April 6, 2021
Article in English only
All Under Surveillance: Billions of Suspects?
This was the title of a documentary aired on Swiss TV RTS on March 11, 2020, exploring digital totalitarianism and artificial intelligence. While the political and financial stakes are considerable, my focus lies on the technological dimensions of privacy and human tracking.
I would like to share my personal perspective, particularly regarding mass video surveillance. Regulations differ significantly between Europe, China and the United States, yet the fundamental issues remain similar. Ultimately, governments and major technology companies — the true decision-makers — shape the laws.
Since the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect on May 25, 2018, progress has been made in how data from customers, users and subcontractors is handled within Europe and Switzerland. However, the European Union lacks digital borders.
A simple example illustrates this: when I send an email from Switzerland to a Gmail address, it inevitably passes through US-based Google servers, where algorithms filter and mine data for the NSA (National Security Agency).
The United States and China are not subject to EU law, despite facing increasing pressure from countries seeking stronger data protection. The GDPR, though ambitious, offers limited real protection for confidential data circulating through the global network. Technical limitations and idealistic objectives hinder its full effectiveness.
Nevertheless, the regulation has raised awareness of consent and reminded users that each internet connection shares information — whether for advertising (profiling) or surveillance (often justified under national security).
In my opinion, GDPR implementation came too late, following multiple public scandals such as the 2015 Facebook–Cambridge Analytica breach, which exposed data from about 50 million profiles. These incidents revealed how personal data, collected without consent, can be used to build detailed personality models — raising serious ethical and privacy concerns.
No server connected to the internet is truly impenetrable, especially given the growing sophistication of malicious data theft.
Intelligent Video Surveillance
The intelligent video surveillance industry represents a $40 billion market. Following major terrorist attacks — from 9/11 to the Nice tragedy — the mass installation of cameras has been driven by fear, based on the belief that threats may hide among ordinary citizens.
This logic leads to the surveillance of everyone. In the name of counter-terrorism, Europe, the United States, and especially China have engaged in a dangerous race to monitor, locate and track entire populations. How far will our collective fear of insecurity take us?
Technology alone cannot replace human judgment in matters of security. These costly technologies — often developed by weapons manufacturers — are unreliable and potentially dangerous. According to the documentary, 90% of attackers are stopped through human intelligence. Investigators still depend primarily on traditional investigative methods such as neighbourhood inquiries and phone or computer analysis.
Surveillance cameras also generate false positives, similar to spam filters. China has used facial recognition systems extensively since the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
As of 2020, the country had 600 million cameras — roughly one for every two citizens. Law enforcement uses mobile applications that access sensitive real-time data, storing vast amounts of information such as electricity consumption, vehicle colour, blood type, religion, travel history and other personal details that help identify potential suspects.
Russia's Expanding Video Surveillance During COVID-19
Moscow's surveillance network is among the most advanced. Since January 2020, 100,000 facial recognition cameras have been installed across the city, including along routes of opposition demonstrations. From February 2020, at the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, these cameras were used to monitor travellers returning from abroad and citizens under quarantine.
Commuters in the Moscow Metro undergo facial recognition at station entrances and exits, while residents are filmed entering and leaving their homes.
Does this violate privacy? The system, presented as an anti-COVID-19 measure, photographs quarantined individuals, stores their images in a database and tracks their movements. Alarmingly, this data frequently appears on the black market, where — for about 5,000 roubles — anyone can obtain information by uploading a photo to an illicit database.
(Source: ARTE.TV – Alexandra Dalsbaek – VIRAL #14 – World Pandemic Diary)
Sources for Facial Recognition Databases
Facial recognition systems compile images and data from multiple sources, including:
- FaceID data from smartphones stored in the cloud
- Tagged facial photos posted on Facebook and other social networks
- Images on corporate websites and blogs
- Video calls and social media applications such as Skype, WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, Imo and WeChat
- Media published on YouTube or other third-party platforms, including news websites
Although I am fascinated by technology, I have always refused to store confidential information in the cloud. I use digital fingerprinting for identification (which is practical) but store it locally and in encrypted form. I avoid FaceID and voiceprint technologies, which act as identifiers equivalent to DNA. Biometrics has become our digital ID — convenient, but highly intrusive when misused.
Every digital trace we leave online is archived. Server redundancies ensure long-term preservation, making deletion virtually impossible.
These so-called "free" services are, in reality, goldmines for data mining. We voluntarily provide information that benefits technology companies and their affiliates — governmental or otherwise.
Medical Confidentiality During the COVID-19 Crisis
"Like a virus, the fear of attackers spreads…"
This phrase predates COVID-19, originating in counter-terrorism rhetoric, yet it applies perfectly to the current context.
During lockdowns, the volume of confidential medical data stored on global servers increased dramatically. The urgent demand for communication and business continuity (remote work) led to extensive use of video conferencing tools — often at the expense of privacy. For instance, Zoom was found to transmit data to Facebook without user consent, even for non-Facebook users.
As with Google and Microsoft, former Silicon Valley startups now offer premium services for free, especially to schools, thereby compromising privacy on a large scale. This raises serious questions: is medical information now stored in the cloud, and under which jurisdiction?
Since the pandemic began, medical consultations frequently occur via video calls, while medical certificates are sent by email — still relying on SMTP, one of the oldest and least secure protocols.
At this point, individual responsibility, digital awareness, and education have become vital.
Much like the early dominance of Microsoft Office, once users adopt certain tools, they rarely explore alternatives. Habits form, competition fades, and dependence grows — yet alternatives do exist.
Many powerful, privacy-respecting tools have long been available, offering end-to-end encryption and full compliance with EU Data Protection Law.
Documentary sources: Produced by Sylvain Louvet and Ludo G., journalists Hélène Mead and Antoine Cadaux, a CAPA production with ARTE France, Télé-Québec, and Alexandra Dalsbaek (Arte.tv).