This document discusses open source sensing and whether it is possible to have both privacy and safety. It argues that an open science approach to physical security could be decentralized, voluntary, experimental, collaborative, transparent and respect privacy more than a top-down surveillance approach. An open source sensing community could help determine how to collect public sensing data in a privacy-oriented way that detects dangerous materials but does not track individuals or non-dangerous substances. The document advocates for no secret software and public access to sensing data.

1. Open Source
Sensing:
Can we have both
privacy and safety?
Christine Peterson
Foresight Institute
www.foresight.org

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. No Secret
Software for
Public Voting
Data! The E-voting mess —
The Open Science
community could have
nipped it in the bud.

4. One
molecule
Nanotech can
do it now too
the sensors
are coming

5. Nanotech-
based sensors
“The detector generates a
continuous 'spectrum' of
information about any chemical
agents in its presence...”
“easily programmable”

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. “We found a drug molecule —
Everybody out for a breath check!”

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. Technological Advance
Cost of WMD comes down
$
GDP per capita goes up
Time

10. Fear + poor WMD data =
Sudan pharmaceutical plant, August 1998

11. Result: more surveillance
Electronic, video, biological, chemical
Being integrated into national system

12. Transparency vs privacy
DC doesn’t notice our debates — they just move forward

13. Top-down approach to
bottom-up problem
• Centralized
• Mandatory
• Monolithic
• Limited in participation
• Secretive
• Leads toward Surveillance State

14. Open Science-style
physical security
• Decentralized
• Minimal “Track the
• Voluntary/privatized problem,
not the
• Experimental people”
• Collaborative
• Open
• Transparent

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. Graphic: Gina Miller

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. 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. 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. 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. NO SECRET
SOFTWARE FOR
PUBLIC SENSING
DATA!
Open Source
Sensing

22. or
the fed way the Open Science way

23. Open sensing
• OpenSourceSensing.org
• Email me:
peterson@foresight.org
No Secret
Software for
Public Sensing
Data!