.

Suspicion instead
falls on David Mery,

whose details are stored
in a file of terrorist suspects.

8 years on, and the authorities
still haven't removed him from the file.

I cannot travel to the United States.
And considering that my arrest

was in relation with terrorism,
even though I was never charged,

I have no chance of getting a visa.

Anyone suspected of crime in the UK

quickly loses their right to privacy.

The Face Watch unit
of the London police

presents faces
of suspects to the public

using footage from security cameras
posted on the Internet.

This is a gentleman of interest.

And his image appears there.

We tick the authorized button here so it
goes on the public website and to the app.

And we tick
that we decide that we authorize it.

And then I press submit.

And that image
is now gone into the system

and can be viewed by the public
on the Face Watch site

and on the Face Watch app.

Mick Neville is head of image recognition
at Scotland Yard.

He feels this kind of
crowdsourced policing by the Internet

represents a powerful new weapon
in the fight against crime.

Thousands of people
have registered for the app.

In the United Kingdom,

people quite accept the CCTV.

They think the police
do a good job with CCTV,

and they're happy
to identify a criminal.

There's not so much fear of surveillance,
I don't think, in United Kingdom,

as possibly on mainland Europe.

Over the past decade, the UK
has been constantly seeking new ways

to combat
the passive threat of terrorism.

In this military base
two hours outside of London,

the newest techniques
are getting put through their paces.

Mark Lawrence is one
of the new breed of experts,

offering instructions in the use
of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV),

or drones.

No official government sources

will publicly talk
about the effectiveness

of this new technique.

Only Mark Lawrence
will speak with us.

So what I'm planning to do now
is hopefully track Patrick down,

either on his way there
or his way back.

And if I see him in this yard,

I will fly to the horse track

to see if we can pick him up there.

The hunt takes place
across three miles.

So we've got Patrick,
we've located him, he is in the drone,

so we're gonna fly towards him there.

Big Brother approaches unnoticed
from the air.

When the target is discovered,
the UAV becomes a constant companion

at a height of 120 meters.

What we're doing
is using a GPS lock to do this.

So if I double click here

we can just keep the subject
in the center of the screen,

and also at the same time
the unit will follow him backwards.

So let's fly this way.

There you go.

So, did it work?

Yeah we got you. We got you
in the house and coming out as well.

So that's why it's good
for covered surveillance.

Is it possible that in the future
we see drones flying over our heads?

Maybe not directly over your head
but definitely,

the police are using them now.
They're using them for surveillance work

and not just sneaking around
spying on people,

as a lot of people seem to think.

Sometimes,
to catch the bad things going on,

you need to be
- I suppose you could call it sly -

or just secretive about it.

There are plans
to fit the drones with improved cameras

incorporating
face-recognition technology.

Quietly, public privacy
is being exchanged for greater security.

Mickael Chandler is the head
of Vanquish security back in London.

He's also keen
to demonstrate some of his techniques,

some of which
are alarmingly effective.

Hey, how's it going?

How did you get that?

Well, basically, what we've done was
we remotely switched on

the microphone in your phone
and recorded at a predetermined time

and that recording
then uploaded to our online platform.

The phone was bugged,

whilst it was left unattended
on the table

during our interview with the police.

Professor Orwell was also monitored.

... then there is automatic flagging

of anything
that is considered abnormal.

Okay, so here is the photograph
taken in the Police Station I believe.

There's that one
and there's this one.

Here are the calls.

So obviously,
these are all your phone calls,

text messages,
which has been only one.

You have an overview
of your location which is -

because it's an overview, you've only got
your location for this afternoon.

But in general, it's also got
the photographs that have been taken.

And also, all the voice recordings
that we have made.

So you just can see everything
without my knowledge actually?

Basically yeah.

That's exactly what it was.
And not only that.

There's absolutely no way for you

to be able to find the device
on your phone. It's totally hidden.

Only we would be able to find it.

OK so this is the photographs
that we found in your phone.

Probably I don't know what they are,
but what I can do

is have a look
at the time they were taken.

And then cross it
not only with the recordings we have

but also the location.

We can show you that you were...

at a police station
on Seymour Street.

That goes through GPS?

This is a GPS report
coming from your device.

And that's all legal?

This is totally legal.

Absolutely legal, yes.

Amazing.

As this demonstration has revealed,

it's becoming ever easier
to covertly track individuals,

using modern technology.

And it's happening
far more often than we realize.

According to
ex-NSA analyst William Binney,

American security agency
now have the technology

to eavesdrop whenever they want.

So they're storing it all.
They're collecting it all and storing.

It's all in large storing facilities,
that's what that's all about.

And the point is
that they hope by storing it all now

that some time in the future
they'll figure out how to go back into it

and figure out what is important,
so they can reanalyze it.

That's why they need
5 zettabytes of storage in Utah.

They store it all.

William worked
for the US government for 32 years.

He was responsible
for electronic espionage.

A decade ago,

when the authorities began
to bug US citizens,

he left the service.

The fight against terrorism

seems to change the rules
of engagement over night.

I mean there virtually is nothing in the
network that they can't have a copy of.

If they start targeting you, so what?
They already have your data.

I can't find out
what they are doing with my data.

But I know they have it.

So I make sure I write in there
whatever I have to say about them,

I say that in there.

So when they collect it,
they know what I'm thinking of them.

With specially developed software,

the authorities
can tap into our computers

without us realizing.

This is a promotional video
from the manufacturer FinSpy.

A surveillance program
designed for the police.

It is widely used
across western Europe,

and the principle is always the same.

The authorities infect
the victim's computer with malware,

whilst they're hiding
a fake software update.

The unsuspecting user clicks on 'OK',

and the police
can now observe everything

as it happens on screen.

The intruder gets passwords,

emails,
and can see stored data.

Not everybody in here
works for FinFisher, right?

This is the largest
hacker convention in Europe.

In fact, probably more people in here
work against FinFisher. Thanks for that.

So, to that end, we can make a choice
about what we'd like to do.

Once a year, hackers
from around the world meet in Hamburg.

The theme of this year's meeting
is 'State surveillance'.

Keynote's speaker Jacob Appelbaum
knows what it means to be persecuted.

He's a close friend and supporter
of Julian Assange.

To be free from suspicion
is one of the first freedoms.

That is important for being free
in the rest of your life.

When you're followed around,
when you're being investigated,

because of the whim of someone,

this is the beginning of the end
of your freedom.

Does the NSA routinely intercept
American citizens' emails?

No.

Does the NSA intercept

American's cellphone conversations?

No.

- Google searches?
- No.

- Text messages?
- No.

- Amazon.com orders?
- No.

- Bank records?
- No.

That was General Alexander,
the most powerful person in the world.

Probably even more powerful
than the President of the US,

or any leader of any other country.

That guy's a fucking liar,
first of all.

Because, we know for a fact...

We know for a fact from Mark Klein
that the NSA was in fact doing

dragnet surveillance
of all of those things.

I don't really use a mobile phone

for anything
except security research these days.

So I don't really use a mobile phone.

I chose not to use Facebook

because I really think
it's more like 'StasiBook'.

We should not just use systems

that make trade ops
we wouldn't agree with,

that are not democratically decided.

The Icelandic capital of Reykjavík

is the perfect location from which
to investigate the technologies

states can use
to track their citizens.

It was from here that Wikileaks released
this infamous video from the Iraq war.

Those involved
with the release of the video

suddenly found themselves
facing up to a powerful opponent.

Birgitta Jónsdóttir, who has worked
for the media and for Wikileaks,

sent photos from the video
to the international press.

This activity transformed her
into a national security target,

and her right to digital privacy
was repelled,

eventhough there were
no legal proceedings against her.

Twitter was demanded
to hand over my personal stuff,

within three days,
without my knowledge.

Which means that

they did a very bad example

for the government of the US
to go into people's

- you know, even parliamentarians -
in other countries,

to snoop into their personal matters.

What's most remarkable about this story
is that Birgitta Jónsdóttir

is a Member
of the Icelandic Parliament.

Furthermore, Twitter was not the only
source of private digital information

to hand data over
to the US security agencies.

Have a look at what experts say
in this field in the States for example.

They speculated

it's Facebook, Google,
perhaps Skype or IP hosts.

I don't know,
but the judge refuses

to acknowledge
the request from my lawyers

to unseal what companies it is.

Jónsdóttir did nothing illegal
when she released the video.

But it was enough

to warrant invasive snooping
from the US security agencies.

That's me,

my younger son, older son.

Some people that I've got to know later
I worked with.

Three years ago, the Icelandic people
took to the streets.

The banking crisis
had hit the small island nation hard.

The Icelandic saucepan revolution
ultimately forced the general election.

Birgitta Jónsdóttir
was elected to the new Parliament.

But for the US government,
she remained a target.

Today, Jónsdóttir campaigns

for digital rights
and self-determination.

She wants Iceland to become
a safe haven for sensitive data.

They want to put a stop
to the prying eyes of the state.

We went on a quest around the world

to cherry-pick all the best
functioning laws in this regard.

Emails, for example,

would be protected in the same way
as written correspondence.

There is absolutely
no country in the world

that actually properly addressed

how easy it is
for government and corporations

to mine through our private data.

We in Iceland
are focusing on creating a standard

and setting an example,
and it would be really ideal,

and this is one of the thoughts behind
the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative.

The ideal if we can,

with this new set of laws,
create a haven

in such a way that I would like
to see it spread to other countries.

International demand
to store confidential data in Iceland

has increased dramatically.

But according to Smári McCarthy
there is also global uncertainty

about this issue.

He is director of the
International Institute for the Media.

Journalists and their sources
have deep concerns

about their data being protected.

Your data
is just being shifted around,

and they turn computers off,
and they turn computers on

and your data is wherever
they think it's gonna be cheapest.

This is great
if you're running a business.

It is terrible if you own data
and you don't know where it is.

Suddenly the cat folders are droploaded
or subject to Brazilian law.

That's not something
you signed up for.

The police
can shut down illegal sites.

It was the case
with this raid on the server room

for online file sharing site
The PirateBay.

The problem is with the legal information
from other providers

that may be lost in the process.

To protect these data
from any access,

it needs to be
in an unreachable place.

In the future,
that place could be in Iceland.

The idea of Iceland
as an inverse tax haven

- this is a place
that protects people's privacy

and people's information,
and free speech rights

rather than protecting people
against the tax authorities

is a very nice one

and it's definitely
something worth striving towards.

It'll take time.

Hopefully over time every country
will be a Switzerland of bits.

But Birgitta Jónsdóttir

will continue to use
Facebook, Twitter and Google,

claiming she is a Guinea pig
in the monitored space.

She says whoever spied on her
feels they can do it with impunity,

and that her case
should be a warning.

It is such a temptation
to go into somebody's home

without them
ever being able to know about it.

And then I'm referring
to my online home,

for it is just
as sacred as my offline home.

This is where
all my private stuff is.

This is where
all my personal matters are.

This is where all my thoughts are,

and all my activity
and moment can be traced.

So, you know, hands off my home!

A similar case of monitoring
is currently unraveling in Berlin.

Andrej Holm is a noted sociologist

who is teaching
at the Humboldt University.

For months,
he was shadowed and monitored,

suspected as the leader
of a militant group

that committed arson attacks
in Berlin in 2007.

It is the morning of the 31st of July,
so it's summer day

in the morning, before seven.

I woke up to a pounding
on the front door.

Then a massive armed man fell on me.

They then threw me to the ground,
my hands fixed behind my back.

You then get the impression
that you're in a film,

because they behave as in
one of the thrillers or action movies.

I was already aware that there is
such things as house searches and arrests

directed also
against left-wing activists.

It was already going through my head,

but I could not understand what
they actually had to do with me directly.

So it was an abstract fear
that I had at that point.

Andrej Holm was arrested
by a special detachment

and brought
in federal court in Karlsruhe.

Only later did Holm learn that
he had been systematically monitored.

The federal investigators
had been studying his academic essays,

and the wide spread use
of expressions

such as 'gentrification'
and 'casualization'

had inflamed their suspicions.

These were terms also used
by the militant group

that had claimed responsibility
for the Berlin arson attacks.

The investigating authorities
had created a characters grid

to use in their investigation,

which suggested suspects should have

'extraordinary political
and historical knowledge'

and 'the scientific and analytical
ability to execute the attacks'.

Following his arrest,

the investigating judge
ordered home detention.

After 30 days
in solitary confinement,

the federal court ruled

that there was 'no strong suspicion'.

For the first time since his arrest,
Holm is free.

And for the first time,

he learns about the
surveillance protocols surrounding him.

The excerpts from the minutes
reveal a detailed investigation

into all aspects of Holm's life.

You spend your whole life
second guessing yourself

how the police officers
have been listening to you,

interpret what
your actions or words mean.

You are doing
something completely harmless,

but they've already read in the files that
anything can be interpreted as malignant.

If I tie my shoes in the street,
then I don't turn my back

so as not to give the impression
that I am hiding something.

Then further friends and acquaintances
are intercepted.

Video cameras are installed
in front of the doorways.

You turn into
a totally transparent people.

The investigators monitored
Holm's social environment

and couldn't find
any evidence to incriminate him.

But this only caused them
to intensify their surveillance.

According to their logic,
Holm is an intellectual

who's highly conspiratorial
and expertly concealing his misdeeds.

That they may be
on the tail of an innocent person

didn't seem to occur to his pursuers.

We were completely monitored.
Our personal emails have been read.

They obviously found ways,
even before the online search,

to gain access to our computers.

There was also a sense
of political outrage in the country,

over the loss of freedom

to choose what the main ingredients
of domestic social value should be.

Because those personal freedoms
are trampled

in the course
of these kinds of investigation.

Finally, anyone who now searches
Andrej Holm on the Internet

will receive
a huge number of results,

in many articles
linking him to terrorism.

For the rest of his life, Andrej Holm
will be tainted by the phrase

'terrorist suspect'.

People are more conscious of the need
to protect their digital privacy

than ever before.

The call for digital self-defense
is heard everywhere.

Emails are sent encrypted.

But many are choosing to do without
social networks like Facebook and Twitter.

In Vienna, this group
meets once a week for a cypherparty.

They discuss how to make themselves
invisible in the network.

What is the goal of Tor
and the people that operate it?

Anonymity,
that is from web browsing,

chats,
or other Internet services.

To make it anonymous.

Until now, encryption techniques
have only been in the domain

of the authorities
and elite Internet geeks.

These people want to spread the word.

I think we are
more and more transparent.

Even when I use a debit card or a
credit card, I have the same feeling.

I want to save data
as much as possible,

and leave
as little as possible behind.

I think it's wiser.

Cypherparties have formed spontaneously
all over the planet.

The interest
of the population has risen

in the course of more government control
and more profiling by large companies

such as Google, Facebook, and others.

And the interpretation
and openness of this profile data

is a major problem
and a major threat.

These groups
have straightforward aspirations.

No one should be able
to read their social media posts,

unless they want them to.

And nobody should be able to leaf through
their photo albums without permission.

They argue this is not just paranoia.

Privacy is a basic human right.

And it must also apply
in the digital world.

When you bareback with the Internet,
you bareback with Big Brother.

So maybe it's a good idea,
just like we understood with HIV and AIDS,

we have a personal responsibility

to not infect
our friends and lovers and neighbours.

And when you use the Internet
without any crypto,

without anonymity, without privacy,
what you do is you present

a transmitting risk to your community
and probably even to your country,

certainly to yourself.

Big Brother is watching you.

With most people having
a limited understanding

of this world of cybersurveillance
and how to protect themselves

are our most basic freedoms
already being lost.

Synch & transcript by Hell