Commodifying Trusted Traveler Programs

In April, I posted a story on how the US travel association was lobbying the public and government to support the development of trusted traveller programs.  Their newest claim asserts that people are willing to pay to obtain a trusted travler pass.

In a survey commissioned by the association to a sample of about 1,000 Americans, respondents were asked how they felt about paying between $100.00 and $150.00 to enrol in a trusted traveler program, which would ensure ease of movement through airports.

Before discussing the implications of this, the first thing to note is the survey and how it was interpreted by the association.  First off, the survey itself is misleading.  The survey question is premised in such a way as to compromise the result in that the question begins by stating that “Air travellers encounter too much hassle at our nation’s airports during screening.”  This is a very clever but deceiving way to manipulate the respondent’s answer in such a way which gives a positive result.  Moreover, the survey question states that the option of developing a payed pass is only one possibility, but does not mention any other options.

Now, while this is already questionable, what’s even more interesting is how the association interprets the findings.  While the survey says that overall interest is “lukewarm,” the association has no problems rounding off the results.  The title of their press release says that travellers “will pay for a better airport security experience;” and that about 60% of leisure travellers and about 75% of business travellers.  The survey actually states that 30% of leisure travellers are “very likely” and another 30% are “somewhat likely” to support the program.  For business travellers, 41% are “very likely” and 34% are “somewhat likely” to support it.  The association, in other words, conflates the results based on a yes or no rubric, masking the inherent apprehension of respondents.  Finally, in terms of the aggregate data of what all travellers say, only 20% are “very likely” to support this, another 25% “somewhat likely.”  As such, the survey’s findings that people are lukewarm is a reasonable conclusion, but the association’s interpretation of the results are far off base.

To finish off, while it is not only clear that the data of this survey was manipulated from its inception, the idea of buying one’s freedom to travel indicates the increasing commodification of security currently being seen throughout the globe.  Such programs are inherently biased towards the wealthy, and have nothing to do with ascertaining low-risk travellers.  Overall too, the association is now really starting to develop a track record for jamming thoughts into people’s consciousness, first with its PR friendly campaign to lobby governments, now with dubious data to support a program which profits from low-risk travellers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surveillance and Children

It has been a while since I’ve had an opportunity to blog since I’ve been extremely busy writing my thesis and the weather has shifted to summer.  I thought I would share a non-borders related story on surveillance for a change.

A new service has been launched by Infoglide called “Minor Monitor” and is aimed at parents who wish to monitor their child’s facebook activity.  The way it works is that the parent signs up for an MM account, and provides all necessary information on their child’s facebook account to the Infoglide corporation.  The service then logs all facebook activity and creates aggregate reports sent to the parent’s e-mail address.  The reports look for words and key terms which may reference any, how do you say…. “non-innocent” referents such as sex, drugs, alcohol and so forth.

You can find a news report on the matter here, which paints a rather trivial picture of this new technology, emphasizing that its a free, non-invasive way to read your child’s facebook account without them necessarily knowing about it.  Although MM boasts it is free, in many respects, there is a price to pay.

What you won’t find on this news report is that the Infoglide corporation states explicitly in their privacy policy that they will be collecting all information on the child and are free to share this information with, basically, whomever they wish.  The privacy policy states they will collect and retain any information about the child’s facebook account in accordance with facebook’s terms of service, which means a very liberal access to personally identifying information.  Not to mention, of course, the relatively lax privacy laws in the U.S. which means that Infoglide will have no problem collecting, storing and distributing this information at will.  As they put it rather vaguely:

“We may provide your personally identifying information to companies that provide services to help us with our business activities such as web site analytics or offering customer service. These third parties are authorized to use your personally identifying information only as necessary to provide these services to us”

A quick note, the Infoglide corporation is the primary designer of the Secure Flight no-fly list.  The company’s roots are in fraud detection for law enforcement and insurance firms.  Basically, to put it simply, the company’s ethos is built upon the foundations of fraud, that people are malicious and not who they say they are.

There are lots of themes going on in this piece, and one of the primary sales pitches made by MM is that it can help you the parent secure your child from the dangers of the internet, namely “sexual predators.”  There’s also the interesting remark to be made on how the news media trivializes this technology, a quick scan of stories on MM all tend to paint the same picture. From a normative stance, and this does not surprise me given the company’s background, is that MM assumes from the get-go that children have things to hide from their parents, and more importantly, that children are not to be trusted.  In other words, there’s simply no discussion of actually having face time with your kids about their lives, instead, use MM and discretely monitor your kids so you can devote your time to other energies.

Travel Industry Lobbying for Trusted Travel Programs

The US travel association has unveiled a national grassroots campaign to lobby congress for a nationwide trusted traveler program.

Based on a survey conducted by the Consensus Research Group, a private research firm headed by pro-republican chairman Tully Plesser, the US travel association argues that travelers overwhelmingly support implementing a national trusted traveler program and that three out of every four travellers agrees with the statement that “there has to be a better way” to conduct travel screening.

As such, the new campaign launched by the travel association, “Be Trusted Now!” aims to further mobilize the public to lobby congress for a ubiquitous nationwide trusted travel program based on voluntary information sharing and risk-based calculation to determine the eligibility for people to travel without facing particular pre-flight screening measures.

Edward Hasbrouck of the Identity Project has recently criticized the endeavour, arguing that we are effectively seeing the travel industry becoming an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, as he argues on his blog:

“The travel industry and the profiling companies want you to think that you’d never fit the profile, that you’d be considered a “trusted” traveler, and that all the bad things would be reserved for other bad people who, on the basis of their travel history or other (legal) activities, ‘deserve” to be treated like terrorists. But the reality is that any trusted traveler program is a threat to all our rights.’”

In terms of what is actually meant by a trusted traveler program, it is unclear.  According to the petition, it is pushing for a program based around “enacting common sense aviation security reform that will maintain security, increase efficiency and reduce the hassles for U.S. travelers.”

Moreover the petition reads:

“Congress should implement a risk-based Trusted Traveler Program. Such a program would allow travelers to voluntarily provide background information, qualifying them for expedited screening provided they met strict criteria. A Trusted Traveler Program will encourage more Americans to travel, thus growing the U.S. economy.”

There are numerous implications to be made here such as risks of information sharing, the problems of clearly defining a consensus around the term “trust,” the implications for those uncomfortable with surrendering such information, even if they are not “risky” travelers, and so forth.  But, what is also needed to be said is perhaps the most obvious point: these programs will only, and necessarily by their very design, benefit the ascending economic class of society.  They do not, by their very organizational logic and structure, benefit anyone except a minority elite in society, effectively permitting them greater access to social resources and mobility and freedom to travel.

In terms of “common sense” it is its opposite.  The “common sense” approach, I would argue, is that people have a basic right to freedom of mobility within their territory.  Trusted travel programs and “risk based” assessment measures effectively annihilate this democratic principle, and turn mobility into a privilege based on how a computational algorithm has calculated the value of your life.  Moreover, why stop at air travel?  Why not also implement these programs into rail and road travel?  Is there not a slippery slope in trusted travel programs?

Having programs which determine your worth as a citizen, and in turn your ability to access social resources is a highly suspect practice which reveals a great deal about how citizenship and sovereign power is being re-thought in the twenty-first century.  It will be most interesting to see how this program develops in the future.

CCLA Responds to Perimeter Security Deal

(Please note this is an updated version of my original post, thanks to some clarifications and feedback provided by Sukanya Pillay).

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has recently suggested that more oversight may be required in future North American perimeter security discussions, particularly those from the Beyond the Borders Working Group (BBWG).

The article, written by Sukanya Pillay, director of the CCLA’s National Security Program, argues that the deal has great implications for privacy and lacks public oversight.  Pillay’s assertions are quite correct and indeed there has not been any significant news about this deal since it was formally announced in March.  While some may say this is normal for it is still in its infancy, in fact, if we look at where this deal “came from” then there is more to the story.

Current perimeter talks are a direct result of the succeses and failures of the now defunct Security and Prosperity Partnership.  The SPP, which existed from 2005-2009, was a trilateral, non-binding, informal partnership which intended to harmonize borders and regulatory standards in order to facilitate free trade, liberal markets and post-9/11 securitization.  The partnership, for a variety of reasons, was a failure but many of the elements still remain.  The SPP was always myred in secrecy and shares many of the same concerns for privacy and democratic oversight as today’s perimeter talks.

Right before the SPP quietly collapsed, the Fraser Institute published a report [available here] which has a number of interesting things to suggest that the current perimeter deal was a direct product of the SPP.  The authors were Alexander Moens, a professor at Simon Fraser University and Michael Cust, a former intern and M.A. candidate at the University of Waterloo.  They argue that the SPP should rebrand itself into a bilateral initiative between Canada and the US, and exclude Mexico from talks.  The SPP at this point was being heavily criticized from numerous groups from all political spectrums, but, they argue that the SPP was fulfilling an important function.  Thus rather than abandon the project, it simply needs to be tweaked.

They argue that:

“the traditional “undefended border” is no longer an option. Several studies have pointed out that we need to over- come the traditional border… The fundamental problem with the Canada-US border is that it has become a convenient point for governments to administer a host of regulations and statutes. This is convenient for government, but costly to our economies. We need to rethink what economic and political benefits justify the traditional concept of a border… On top of that, the border has become a static line of defense in the war on terrorism, but not necessarily a net gain in security for either country.  Security against modern threats requires a deeper level of cooperation than border controls. At this point, this deeper level can only be achieved between Canada and the United States (not Mexico). A new border concept should be part of a negotiating package on a Canadian-American regulatory and standards area” (Moens and Cust, 2008: 24).

The “studies” they are working from and their position in general is informed by the economic elite of Canada, namely, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Conference Board of Canada.  Both organizations represent the business elite of Canada, you can see a list of their board of directors here and here.  Needless to say, they are quite powerful, have access to massive amounts of capital, and can mobilize their interests when needed.  They supported the SPP and currently support the Perimeter security talks because it has the potential to increase free trade and further liberalize markets.  In terms of privacy concerns, such groups tend to advocate for a liberalized privacy regime, where the private sector should be made self-regulatory and develop their own privacy standards where they see fit.  Moens and Cust were, in other words, not really arguing about borders as a concern for security, their data was informed by economic interests, which means that the current talks are going to be much more focused around such concerns.  We already see this as the current borders working group has been mobilizing heads from the automotive sector, and will likely branch out into other sectors such as the North American Steel Trade Committee (NATSC), just as the SPP did before.

We can also see how the discursive shift from borders (in the SPP days) to “perimeters” today, signals a type of re-branding that Moens and Cust were advocating.  Moreover the move from tri-national to bi-national deals further strengthens the view that Moens and Cust were advocating.  Thus, to build on Pillay’s original point, privacy concerns and proper public oversight should be pushed into the spotlight, particularly when we see how economic elites are in many respects driving the agenda.  It is important to recognize that these perimeter deals are going to much more about facilitating the flow of objects, commodities, resources and information across borders.  They will in turn pose significant implications for the flow of people, especially as pre-approved travel programs continue to proliferate.

Joint U.S. Canada Border Surveillance Center in Operation

Mounties join U.S. surveillance centre – The Sarnia Observer – Ontario, CA.

 

While the national press has been mostly concerned recently with covering developments of border harmonization (actually, they call it perimeter security agreements), a relatively unknown border surveillance center has recently opened which should also be worth mentioning.

Over the past week a few minor stories have surfaced in the Canadian news about a border surveillance center monitoring the 49th parallel.  The Operational Integration Centre at the Selfridge AIr National Guard base in Michigan has recently opened to monitor the border between Detroit and Port Huron, Michigan.  It has also been announced that the RCMP will dispatch a full-time intelligence analyst to work alongside U.S. law enforcement.

There are a number of things going on here.  First, to be extremely broad, this is precisely the kind of security arrangement the U.S. is hoping for.  In essence, the U.S. will build the infrastructure and manage it, but pepper it with Canadian staff here and there.  This gives the impression that it is a joint program but in fact Canadian law enforcement occupies a relatively peripheral role in the entire operation.

Second, the be very precise, this is exactly the type of border harmonization which will be the shape of things to come.  Basically, these are far more localized practices than the kind of broad genearlizations of “Fortress America” we find in popular discourse.  These are very small, tightly organized, and incredibly discrete surveillance operations which are deployed in very particular places, not throughout the entire 49th parallel.  Many reports from political and economic groups advocating for further border securitization have acknowledged the relative impossibility of surveilling the entire border.  As such the alternative is to focus on small scale initiatives directed into localized practices.  Incidentally, it makes it also hard to realize the scope of border harmonization if we can’t fall back on grand-narratives.  Nonetheless it is possible that we are seeing the future of border harmonization here.

There is not too much detail on information sharing save that they will be sharing intelligence and that the RCMP will be making situational reports to further develop the program.  Law enforcement on both sides have tended to complain that information sharing has been too informal (whatever that means), and so they seem to be suggesting that this type of arrangement will aid in information sharing initiatives.

I’m curious as to whether or not this new initiative has been the result of recent talks in border securitization or if this has been in the works for some time now.  We have had integrated border enforcement teams (IBETs) for the past few years, but it is unclear where this initiative came from.

 

DHS to develop Covert Body Scanning Surveillance Technology

DHS seeks systems for covert body scans, documents show – Computerworld.

I mentioned earlier that the DHS is seeking contracts to develop a fully flexible but ubiquitous surveillance screening technology.  A form of technology which can be deployed as the situation unfolds.  Moreover, that this project is being outsourced to major defence contractors, with smaller firms being encouraged to serve as subcontracts to this endeavour.

It would seem that there is further reason to suppor this theory.  Documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) suggest that the DHS has signed contracts for the development of mobile and static systems “that can be used to scan pedestrians and people at rail and bus stations and special event venues—apparently at times without their knowledge” to quote my source article.

The article continues that for example, the DHS has contracted out Siemens Corporate Research and Northeastern University to design a surveillance platform which could detect concealed IEDs, via multiple cameras and backscatter screening technology, the same technology currently in use at airports.

Rapiscan, a division of OSI Systems, and a major player in the backscatter screening industry has also been contracted to develop surveillance systems for entrance gates to special events.  This would be similar, in some respects, to the screening systems which were portrayed in the popular sci-fi film “Total Recall” in which people seamlessly walk through a security checkpoint and security staff can instantly identify threats.

However, as the article continues, this screening system is intended to be deployed covertly such that people are not aware they are being screened.

It seems that the DHS is indeed moving towards developing covert, ubiquitous screening programs. More will likely develop from this in the future.

 

FEMA: to tweet or not to tweet?

Craig Fugate (CraigatFEMA) on Twitter.

The above link will take you to FEMA administrator Craig Fugate’s twitter page, although the gist of it basically goes: you are not safe, you are always at risk, beware there is danger all around you.

Fugate has been pushing the US government and FEMA to adapt to changing technologies and believes there is strong potential for twitter to help get the word out to Americans when things go awry.  According to an industry journal, Fugate believes there is a practical use for twitter to help keep the government in communication with citizens during times of emergency.

Now, of course I will not deny that twitter could probably get messages sent out pretty quick when times get dicey, but Fugate is quite erroneous in making the hasty generalization of assuming the ubiquity of twitter.  Sure, it is quite easy to assume its ubiquity when you’re part of the upper middle class, owner of a third generation cell phone, and of course connected to all your friends with such apps like twitter.  A pity that Fugate has chosen to overlook the fact that not everyone is on twitter, let alone has the access to resources to even afford the necessary hardware.

But wait a minute, maybe he does know this.  On his twitter page, he has tweeted that only about 7% of US citizens have a twitter account.  How then, does he believe that twitter will be an effective mechanism for communication during times of emergency whilst also acknowledging the relatively scant amount of users?

In general, this is a very good example of the technological sublime, where we seek technological solutions to social problems; an effervescent belief that technology, in and of itself, can in this case save us from disasters.  Now, setting this as a premise, there are two possible answers to explain Fugate’s twitter program, a soft and a hard one, if you will.

The soft answer says that Fugate believes, as many Westerners do, that over time the technology will diffuse such that eventually (and of course necessarily) everybody will be on twitter.  Simply put, give it time, we’ll all be on the network.  There are many problems with this line of argument, but again, to keep it simple: hasty generalization.  I do not wish to focus on the soft answer, so I will leave this alone for the moment.

The hard answer, the more insightful one in my view, is that Fugate doesn’t really care how many people are on twitter.  The whole point of such an emergency program is modelled directly on class conflict, meaning that it is the privileged few who are likely to receive state care in an emergency, whilst the rest of the population will likely remain in the dark.  In other words, it is your ability to have access to particular resources, to connect to certain networks, which determines the chances of your survival in times of crisis. Moreover, another problem with this particular type of technology is that it individualizes social problems.  It becomes a matter of individual responsibility, yours to be precise, to buy the cell phone, get twitter, and of course constantly check it.  The hard argument has already proven itself to be true with hurricane Katrina, and I believe it is reasonable to assume such similar response patterns will occur in future times of crisis.

Fugate is ignoring the socio-economic divisions in IT consumption patterns.  This leads one to the conclusion that Fugate, and FEMA more generally, are interested in developing disaster relief programs which favour particular citizens over others.  Moreover, Fugate is riding on a very particular belief in the power of technology to legitimate a social program which can only really help the privileged few during crisis.  As such, it is evident that FEMA has not really learned much from Katrina, nor are they particularly interested in doing so.

Just to wrap up, here’s a neat quote from a text I am currently reading:

“The ‘information society’ is a big, bright cliche, and it is easy to see why people are attracted to it, but the hopes reposed in it are doomed to be disappointed.  The information society will not eliminate informational inequalities unless some way is found to overcome preexisting social inequalities–whether based on money or race or sex.  Information in its present configuration… is about power, not expression” (sourced in “Last Rights: Revisiting Four Theories of the Press.” 1995. pp.180).

DHS Contracting Suggests Massive Surveillance Plan

DHS Seeks Bids on ‘Full Array’ of Surveillance Equipment,.

The Department of Homeland Security is currently accepting bids for a contract to develop a “full array” of surveillance equipment, particularly IP video surveillance cameras complete with all the various add-ons such as concealments and wireless transmitters.  This suggests that they are looking into deploying mobile surveillance systems which could be used reflexively, that is deployed on the fly when need be.

Now, what is particularly interesting is that according the article, the DHS has stated that it would prefer that bids are coming only from “highly qualified” contractors which have the capabilities and experience.  In other words, it seems that they only want to hear from the big security corporations on this one, and moreover have encouraged other smaller firms to focus on subcontracting, or working in partnership with other firms.  In this way, the DHS is hoping to be courted by corporations who can offer a broad array of surveillance products.

If we put two and two together, it seems to suggest that the DHS has plans in store for deploying a fairly sophisticated surveillance net, but not necessarily one which will be a permanent installation like you would see with urban CCTV.  Of course, at this point it is pure speculation I am going on, but nonetheless worth watching for in the future.

DHS 2012 Budget Requests: More technology!

The 2012 Department of Homeland Security is requesting additional funding for surveillance technology such as full body scanners, also known as advanced imaging technologies (AIT).

The request is to install and operate 275 more AITs in airport checckpoints, which will result in 1,275 AITs deployed in total.  The request is for $105.2 million.

In addition, the DHS has also requested $12.4 million for maintaining and expanding the Secure Flight program; $236.9 million for creating Behaviour Detection Officiers, training airport staff in an “non-intrusive” means of observing people to determine whether they suspect a person is a threat.

In terms of immigration, they 2012 budget increases Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody operations by $157.7 million, to support 33,400 detention beds, meaning that they intend to detain more people in the coming years.

There are many other programs which the DHS is intending to increase funding for, such as bio-surveillance systems, disaster relief and catastrophic even planning, including nuclear warfare, and other such infrastructural investments.

This also comes as no surprise that there is no talk of improving labour conditions by increasing overall pay for TSA workers, just to give a quick example, although there is some mention of improving Coast Guard housing and child care programs.  Indeed most of the budget requests pertain to technological expansionism and upgrading.  In this respect, it is clear that in terms of benefit, the real benefactors of this will be security corporations. Moreover, the actual programs which they seek to bolster in a sense, enable us to compute the chances of future risks we might see.  Overall then, the picture which might emerge tends to suggest a highly technologically centered surveillance apparatus designed to control individual mobility and assign people into typologies of risk and threat.

Surveillance and the Body

BBC News – Ouch! Artist bolts camera to skull for year-long show.

 

 

Many thanks to my girlfriend P.H. on this one for sending me a great link, totally unrelated to political economy of borders, but nonetheless really interesting.  Artist Wafaa Bilal has inserted a camera into the back of his skull, which will take a photo every minute for the next year.  The images are fed in real-time into a contemporary art exhibit in Qatar, and it also tracks his movement in real time via GPS.

The integration of surveillance and the body is something I’m not entirely familiar with, although a well known project, the EyeBorg, involved something similar in which a man replaced a glass eye with a camera.  I blogged about that many months ago but you can still find it online if you’re interested.

I’m wondering whether or not the boundaries between such ICT/surveillance tech and the body will become less clear, or conversely, whether they will remain discrete, such that people can still dispose of such commodities at will.  Its a hard question to grapple with, as on the one had we are increasingly surveilled especially at the body, so it follows that they will become closer interrelated, but at the same time, mobile consumption demands ease of disposal, like a light cloak, the commodity can be disposed of without any obstacles of attachement.