Privacy, dataveillance, and crime prevention

Whether privacy is an adequate legal safeguard against intrusive government or private sector activity remains open for further exploration. The criminal law has always imposed limits on the ability of police to enter private premises and seize property associated with criminal activity, while preserving the rights of “mass private” property owners and their agents to selectively exclude people from entering or remaining on their premises. The appropriate balance between these issues and “the right to be let alone” is often determined by judicial rulings in individual cases. However, the balance between a claimant’s personal rights to be free from undue surveillance and the broader public interest in preventing crime or promoting safety is not always clear. New forms of personal data collection and dissemination through ICTs reconfigure the balance between private and public knowledge (Australian Law Reform Commission 2008), while social network analysis is increasingly deployed by law enforcement agencies to detect and prevent crime. Our ongoing research interrogates how the concept of privacy can be reconciled with the growing use of dataveillance, data mining, and social network analysis to prevent crime and antisocial behavior.

A social ecological model of ICT cooption : surveillance creep in the information age

A model for ICT cooption is introduced using the example of ’surveillance creep’ which is the phenomenon of increasing dataveillance as the result of the introduction of seemingly benign, useful and convenient technological artefacts. The model identifies and discusses five main components of ICT artefact development and deployment: design, properties, affordances, appropriation and agent interests and locates them in a complex interrelated social ecology. The model provides a way to empirically examine how and why technology favours particular social or organisational outcomes.

ID scanners and uberveillance in the night-time economy: crime prevention or invasion of privacy?

ID scanners are promoted as an effective solution to the problems of anti-social behavior and violence in many urban nighttime economies. However, the acceptance of this and other forms of computerized surveillance to prevent crime and anti-social behavior is based on several unproven assumptions. After outlining what ID scanners are and how they are becoming a normalized precondition of entry into one Australian nighttime economy, this chapter demonstrates how technology is commonly viewed as the key to preventing crime despite recognition of various problems associated with its adoption. The implications of technological determinism amongst policy makers, police, and crime prevention theories are then critically assessed in light of several issues that key informants talking about the value of ID scanners fail to mention when applauding their success. Notably, the broad, ill-defined, and confused notion of “privacy” is analyzed as a questionable legal remedy for the growing problems of überveillance.