Geoslavery: GPS Gone Wrong

J.E. Dobson and P.F. Fisher, “Geoslavery,” IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 2003 "Geoslavery"

While recently I have been talking mostly about new technologies any applying my own context and analysis to them, I decided that getting some more background for the concerns I kept articulating was a good idea.

This article helped me see the issue on a more balanced plane: yes, the technology is dangerous, but there is really no way to stop it, only make it safer. They "advocate a rational response that acknowledges the benefits and inevitability of adoption along with an overwhelming need for safeguards," a position that I needed to take into account. What kept forcing me to be the pessimistic voice pointing out dangers and flaws was that "commercial vendors of human tracking systems, naturally, tout benefits and diminish, dismiss, or deny any potential for abuse. " Each time the marketers claimed that their product was amazing and sure to save the world in 5 different ways, I rebelled. But really, Location-based service (LBS) technology "is the quintessential double-edged sword" and it is important to focus on the positives as well as the negatives. The current "challenge is to develop safeguards that simultaneously permit legitimate uses while preventing mis-uses." However, despite these wise words of compromise, the article gave details on why we really should be worried about LBS.

The new technologies give individuals the ability to become masters, fully dominating their subjects down to every movement. For forced laborers, child slaves, and sex slaves, their servitude is now complete and permanent. The technology offers both new prospects for surveillance with every movement tracked and thus cuts off all opportunities for escape. “Geoslavery is a global human rights issue” and it is important to treat it as such, not let it be ignored by marketers obsessed with profit. The article details how the foreseeable future is worse than 1984 because surveillance no longer relies on human observers and is available to individuals as well as governments. Instead of one huge master, this technology supports many small masters, now able to dominate their subject by “plotting the person’s every movement in real time.” This is the problem, because “surveillance can confer control” and surveillance is becoming more and more prevalent, we will likely see the rise in these technologies being misused by abusive parents, spouses, or bosses.

A worry I never thought of before was that "the War on Terror might convince individuals to sacrifice their personal freedom for the sake of public safety and security." An interesting idea, and I can certainly see it working: RFID tags for airport employees, better identification for travelers (also RFID), GPS on cars and public transportation, special tracking for foreigners or suspicious people, the list can narrow right down to everyone, ubiquitous tracking for safety's sake. How does 1984 justify the constant tracking? Through the need for security due to the constant war against Eurasia! This new concern is especially dangerous because after the war, it is unlikely such measures would be removed, just look at past world wars.

It is important to remember that "technology per se is neither good nor evil, and it certainly cannot be held responsible for the sins of society. But technology can empower those who choose to engage in good or bad behavior." As this paper articulated, it is important to limit the negative uses of the technology while still fostering the constructive ones.

GPS Phones for Kids and GPS Software for Adults

This week I decided to focus on two of the new GPS enabled technologies sweeping the nation: Wherifone, designed for kids, and Google Latitude designed for adults.

http://www.mobilewhack.com/reviews/toys_r_us_to_sell_wherify_wherifone_gps_locator_phones.html

The first is Wherifone, a small cell-phone designed for children, equipped with five pre-programmable buttons that can call family, close friends, and emergency help; and incorporating aided GPS location technology to help track and locate the child. This "lets parents, caregivers and safety officials quickly locate a child in need of help, bringing peace-of-mind and added safety to the mobile family." The system lets parents control who the child calls, but gives them immediate access to their location and a means of communication.

This invention is another example of how new technology is permeating our lives. The convenience and peace-of-mind provided by a cell phone helps parents overlook the fact that perhaps GPS tracking their kids isn't the best idea. At first glance the idea seems brilliant, kids are always wandering off, giving parents moments of extreme panic when they cant find their children. The Wherifone makes their location immediately searchable, saving parents the stress of those false alarms and helping them actually locate the lost child if necessary. However, as I have discussed previously, any GPS system is hackable and might be used by those without the child's best interest at heart. Pedophiles and kidnappers could locate the child using this same technology, and perhaps even judge the distance between the child and parents. This seems to be a danger that Wherifone hasn't fully accounted for and must before children start getting snatched off the streets and conveniently dropping their phones in the process.

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=103&sid=5effe07b-d20c-401a-b326-53bfd1e4ed25%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=37035021

The other technology is Google Latitude, which lets users keep track of each other's locations from either smart phones or laptops. An interesting feature is that "In addition to restricting specific people, Latitude will let you do a blanket location setting for all your contacts. You can set your location manually, tell Latitude to detect your location, or hide your location completely." This produces a number of interesting questions about using Google Latitude for various purposes. Children could manually set their location to be a friends house when they were actually in a dangerous situation. Would this convince the parents they didn't need checking up on when they really did? What about employees? They could "take a sick day" and set their location at home while really running all over the city. What difference would it make for the people in charge to have a faulty way to keep track of their employees instead of no way at all?

In all likelihood, this might prevent Google Latitude from being subpoenaed for the location of a subject: half the time they would be completely fake and offer no help at all for tracing criminals or re-creating the scene of a crime. Another factor is that "Google says that it keeps only your most recent shared location on its servers. If you've hidden your location, Google holds no information on your whereabouts."

In this way, Google seems to account for many of the privacy issues prevalent in other location-based technologies. It would still be possible for an outside source to track Google's publication of various locations, however as likely as not those locations could be broad enough or plainly false in such a way as to protect the user's privacy.

Both technologies help people keep track of each other, either parents of their children or adults of their friends and co-workers. While both devices are undoubtedly useful in there own spheres, they raise a number of ethical questions about how the technology might be used. While sometimes this use might seem to protect (privacy in the case of the Google Latitude user), other times it is a weakness that might cause harm to the user (small children with Wherifones being tracked by predators).

GPS Tracking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3ZG5IufCk0

I found this video on youtube that prompted me to visit the site of a GPS security provider called GPS Police.

http://www.gpspolice.com/applications/

This piece of technology is wired into the engine and can not only tell you were the vehicle is, but if it there are any problems, if it has been stolen, if it's speeding, and even if the seat belt is unbuckled! In the video, they went over in detail the different aspects of the technology. It especially displayed the logging feature, detailing how these records can be kept indefinitely (a rather scary thought for potential politicians.)

The website I found went over a number of the different applications for the technology.

Trucking and Transport: know where your trucks are; view milage, speeding, and idling; and improve security.

Survey Fleets (of trucks): know if and when trucks are stolen and recover them quickly, improve driver safety, and record vehicle activity.

--these two are really similar. While they might make the company's life easier, the truck drivers will be held to new standards like not speeding. Maybe it will be positive (like getting paid for all the hours they put in) and maybe it will allow the companies undue control over their employees.

Government: monitor city bus (and other government vehicles) schedules and efficiency.

--this could be really convenient for bus-riders, letting them know if a bus is running early or late and see if they will make their connections. Then again, some citizens might see it as the government starting to become "Big Brother".

Construction: know how the vehicles are being used off the job.

--This could be really useful for the construction companies especially if the car belongs to them and is being loaned to the worker to haul material and stuff. However, if it is actually being leased (as in a part of the worker's money is being exchanged for the use of this car) then it seems less ethical because the car is theirs for all intensive purposes.

Rental Fleets: locate missing or overdue rental cars, know when the car crosses a boarder, speeds, or exceeds milage limits.

--I feel like this is a pretty fair measure for the rental companies to take as long as they notify their users that there is a GPS locator in the car and don't use it unless there is some sort of infraction on the part of the user.

One of the applications GPS Police talked about in one of their promotional videos but don't seem to mention on the rest of their website is using the technology to monitor a young driver or spouse. This might keep the child safe, but it also infringes on their privacy in major ways, giving new fodder to abusive relationships. However, courts have always upheld a parents right to raise their own kids, therefore this is only an ethical question, it has already been decided legally. The lack of trust in the spousal relationship is even more worrisome. Is there any method of notification for the spouse or child?

Thats what I seem to keep coming back to. If the subject knows their location is being collected, it somehow makes it ok. And in my mind that works, if you know someone is watching you, you will try extra hard not to mess up, that's a logical reaction. Then again, the multitude of notifications make the tracking so routine as to allow the subject to forget about its presence. If the subject got a text message for every time they were tracked, their phone would be vibrating 24/7. Perhaps what would be more important than constant notification is original notification and then updates for irregularities (if someone outside the regular loop accesses your location). This might help parents and companies keep the vehicle and its contents safe, while still protecting the subject from stalkers.

It really is a compromise: efficiency for privacy, peace of mind for freedom; and it returns to our generations willingness to let people invade our privacy to give us those benefits.

RFID Tagging

• Technology=
• Currently the technology is in the form of a microchip, approximately 1/3 of a millimeter across. The chips are usually battery-less, and instead are powered by the radio wave used to read them. When the chip receives a particular radio blip, it responds with its unique ID code, thereby identifying whatever object it is embedded in. It acts similarly to a barcode, however it can be read from mere inches to several feet away. This allows the product to be scanned without the owner/wearer/consumer being aware of the identification process. RFID chips currently cost around 50 cents, but the price is dropping rapidly. There are no laws at the moment requiring products to be identified as containing RFID tags.

• Networks=
• RFID tags are used in a variety of different networks for different purposes. They are used by airports, seaports, corporations (like Walmart) and the Department of Defense to track and locate baggage, shipping containers, consumer goods, and military supply shipments in a quick, efficient, cost-effective way. Visa used the chip as a replacement for cash as did the EZPass toll booth, and the European Central Bank embedded the chips in cash to count money quickly and combat counterfeiters. Individual citizens embedded the chip into pets for identification and locating, while the Chinese Communist Party Congress delegates were required to wear RFID tags so their movements could be constantly monitored and recorded.

• Direct stakeholders=
• The immediate stakeholders are the various companies embedding the chips into their products. In the above situations, the direct stakeholders would be the airports, seaports, corporations, Department of Defense, Visa, the European Central Bank, and the Chinese Communist Party Congress.

• Indirect stakeholders=
• The indirect stakeholders would be the consumers purchasing and using these tracked products. Since the RFID tag is hard to locate and deactivate, consumers would have interests in how the tag affects their privacy. Employees required to wear RFID badges would also have privacy concerns, as might your pets, if you were able to ask them. Criminals and stalkers might be able to access this technology and thereby further their personal goals of tracking money and individuals.

• Values for each group=
• The direct stakeholders value security, productivity, profit, efficiency, order, and organization. On the other side the indirect stakeholders value their privacy and anonymity.

• Conflicts=
• The airports want to know where their baggage and employees are going for security reasons, but is it a violation of the individual’s privacy to track them like that? Consumers using products with embedded RFID tags could be tracked by governmental and other entities, despite the original intentions of profit, organization, and efficiency held by the corporate manufacturers and distributers. Marketers might value being able to craft advertisements based on information stored in RFID chips, while consumers might find this invasive and personal. The sheer information stored on the card and its ability to be read without the possessor's knowledge create a certain danger, however the security and efficiency benefits cannot be denied either.
• A possible solution is the enactment of a law requiring notification of RFID presence in objects, and perhaps a notification of when they are scanned as well. This would at the very least inform the owner of the information transfer, though the information stored on the card would have to be managed and limited as well. The methods for reading the RFID tag would have to be encrypted as well so that criminals would be less able to acquire the information stored there.

Sources--

• Nicki Hayes, November 20, 2001, http://www.wirelessdevnet.com/channels/wireless/features/newsbyte36.html
• Scott Granneman, 6-26-2003, http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/169

Locational Privacy

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01tue4.html

The above link is to an article in the New York Times discussing the pervasiveness of technological surveillance and lack of locational privacy. It gave me some more information about the variety of different technologies that can currently be used to track an individual's position and some solutions to reduce the danger while maintaining the convenience.

The first startling statement was blunt: "you may be able to be found (and perhaps picked up) at any hour of the day or night." Of course I was aware of cops using this method to track criminals in TV shows (like NCIS), however TV departs from reality so often that knowing "that the police have used the cards in criminal investigations" was a harsh reminder. If I went to a party, no matter if I left before things got out of hand, or if I was just there for a friend, it would still be possible for my presence there to be verified and perhaps punished. Even worse than imagining that the police would be able to access that information was "to think that your physical location might fall into the hands of people who mean you harm." Assassinations would no longer have to rely on weeks to months of observation, one click of a button and you know exactly where your target is. Maybe you even know who he's with and how he's feeling thanks to a facebook comment or twitter. In this aspect security is key, it's why the SS won't let Obama have an iPhone or blackberry. The user has to protect their personal privacy not only for it's own sake, but for their safety, your iPhone can't plead the 5th.

On the other hand, these gadgets are undeniably convenient: telling users where the nearest restaurants are, giving them driving direction, making it easier for them to pay tolls on commutes. Users like this convenience, and inventors are thrilled that they get paid to provide it. The profit off these new technologies is astronomical.

Governmental tracking of our location is done with the excuse of being "helpful", however there are a number of solutions this article offers to provide the service with minimal privacy infringement. First off, "data should be erased as soon as its main purpose is met." Quick, easy, both sides are happy. According to the stated purpose, the government isn't actually using this information after the fact anyway. So why not just erase it? Otherwise the accusation of over-watchfulness, Big Brother keeping tabs on your every move, rings more true. Advertising companies might enjoy being able to analyze your buying habits and travel schedule, if only to better sell you stuff, however that isn't a position they could convincingly argue to the anonymity-loving citizens of America.

Another option is removing personal identifiers from your GPS device. "To tell you about nearby coffee shops, a cellphone application needs to know where you are. It does not need to know who you are." This could work for a number of technologies, defending against a variety of abuses by both company and government. Unfortunately, this technique couldn't be used on EZPass and the like where your card is connected to an account with money in it. It's usefulness might be limited, but in its own sphere this method would be extremely convenient.

The final compromise is notification. Every time a company collects your position and records it in any matter, you should be notified. Whether it be a MetroPass or iPhone, by notifying the user and allowing them to opt out, the provider maintains their value of profit and efficiency while the user maintains their privacy. At the very least, the user knows their position is being collected and therefore has no reason to complain when it is used against them in the future, be it by the police or an advertiser.

The Stakeholders in GPS technologies are many, as are their variety of values, however the main ones are producer and consumer, and those can be reconciled by implementing the above compromises.

The Assignment

In this blog, I want to gather information on social tracking which will then allow me to develop an opinion on whether this technology is more inclined to promote efficiency or invade privacy, and therefore whether it is an ethical use of the technology. I will be examining devices like loopt for the iPhone; google latitude; GPS cards in phones, cars, and tags; RFID tags; and any other related technologies that come up during my information gathering. Some issues I will be evaluating are Security, Privacy, Efficiency, Safety (from the police standpoint), Profit, Organization, Anonymity, and many others.