Click here to check if anything new just came in.
January 25 2012
NYPD Drive-by-Scanning
Who needs to be stopped for a search if a Police Officer can scan you from the comfort of his car?
“This technology has shown a great deal of promise as a way of detecting weapons without a physical search,” said New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly during his State of the NYPD address on Tuesday.
The gun scanning technology will help lessen the need for NYPD’s use of Stop and Frisk procedures that allowed officers to stop New Yorkers for random street interrogations or searches. In 2011, about 600,000-plus New Yorkers were stopped.
See the video to learn how it works.
July 19 2011
Little Brother is watching you
The headline is nice and the intention is also very interesting:
That is the premise for the webcam that a top government official here [in India] has installed in his office, as an anticorruption experiment. Goings-on in his chamber are viewable to the public, 24/7.
(Source: NYT)
March 09 2011
Arbeitgeberzugriff auf Facebookprofil
Zwar inzwischen zurückgezogen, aber die Idee ist wirklich … interessant: “Should Employers Be Allowed to Ask for Your Facebook Login?“
October 14 2010
Evaluation of data retention directive
The EU has evaluated the data retention directive (DRD) and come to the conclusion that is serves its purpose and is working efficiently. However if one looks at the report (via vorratsdatenspeicherung.de), a few questions remain, mainly concerning the methods of the evaluation and some particular statements.
As a consequence, the evidential value of retained data must be assessed on a case-by-case basis in the light of all the relevant factors of a case. ….. Since law enforcement resources are limited the fact that retained data are used, signify they were deemed relevant. …. The retention of data is considered proportionate if it has considerable law enforcement relevance. (pp. 7)
Although the questionnaire used for the evaluation seems well designed, a few question remain, considering the statement above:
- I cannot find any definition of neither relevance, nor efficiency concerning data retention and law enforcement. What are the cost? Do they matter? What is considerable and who defines those categories?
- The statement indicates that a measure is reasonable if it can be used and in fact is used – just because it is there. This looks as if it would justify its own existence by itself.
- Although the report mentions that some member states only use retained data if other less intrusive mesures have failed – there is no mention of what these could be.
The evaluation is concerned if and how the DRD works and if is feasable, what problems occur among the different stakeholders, but it does not tell any preceding criteria have been agreed upon which such an evaluation assesses matters such as the efficiency of law enforcement or not. I believe this to be a cruical point in the report of evaluating, given that the DRD is also considered to be a major infringement on privacy rights by many advocacy groups. The DRD certainly fits the purpose stated on page 20 of the report to “establish the extent to which the harmonisatons of obligations on information service providers ist able to ensure that data are available for the purpose of the investigation…. , and the degree of effectiveness of national measures to trace the identity of users to combat the criminal misuse and anonymous use of electronic communications”. In my view it cannot make an assessment of whether these measures are reasonable, as this has not been defined. As the DRD was designed to support law enforcement, its impact on law enforcement will be positive – from a law enforncement perspective. Other assessments are not very likely to be drawn from this evaluation, which from a neutral standpoint is a shortcoming of this evaluation report.
September 12 2010
“There is no such thing as a free ice cream …”
Aufgepaßt, liebe Kinder: Ein neues Video zum Thema Datenschutz – mit Google-CEO Eric Schmidt in der Hauptrolle – ist hier zu finden. Sehr nett, wenngleich auch – wie kaum anders zu erwarten – etwas holzschnittartig.
May 20 2010
Erkennt man Sie anhand Ihres Browsers? Teil 2
Ab sofort gibt es das aktuelle White Paper der Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) zum Thema Browser Uniqueness. Das Ergebnis in aller Kürze:
EFF UNVEILED RESULTS FROM THE “PANOPTICLICK” BROWSER
PRIVACY PROJECT, which demonstrated that more than
8 in 10 people use browsers with unique, trackable
signatures. Having a distinct browser signature means your
individual movements on the web may be easier to track,
and several companies are already selling products that
claim to use browser fingerprinting to help websites
identify users and their online activities.
May 14 2010
Conference: Risky profiles: Societal dimensions of forensic uses of DNA analysis
Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, 2-3 July 2010
Registration is free, but places are limited; please contact Barbara Prainsack at prainsack@soz.uni-frankfurt.de by 15 June 2010 at the latest.
Forensic uses of DNA technologies have become crucial elements of national systems of criminal justice. In addition, as a result of growing transnational mobility and the global use of information and communication technologies crime and crime prevention issues are increasingly addressed by agencies and policy actors beyond the national state. In the European context, the so-called Prüm regime obliges law enforcement authorities in all EU countries to render their forensic DNA databases searchable for other member states by 2011 (at a match/no match basis). This also means that countries which do not yet have centralized forensic DNA databases need to establish them by that date. In sum, the importance of forensic DNA databasing will continue to increase in the political and public arenas across Europe.
While the legal and criminological implications of forensic and police uses of DNA analysis and databasing have received ample attention in the last decade, their societal dimensions have not been systematically explored. Social science projects in this field are relatively scarce, and there is virtually no comparative social science research on this topic across countries. Our workshop aims to fill this gap: Social scientists who pioneer(ed) work in this field will present their research projects and engage in a dialogue with an eminent molecular biologist in Portugal, António Amorim. A concluding round table discussion will be dedicated to explicating current challenges faced by social science research in the field of forensic DNA profiling and datatabasing.
Programme
2 July:
- 14.00 Welcome and introduction by workshop organisers (Thomas Lemke and Barbara Prainsack)
- 14.30 Robin Williams, Northumbria University Centre for Forensic Science, UK: Forensic DNA Profiling: Policy, Evidence and Practice
- 15.30 Corinna Kruse, University of Linköping, Sweden: In the Absence of an Absolute Truth – Forensic Evidence in Swedish Criminal Justice
- 16.30 Coffee break
- 17.00 Victor Toom, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Truth for Sale?
- 18.00 Evening lecture (+ discussion): António Amorim, Institute of Pathology and Molecular Immunology (IPATIMUP), and Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto, Portugal: Forensic geneticists and sociologists: Can we talk?
3 July:
- 9.00 Johanne Yttri Dahl, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway: DNA – the Nor-way: black boxing the evidence and monopolizing the key
- 10.00 Helena Machado, Institute of Sociology, University of Minho, Portugal: Prisoners’ views on forensic DNA technologies
- 11.00 Coffee Break
- 11.30 Round table: Challenges to social science research in the field forensic DNA profiling and databasing (chair: Thomas Lemke and Barbara Prainsack, participants: invited speakers, and Reinhard Kreissl, Institute for the Sociology of Law and Criminology, Vienna, Austria)
- 12.30 Lunch and end of workshop
The workshop is organised by Thomas Lemke (Goethe University Frankfurt am Main) and Barbara Prainsack (King’s College London). It will take place at the Campus Westend of the Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, 2-3 July 2010. The workshop is funded by the German Academic Exchange Service.
March 26 2010
Doktoranden-Stipendium zu Überwachung
The Open University Business School
The New Transparency, Queen’s University, Canada
The Open University Business School in conjunction with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) funded ‘New Transparency: Surveillance and Social Sorting’ project would like to invite applications for a PhD scholarship, based at the Open University Business School, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom, in its ESRC recognized Research Degrees Programme.
Proposals are to focus upon the role of private, public and third sector organizations in the surveillance society, the political economy of surveillance, and any other topic relevant to this stream of work in The New Transparency Project described here: http://www.sscqueens.org/about/IRSP_1
The successful applicant will have the opportunity to work with a number of scholars and students associated with the New Transparency project at Queen’s University, the University of Victoria, the University of Alberta and University of Toronto (all Canada), as well as those at the Open University affiliated with the Business School and the Centre for Citizenship, Identities and Governance. The successful applicant will also be expected to contribute to conferences, workshops and on-line fora associated with the New Transparency project.
The successful applicant will be eligible for funding to cover fees, a research training support grant, plus a yearly living allowance (c. £14,000 for 2010/11). Funding is available for three years.
You should have a good honours degree or equivalent in a relevant subject and demonstrable training (equivalent to an MRes) in research methods. You should submit a 1000 word proposal for your research project.
For detailed information and how to apply go to http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/research-degrees/index.htm.
If you have any further enquiries please email to oubs-research @ open.ac.uk or write to OUBS Research Office, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA. Closing date: 30 April 2010.
November 11 2009
Loic Wacquant: Bringing the Penal State Back In
Das British Journal of Sociology bietet auf seinen Webseiten öffentliche Vorträge als Podcast an. Dieser hier ist für einige Leser hier bestimmt von Interesse.
BJS 2009 Public Lecture Podcast
Bringing the Penal State Back In
Loic Wacquant and Nicola Lacey debate the need to bring the penal state back into the centre of the sociology of social inequaltiy, public policy and citizenship.
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
