2010 opensciencepeterson

242 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
242
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2010 opensciencepeterson

  1. 1. Open Source Sensing: Can we have both privacy and safety? Christine Peterson Foresight Institute www.foresight.org
  2. 2. "The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness." —Niels Bohr
  3. 3. No Secret Software for Public Voting Data! The E-voting mess — The Open Science community could have nipped it in the bud.
  4. 4. One molecule Nanotech can do it now too the sensors are coming
  5. 5. Nanotech- based sensors “The detector generates a continuous 'spectrum' of information about any chemical agents in its presence...” “easily programmable”
  6. 6. Sewer monitoring has begun “The test doesn’t screen people directly but instead seeks out evidence of illicit drug abuse in drug residues and metabolites excreted in urine and flushed toward municipal sewage treatment plants.”
  7. 7. “We found a drug molecule — Everybody out for a breath check!”
  8. 8. Things worth detecting: weapons of mass destruction • Explosives, chemicals, nukes — today • Bioweapons – in early stages — nasty, but delicate and hard to control) • Nanoweapons — later — like bioweapons, but tougher and more controllable)
  9. 9. Technological Advance Cost of WMD comes down $ GDP per capita goes up Time
  10. 10. Fear + poor WMD data = Sudan pharmaceutical plant, August 1998
  11. 11. Result: more surveillance Electronic, video, biological, chemical Being integrated into national system
  12. 12. Transparency vs privacy DC doesn’t notice our debates — they just move forward
  13. 13. Top-down approach to bottom-up problem • Centralized • Mandatory • Monolithic • Limited in participation • Secretive • Leads toward Surveillance State
  14. 14. Open Science-style physical security • Decentralized • Minimal “Track the • Voluntary/privatized problem, not the • Experimental people” • Collaborative • Open • Transparent
  15. 15. Who can figure out whether & how to collect public sensing data? • Need a community that understands the relationships between: • Security • Privacy • Functionality • Freedom
  16. 16. Graphic: Gina Miller
  17. 17. Open Sensing-based Security: What would it be like? • Open source style development • Citizen controlled • Privacy oriented • Verifiably limited • Detects materials of concern • Does not track individuals or nonweapons (e.g. drugs)
  18. 18. What might we regard as worth detecting? • Real problems • Anthrax (NYC, DC, FL 2001) • Sarin (Tokyo, 1995) • Ricin (London 2002, Las Vegas 2008) • Later: syn bio accidents or abuse
  19. 19. Who gets the data? • Communities negotiate • Mutual data exchange, e.g. anthrax within 100 km • Agreements on how to treat the data • “Communities” size can vary from household to nation, depending on what is detected (e.g., TNT vs nukes)
  20. 20. Proposed law in New York City that will require people to get a license before they can buy chemical, biological, or radiological attack detectors Do we not have a “freedom to sense”?
  21. 21. NO SECRET SOFTWARE FOR PUBLIC SENSING DATA! Open Source Sensing
  22. 22. or the fed way the Open Science way
  23. 23. Open sensing • OpenSourceSensing.org • Email me: peterson@foresight.org No Secret Software for Public Sensing Data!

×