Sensors in Public Spaces: The Law and Technology of Anonymity Co-authors Shuvo Chatterjee Mabel Feng Brian Keegan Sarah Ma Jennifer Wang December 10, 2004 6.805/STS.085Acknowledgements We would like to thank the staff of 6.805, “Ethics and Law on the Electronic Frontier.” They have helped us immensely in providing critiques, feedback, topic ideas, and more. In particular, we thank Michael Fischer for really helping us to shape our research. Hal Abelson for his suggestions on case studies. Keith Winstein for coming up with scenarios that stumped us and challenged us to reshape our recommendations and PAPA. Other people we would like to thank who assisted us throughout our research include: Professor Granger Morgan, Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University; Elaine Newton, Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University; Dalie Jimenez, aide to Massachusetts State Senator Jarrett Barrios; Pamela Kogut, Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General for Consumer Protection; and Chief John DiFava, chief of police, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Table of Contents Acknowledgements. I. Executive Summary II. Problem Statement III. Definitions IV. Analysis Framework V. Law and Values VI. Recommendation VII. Sensor Technologies • Video Surveillance 1) Analysis Framework 2) Values 3) Case Studies 4) Current Legislation and Guidelines 5) Concerns 6) Policy Recommendations 7) Conclusion • RFID 1) Case Studies • Analysis Framework • Concerns • Recommendations 2) Conclusion • Biometrics 1) Types of Biometrics 2) Characterizing Biometrics 3) Characterizing Applications 4) Analysis Framework 5) Current Legislation 6) Concerns 7) Policy Recommendations 8) Conclusion • Internet as a public space 1) Characteristics of a public cyberspace 2) Analysis Framework 3) Values 4) Case Studies 5) Current Legislation 6) Concerns 7) Policy Recommendations 8) Conclusion VIII. Public Anonymity Protection Act (PAPA) IX. Discussion of PAPA X. PAPA Feedback XI. Final Conclusion XII. Contributions XIII. Appendix XIV. BibliographyExecutive Summary Increasingly, public spaces are filling with non-obvious and interconnected monitoring technologies whose data collection, storage, processing, and distribution capabilities have to potential to invade one's expectation of anonymity. We examined four groups of technologies – surveillance cameras, the Internet, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, and biometrics – and developed anonymity policy recommendations under a comprehensive Public Anonymity Protection Act (PAPA). In order to develop these policies and legislative proposals, we examined basic Constitutional principles interpreted though key judicial cases, current legislative statues, and the challenges presented by these four sensing technologies towards implementing the policy. We evaluated these challenges by employing a framework that compares the invasiveness of a sensor given its human functional equivalent, potential for opting-in, pervasiveness, and its location on the identification potential spectrum. The identification potential spectrum assesses a sensor's ability to identify individuals by the extent to which data is collected, stored, processed, and distributed. Passive technologies have the capability of implicitly identifying or locating an individual because they collect and store data. Active technologies explicitly identify or locate an individual because of their ability to process and distribute data. The potential for sensors to invade a reasonable expectation of anonymity in public spaces is greater for active technologies that collect large amounts of data, store data for unnecessarily long times, process, analyze and distribute data. Problem Statement Imagine walking in a park or down a busy street. Someone you do not know approaches you. With no introduction or pretext, she asks you, ”What is your address and telephone number?” Certainly this would be unexpected and unsettling. You may think to yourself, “Who is she? Why does she want this information? What is she going to do with this information? What kind of nerve does she have to ask me this?” Of course you don't tell her. There is no law or statue that would require you to disclose any information about yourself to another person. However, this thought never crosses your mind because you are more focused on now avoiding this person who has tried to invade your privacy. Now imagine a man you have never met before approaches you and addresses you by your Social Security Number. You may or may not have realized he was following you. After your previous encounter you are already unsettled, but now having had two people you've never met trying to obtain your personal information, you are shaken. As you attempt to enter a bar to escape these two unexpected encounters, the bouncer stops you and asks you for identification. As you present your driver's license, he dials his cell phone and begins reading your name, driver identification number, and organ donor status to his buddy on the other end. Outraged, you grab your ID and turn around. You can tell the stalking man had overheard the call and was already telling the curious woman. Since when did being in a public place mean having to surrender youranonymity? Now imagine all day different people tried to interrogate you for personal information and follow you around wherever you went. This happens everyday, but it does not involve random people. It happens without your seeing, knowing, or consenting to having your privacy invaded. It involves sensors in public spaces capable of generating and sharing data about every aspect of your life. What may have previously constituted an invasion of privacy when perpetrated by a human is now commonly done with technology. Video cameras, electronic networks, radio identifiers, biometrics, and a plethora of other technologies interrogate us daily for personal information and we willingly oblige. While we accept these technologies because they are efficient and often integrated into our routines, their ability to store, analyze, and distribute