albrechtslund.net

Surveillance on the run

Yesterday, we had our first running event at Aalborg University - the so-called UniRun. I participated in the 10K and according to the RFID tag I was wearing, I clocked in at 50:02 minutes (5K was 24:45 minutes). Considering my poor training record for the last few months, I was satisfied with the result (I was aiming at 50 minutes).

My good friend and co-worker, Thomas Ryberg, also participated. His time is unknown, since he refused to wear the tag. And no Thomas, you didn’t win

I hope the event will become something we do every year. And hopefully the weather will be better next year…

Blogging on Danish website

I have started to blog in Danish at Forum for overvågningsstudier. Take a look at the blog - more to come!

The Nike+Ipod Sports kit resistance movement

I am very happy with my Nike+Ipod Sports kit. It is surprisingly adequate and a good example of technology mashups that really work. I have also mashed up something. Instead of using Nike shoes - which I’m supposed to - I have dug out a little hole in my Asics Kayano shoes about the same size as the Nike+Ipod sensor. This has worked out great - at least so far.

Apparently, Apple wants to restrict runners from choosing shoes that fit their feet and clothing suitable for our needs. Rather, we should pick shoes and clothing that fit our Ipod. Apple have recently filed for a patent:

In this patent, Apple makes no attempt to hide the fact that it’s essentially an attempt to enforce something like DRM on the pairing of clothing with technology. The company specifically cites the Nike+iPod system as an example of a system that works with a specially-made shoe: Nike+ shoes that have a little crevice cut out under the sole that allows you to place the transmitter inside the shoe, which wirelessly sends data to your iPod about your walk or run. “However, some people have taken it upon themselves to remove the sensor from the special pocket of the Nike+.TM. shoe and place it at inappropriate locations (shoelaces, for example) or place it on non-Nike+.TM. model shoes,” writes Apple.

via ars technica

If this is really the case, it is a very bad idea. Such a DRM-like design will beg to be passively and actively resisted. It is likely that people will develop ways to go around such a locking. I almost find it insulting that designers and developers try to fully control how we use technologies. It seems so old-fashioned and hopelessly determinist.

We can only hope that Apple are actually trying to make cool features for us to use:

For example, one embodiment could make use of a sensor within the garment itself in order to provide more data to the user, such as the rate of wear of a running shoe. “[I]n many cases, a runner will not notice that a running shoe has been worn down to the point where crucial support (arch support, for example) has eroded thereby increasing the likelihood of injury. In this way, by providing a notification that one or both of the running shoes should be replaced, the runner may be better able to avoid injuries related to outworn equipment,” writes Apple. And, if a GPS unit is involved, then the system could also track location and elevation data in order to provide more detailed statistics, or it could give on-the-spot information to the user, like the location of nearby restaurants.

via ars technica

That would indeed be very cool (even though I rarely visit restaurants during a run). It will also be something to study as a form of participatory surveillance in geographic space - something which I am occupied with at the moment.

Meetings

The next few weeks, I am taking part in a couple of surveillance-related meetings. On September 23 I have been asked to be a panelist in a seminar about surveillance. It will take place in Copenhagen and here is the abstract (in Danish):

Overvågningen griber om sig både i byrummet og på internettet. Det er teknisk muligt for myndighederne at tjekke indholdet i alle de mails du sender og modtager, og i visse lande er det allerede umuligt at rejse fra by til by, uden at man enten bliver filmet på stationen, eller at bilen bliver fanget af et kamera på motorvejen.

Hvor længe endnu kan man bevæge sig frit, uden at nogen dokumenterer det? Og hvordan sikrer vi, at overvågningen ikke bliver misbrugt og ender med blot at skabe en ny form for utryghed?

Da folketinget sidste år stemte om et lovforslag, der vil give butikker, banker og hoteller udvidede beføjelser til opsætning af kameraer i det offentlige rum, støttede 9 ud af 10 danskere ifølge Epinion lovforslaget. Tidligere på året blev Københavns borgmester Ritt Bjerregaard og politidirektør Hanne Bech Hansen enige om, at der skal opsættes kameraer på udvalgte steder i København. Protesterne udeblev.

Hvadharvigangi? inviterer til en debat om, hvordan vi beskytter os selv mod overvågningssamfundets bagside.
Indledning ved Torben Jørgensen, seniorkonsulent ved teknologiskinstitut

Panelet:

Anders Albrechtslund
forsker i overvågning
Hans Jørgen Bonnichsen
tidligere pet-chef
Anders Kjærulff Christensen
jornalist og bestyrelsesmedlem i digital rights

Ordstyrer:
Lene Andersen, forfatter og forlægger

Sted: Verdenskulturcenteret,
Nørre Allé 7, Nørrebro.
Tid: 23. september klokken 19-22
Entré: 50 kr (medlemmer gratis)

via Hvaharvigangi?

On October 2 I have been asked to speak at a meeting in Aalborg (Studenterhuset) about online social networking and surveillance. My friend and colleague, Malene Charlotte Larsen, will also be speaking.

UPDATE!
Here is a link to that meeting.

Later - probably mid-November - I am arranging a seminar on ethics at Aalborg University. This is still in development. More to come.

Surveillance and Ethics in Film

I am excited to announce that my article Surveillance and Ethics in Film: Rear Window and The Conversation has been published in Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture 15(2), pp. 129-144.

Here is the abstract:

Although popular culture is an important metaphorical framework for the discussion of surveillance, it has rarely been the subject of study among surveillance scholars. Especially ethical concerns and dilemmas have been neglected. The purpose of this article is to shred light on how the practice of surveillance can be justified and what kind of responsibility that follows it. By studying two classic films about murders, Rear Window and The Conversation, different perspectives on ethics and power relations are revealed. However, rather than giving us answers, the protagonists of both films embody the persistent ethical dilemma of surveillance.