April 6, 2021
Article in English only
This is the title of a documentary aired on Swiss TV RTS about digital totalitarianism and artificial intelligence on March 11, 2020. While the stakes and interests are political and financial, I’m primarily interested in the technological aspects of privacy and human tracking.
I’d like to share my personal perspective, particularly on mass video surveillance. Regulations vary significantly between Europe, China, and the US, but the fundamental issues remain consistent. Those with decision-making power—governments and big technology companies ultimately create the laws.
Since the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on May 25, 2018, efforts have been made regarding data collected from customers, users, and subcontractors in Europe and Switzerland. However, the EU lacks digital borders.
A simple example: when I send an email from Switzerland to a Gmail account, it inevitably passes through US Google servers, where algorithms filter and mine data for the NSA (National Security Agency).
US and Chinese territories aren’t subject to EU laws, despite facing some pressure to protect confidential data from countries with economic power and political interests.
The GDPR doesn’t provide “real protection” for confidential data continuously flowing through the global network (due to technical limitations and its idealistic ambitions). Nevertheless, the EU has created a detailed regulation that, though difficult to enforce after long-standing abuses, raises awareness about “consent” and alerts users that each internet connection shares information with companies for advertising (profiling) or surveillance (under the pretext of national security).
In my view, GDPR implementation came too late, following several public scandals such as Facebook’s major 2015 data breach that exposed about 50 million profiles to Cambridge Analytica. These incidents demonstrate how personal data collected without knowledge or permission can create sophisticated personality models, raising serious ethical and privacy concerns. We must recognize that no server connected to the global network is impenetrable, especially with increasing malicious data theft.
INTELLIGENT VIDEO SURVEILLANCE
Intelligent video surveillance represents a $40 billion market. Following terrorist attacks like 9/11 and the Nice events, the widespread installation of cameras has created a market driven by fear, based on the premise that enemies hide among us and everyone poses a potential threat.
This mindset suggests constant monitoring of everyone. In the name of counter-terrorism, Europe, the United States, and especially China have engaged in a dangerous race for surveillance technology where all citizens are monitored, located, and tracked. How far will our security fears take us?
Technology alone cannot replace human judgment in security matters. These expensive technologies (developed by weapons companies) are often unreliable and potentially dangerous. As the documentary explains, 90% of attackers have been stopped through human intelligence. Investigators primarily rely on traditional investigative methods (neighborhood inquiries, computer and phone analysis, etc.).
Furthermore, surveillance cameras frequently generate false positives (similar to spam filters). China has extensively used facial recognition cameras since the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
As of 2020, China deployed 600 million cameras—one for every two citizens. Law enforcement also uses portable applications that access sensitive real-time information. These applications store massive data including utility consumption, vehicle color, blood type, religious affiliation, international travel history, and other details that help identify potential suspects.
RUSSIA’S EXPANDING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE DURING COVID-19
Moscow’s video surveillance system is ultra-modern. Since January 2020, 100,000 facial recognition cameras have been installed throughout the city along routes of opposition demonstrations. Since February 2020 (the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic), they’ve been used to monitor people returning from abroad and patients required to observe strict quarantine.
Metro users undergo systematic facial recognition when entering or exiting stations. Residents are also filmed entering and leaving their homes.
Does this violate the privacy of Moscow’s population? Facial recognition (Face.ID) has been implemented as an anti-COVID-19 strategy.
The system photographs quarantined individuals, stores their images in a database, and combines them with facial recognition technology to track their movements throughout the city. This data frequently appears on the black market, where anyone can obtain information about you on the darknet for 5,000 rubles by entering your photo into a database.
(ARTE.TV – Alexandra Dalsbaek – VIRAL #14 – World Pandemic Diary)
SOURCES FOR FACIAL RECOGNITION DATABASES
Facial recognition systems draw from various sources, including:
- FaceID data from smartphones stored in the cloud
- Tagged facial images posted on Facebook or other social networks
- Facial images on private or corporate websites and blogs
- Facial images captured during video conferencing (Skype, WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, Imo, WeChat, etc.)
- Media published on YouTube or third-party platforms like online newspapers
While I’m impressed by new technologies, I’ve always refused to store confidential data in the cloud. I use digital fingerprinting for identification (which is practical) but keep it locally saved and encrypted. I avoid FaceID or voiceprint technologies, as they function as identifiers equivalent to DNA. Biometrics is becoming our ID—convenient for many features but highly intrusive when misused. All digital traces we leave online are permanently stored (server redundancies ensure data preservation and longevity).
Undoubtedly, these free services are goldmines for data mining. Without charge, we provide valuable information that benefits internet businesses. These technological tools always carry hidden costs: our voluntary contribution of information that feeds tech giants and their subsidiaries, governmental or otherwise.
MEDICAL CONFIDENTIALITY DURING THE COVID-19 CRISIS
“Like a virus, the fear of attackers spreads…”
This statement predates the COVID-19 pandemic, originating in counter-terrorism rhetoric.
During quarantine and lockdown periods, we’ve further increased the volume of confidential medical data on servers worldwide. The urgent need for communication solutions and business continuity management (remote work) during the pandemic may contribute to unintended data breaches due to widespread use of videoconferencing tools (such as Zoom, which sends data to Facebook without consent, even for non-Facebook users).
Like Google and Microsoft, former Silicon Valley startups now pursue aggressive marketing by offering premium services for free, particularly targeting schools. This contributes to compromising individual privacy. Is medical information now stored in the cloud? If so, where and under which legal frameworks?
Since the pandemic began, medical consultations occur via video conferencing, and medical certificates are sent through email (SMTP: the oldest and most vulnerable protocol since email’s inception).
At this stage, individual responsibility, digital awareness, and education become increasingly important.
Similar to the early days of Microsoft Office, once we adopt certain tools, we stop considering alternatives. We become accustomed to them, resist changing habits, and believe there are no alternatives because everyone uses them. This is no longer true!
I’ve identified many alternative tools that have existed for years—equally powerful and user-friendly as “traditional” ones, sometimes even better designed, but most importantly, respectful of user privacy through end-to-end encryption and compliance with EU Data Protection Law.
Documentary sources: Produced by Sylvain Louvet & Ludo G., Journalists Hélène Mead & Antoine Cadaux, a production of CAPA with ARTE France and Télé-Québec & Alexandra Dalsbaek (Arte.tv)