Clarke. nb. PRIVATE EYES. privacy and suveillance

PRIVATE EYES
EXPLORING THE CHANGING REALM OF PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE IN
CONJUNCTION WITH MODERN DAY TECHNOLOGY
Inclusive of commentary on the newest technology to hit the city’s streets.
Nandi A. Clarke
DTEM 4440
Professor: N. Cameron Russell
Inclusive of: The Note, The Perspective, The Source

P R I VA T E E Y E S
EXPLORING THE CHANGING REALM OF PRIVACY AND
SURVEILLANCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH MODERN DAY
TECHNOLOGY
THE NOTE 03
Brief notation on a number of scholar’s works as well as court cases and news
articles within the realm of privacy.
 
Introduction to privacy, concepts and delving into data protection 04
Creation, Access and Collection; Network Functionality and Privacy; Sources of Regulation 05
Commercial Use of personal data 07
Governance Processing of Personal Information 09
Public Sector: Fourth Amendment and Emerging Technology 10
Encryption, Law Enforcement and Intelligence Gathering (inclusive of article notation) 12
Federal Electronic Surveillance Law 19
Privacy in Places: Privacy in Schools, Privacy in the Workplace (inclusive of annotations) 20
THE PERSPECTIVE 31
Assessments based on one’s understanding of given course material.
 
Position Paper — Encryption, Law Enforcement and Intelligence Gathering 32
Final — Terms of Misuse 34
Proposal 34 
breaking down the possible research points into three main categories
Outline 35 
solidifying the data; three separate categories are created to discuss five  
required data points
Final 41 
comprehensive article inclusive of data pulls from a variety of sources
THE SOURCE 54
Comprehensive list of all texts and works cited within this compilation. 
PRIVATE EYE — EXPLORING THE CHANGING REALM OF PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH MODERN DAY TECHNOLOGY
CONTEN T

NANDI CLARKE
N. CAMERON RUSSELL
PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE
FALL SEMESTER 2016
On this section, THE NOTE:
There are no experiences that I can think which might be relevant to the course.
This generation is constantly bombarded by new enticing forms of technology and media, and many
use them willingly without even the slightest thoughts of repercussions. For years I have been wary of
social media and all associates, and the wariness has only increased with the creation of movies and
such, created to highlight the issue [not to mention real-life scenarios which don't set the government
in the best light]. Even with this being said, I must admit the concept of privacy in such a digital age is
fascinating, especially given the fact that although we, as a society are immersed in digital media and
such, there is much that is still unknown to the public.
Herein lies the issue.
This section focuses on scholars’ research into the industry of surveillance and privacy and their new
finding in a new world of technology.
Would you knowingly trade information for a bit of convenience?
PRIVATE EYE — EXPLORING THE CHANGING REALM OF PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH MODERN DAY TECHNOLOGY !3
THE N OTE

INTRODUCTIONS: COURSE POLICIES AND EXPECTATIONS; INTRODUCTION TO
THE CONCEPT OF “PRIVACY” AND “DATA PROTECTION”
WEEK 1 (WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2016
(I) April Glaser, If You Go Near the Super Bowl, You Will Be Surveilled Hard (Wired, January 31, 2016), !
https://www.wired.com/2016/01/govs-plan-keep-super-bowl-safe-massive-surveillance/.
• Note: If you are uncomfortable with surveillance, don't go [anywhere] near the game
• Watchers. Coordinated: FBI and local police// viewers: see something/say something
• Car tracking. 1 automatic license plate readers (ALPR): reading plate location/time/date
◦ revealing home/work and other information such as romantic relationships
• Tracking face/body. over 3000 cameras (just one area) / private security
◦ people register them in police database to make it easier for law to access
▪ FBI working on a large facial recognition database (52 million images/ since 2015)
• Tracking phones. fake cell phone towers are set up: known as stingrays// trick phones into linking to them
• Processing Location. coordinated with numerous fusion centers
◦ NSA,FBI,local police and citizens//national suspicious activity reporting initiative; see something, say
something
(II) Lois Beckett, How Much of Your Data Would You Trade for a Free Cookie? (ProPublica, October 1, 2014), !
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-much-of-your-data-would-you-trade-for-a-free- cookie.
• Consumer Disconnect: The general public is unaware how important certain aspects of data are in relation to
profiles.
(III) Michal Addady, This is the Worst Toy of the Year by Far (Fortune, December 8, 2015), #
http://fortune.com/2015/12/08/worst-toy-year/.
• Mattel's Hello Barbie
◦ Purpose. asks the child questions, then record and transit to a third party// for purpose of improving
speech recognition
◦ Flaw. 1 connecting to any network that includes barbie/ putting info (conversations) at risk//
▪ 2 cloud-based server susceptible to hackers
IV. SIDIS// Article and Courtcase
(I) J.L. Manley, Where Are They Now?: April Fool!, The New Yorker 22 (Aug. 14, 1937), #
http://www.sidis.net/newyorker1.pdf.
(II) Sidis v. F-R Publishing Corp., 113 F.2d 806 (2d Cir. 1940) [ATTACHED] #
• Protection of Privacy
◦ Tort 1. Said person is still protected of guaranteed privacy regardless of celebrity.
◦ Tort 2. Man sued magazine for publishing article stating he was a prodigy. He now wishes to conceal his
identity. No grounds// article had no malice.
◦ Tort 3. Cannot use name/photo of living persons in advertisements without their consent
◦ Tort 4. The articles were untarnished: no lies/no grounds

CREATION, ACCESS AND COLLECTION; NETWORK FUNCTIONALITY AND
PRIVACY; SOURCES OF REGULATION
WEEK 2 (WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2016
(i) Mannequins With Cameras: Are Your Mannequins Spying on You?, ABC News (Dec. 11, 2012), !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSDtTxYxpJY.
• [ISEE] retail weapon
• uses facial recognition software//takes note: gender/age range/race
• made by ALMAX (Italian company)
• distinguished by hole in eye
(ii) Watch a Man Follow Target Shoppers and Narrate Their Actions, to Great Effect, Vulture (Jan. 12, 2011), http://
www.vulture.com/2011/01/paranoid_prank_at_target.html.
• Man: Jack Vale// the majority of those paying attention to him and getting annoyed are women
• note: only 2 men followed/ women stop and stare/ no black people followed
(2) Locate and review Google's Privacy Policy(ies) (currently in effect).
(3) Find Google's Privacy Policy(ies) on the following website and peruse it -
https://explore.usableprivacy.org/.
(4) Read: A Brief Introduction to Fair Information Practices, Pam Dixon, World Privacy Forum,
https://www.worldprivacyforum.org/2008/01/report-a-brief-introduction-to-fair-information- practices/
Patchwork of Privacy Statutes
• Video Privacy Protection [VPP]// protects video rentals/title of movies
• Health Information Portability and Accountability Act [HIPAA]// protects medical service providers
• The Gramm-Leach-Buley Act [GLBA]//financial
• The Family Educational Right and Privacy Act [FERPA]// student records
• Children's Online Privacy Protection Act [COPPA]// online service provivder for users under 13
• Freedom Of Information Act [FOIA]
• The Electronic Communications Privacy Act [ECPA]// created in 1986
Google Privacy Policy
• Dimensions of Privacy
• Collection/Dissemination/Sharing
• Storage/Deletion
• Retrieval
• Use
• Authenticating identity
• Note: the company is required to have a policy, but specificity is not a requirement
• Can change as they see fit, no notification necessary
• Consent based on age
Cookie
• short string of data stored on your hard drives
• websites store them when visited
Open Data
• easily accessible data from the private sector
• providing a level of transparency [NYC Open Data]

Code of Conduct for Tracking Shoppers by Cellphones
• can opt-out
• de-aggregated//not associated with name/but keeps info like age and gender
• similar to Fair Information Practices
No More Checks and Balances
• FindFace "You Face is Big Data"
• app linked to Russian social media. Take a picture, pulls up info and social media profiles. 70% accurate
• RFID
• chip within product, prevent shop-lifting
• help with stocking/ deactivates with purchase
• supply chain delivery/make sure inventory is in stock
• convenience

COMMERCIAL USE OF PERSONAL DATA: GOVERNANCE REGIMES
WEEK 3 (WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2016)
.
(1) Read: Making Your Privacy Practices Public, California Department of Justice (2014)
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cybersecurity/making_your_privacy_practices_public. pdf.
(2) Read: Interactive Advertising Bureau, Privacy Guidelines (2008), 
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20080224005091/en/Interactive-Advertising-Bureaus- Board-Directors-
Adopts-Privacy.
(3) Read: Dwyer v. American Express Co., 652 N.E.2d 1351 (Ill App. 1995), 
https://epic.org/privacy/junk_mail/dwyer.txt.
(4) Read: Online firm gave victim's data to killer,ChicagoTribune,January6,2002,
. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-01-06/news/0201060305_1_pretexting-docusearch-amy-boyer
(5) Peruse: The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule: A Six-Step Compliance Plan for Your Business, Federal Trade
Commission (2013), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain- language/BUS84-coppa-6-steps.pdf
Privacy and Standards
• California Compliance
• California has such stringent/high standards that it saves much time to comply with them in the first place//
automatically compliant with everyone
• Self-Regulation
• there is the potential for laws/things to be fixed at a faster rate when company regulates itself
• Misconception/ Misunderstanding
• understanding different terms explicitly// ex. deleting an account vs. deleting data
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
• Accessing another's computer without the consent of another
• broad
• made to prevent fraud/hacking
• could implicate: bg/gf loggin into account//worker using computer outside bounds
FTC - Absent Legislation
• various statues protecting certain people within private sector
COPPA [Children's Online Privacy Protection Act]
• protects.children under the age of 13
• regulation.public service providers who market to this demographic, under 13
• who enforces it. the FTC
FINAL RESEARCH PAPER PROPOSAL IDEAS
LINK NYC
• Purpose
◦ free wifi
◦ maps and directories
◦ free phone calls
◦ 911 button
◦ charging
◦ street room (more sidewalk?
◦ announcements
• Privacy Collection Data

◦ plugging in device
◦ calling history/recording
◦ not even using directly, it still collects data [in passing]
• False pretenses
◦ claim of free open service vs. actual implimentation
• "USE"
◦ What constitutes use?
◦ by agreeing/using the service, you automatically agree to the terms

GOVERNMENT PROCESSING OF PERSONAL INFORMATION: FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACTS (FOIAS)
WEEK 5 (WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2016
(1) Watch this unusual FOIA request: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wqEmstfAEc;
California man files FOIA request for White House beer recipe !
• Man (Scott Talcoff) filed a petition for white house beer recipe, people signed it
• purpose. he wanted to have his own version on tap for a debate viewing party.
(2) Read pages 1-36
A Citizen’s Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 to Request Government
Records, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, !
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Citizens-Guide-on-Using-FOIA.2012.pdf.
The Freedom of information Act
• purpose. allows people to request info from federal government, not applying to elected officials
• what/types of records. requester may request records of any sort: tapes, map, photography, computer disk
• note: not all records must be disclosed
• requesting. precision// have a fairly good idea of what you are requesting (title/time/date) of item. this speeds
up the process
• making the request
• make sure the info is not already online
• identify which agency has the records/ requests are made to specific agencies
• REQUIREMENT. needs to be in writing// letter, email, facsimile. also accepted through FOIA website.
Lawyer not needed
• INCLUDE. identify record being sought after, be as specific as possible
• add you personal info to make communication easier
(3) Watch: Marcia Hoffman (EFF), How to get your FBI file (t]hrough 21:30 mark), https://www.youtube.com/
watchv=5UxMUYu5jTw.

PUBLIC SECTOR: FOURTH AMENDMENT AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
WEEK 6 (WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2016) –
(1) Do: Personal Dossier !
Try to find the following information about yourself on the internet from web pages that do not require payment or
registration. Only search (1) name and (2) last known address. Try searches from two categories of search engines: (1)
Ixquick/Duck Duck Go and (2) Google.
Observation
• [searching name solely in Google]
• There were a number of results of the page, none of which pertained to me. Could not find a photo of
myself.
• Even with this being said, there was link to a page, Spokeo, which would allow to pay the low price of $.
95 to access the name, relatives and address on file for the profile that was looked up.
• [upon accessing Spokeo]
• There are 35 people with my name residing in the US, 5 of which are in New York specifically.
• The first result, however, was mine; accurate down to the age, address, relatives. There were 2
number listed, none of which I could access without payment.
• [searching name and address in Google]
• the fourth link was to a copy of my resume which was uploaded to LinkedIn [which listed all of my
eduational history, jobs, email address and such.
• the second link was to a website whois.domain.com
• the link didn't so much pertain to me, but it contained information regarding the registration of my
website, Le Livre Noire
• the page listed all information without any censor down to the cell number, address. The only thing
off limits was the email, for whatever reason. photo below.
• [search using Duck Duck Go]
• the search gave no results leading to my name or profiles, only a map of my address, which I had entered
into the search bar
Had it not been for my professional accounts and my website, there would be little to no information available.
(2) Review: The Fourth Amendment, !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atsLAi9j6X0.
Right to Privacy
• prevent government from taking home/papers/etc. without [probable cause]
• warrant: signed by neutral judge// must be specific, down to the time/place
The Exclusionary Rule
• cannot use evidence obtained illegally against person
• controversial
• claim - letting a criminal off the hook
• keeping police in line so that they do not infringe upon people's rights
• actually in favor of protecting the innocent
NOTE: THE INTRODUCTION OF THE LOOPHOLE TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT// THE THIRD PARTY
DOCTRINE
The Third Party Doctrine
• There is no need for a warrant to get information from a third party. The user already voluntarily has given up this
information. The police/investigator would issue a subpoena

• you cannot ignore a subpoena
• Loophole to subpoena. data encryption
• The response is to encrypt data. The business can literally say they don't have the information listed as it
is encrypted.
(3) Read:Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) !
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/389/347.
IRAC: ISSUE.RULE.ANALYSIS.CONCLUSION
• Issue. Does Katz have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
• Rule. He shut the door of the booth. Since he expected privacy, the police needed a warrant in order to bug the
phone booth.
• Analysis. Glass is not to protect the watchful eye, but the unwanted ear.
• Conclusion. It was an invasion of privacy.
REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY TEST
• Two prong test, testing the level of expected privacy
• Subjective Expectation --> What did you think?
• Reasonable Expectation --> What does society think?
(4) Judge Kozinski, Digital Privacy and the 4th Amendment- !
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/judge-alex-kozinski-digital-privacy-fourth-amendment- rights-0.
[brief bit on companies]
• companies referenced: Amazon/Netflix/Google/Facebook
• sell your info for targeted ads all done by machine
• Google
• Indexing 100% automated// having machine computing is somehow seen as [less pervasive]
• supposed sense of anonymity
• Facebook
• beacon tracking. tracks user activity/ automatically sends info to friends and contacts/issues when time
for Christmas shopping came about// website update. users forced to privatize all of their information
General public
• concerned about privacy/ expect more
• but would trade it for convenience
• hypocritical. mad about surveillance // still mad when suspicious activity is not detected
• Compliance with Fourth Amendment
• issues since the invention of the telephone// tapping the phone line, there is no need to trespass
• KATZ1967
• He was in the booth making illegal bets// Violation because the 4th amendment protects PERSON not PLACE
• He had a reasonable expectation of privacy when he closed the door.
• 4TH Amendment Issue
• issues arise after evidence is already collected//which means a guilty person person
• common expectation and general consensus play into the perception and upholding of the fourth amendment
• how does the public treat the space?
• OVERARCHING QUESTION: The judge poses the question as to whether the two prong test (gaging the
reasonable expectation of privacy test] would still hold up in a tech-based society?
(5) Read: Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001),
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZO.html.

ENCRYPTION, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE GATHERING
WEEK 8 (WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2016
Federal, state and local law enforcement: Cece, Lauren, Brandon
Technologists: Chandler, Nandi
Civil libertarians: Shanen, Ella, Kathy
Smartphone companies like Apple and Google: Ian, Bora
ENCRYPTION NOTES
1. 8. #encryption American Tech Giants Face Fight in Europe Over Encrypted Data
2. 8. #encryption As encryption spreads, U.S. grapples with clash between privacy, security
3. 8. #encryption Benefits of Encryption
4. 8. #encryption Gigaom | Why 2015 is the year of encryption
5. 8. #encryption Ron Wyden Discusses Encryption, Data Privacy and Security
6. 8. #encryption What is encryption? from WhatIs.com
7. 8. #encryptiondebate STANCE AND NOTES
Stance: Technologist// in favor of encryption
STANCE
• preventing law enforcement access
• Assignment: 2 pages, single space
• just cite any extra sources used
• encryption
• keeping information safe
• open
• keeping messages secret
• Caesar's cypher
• algorithm
• key: reader unlocks method
• public key. shared with everyone
• secret key. SSL and TLS
in interest of the consumer
• useful in case of cyber attack
• improves trust//physical manifestation of privacy policy
• if the company cannot decrypt it, what is the harm?
competition — keeping audience/ consumers happy
• better for privacy if in competition
• battle for who is more secure
• accessibility/easy of use
• versatility of of platform use
• data now has the the ability of being stored in a variety of platforms//encryption of each device, great in
the case of lost stolen device
What is encryption?
• Protection of the audience// only those who were intended to be the audience are able to access the
messages.
• Key features of encryption:
• authentication (knowing the origin of the message)

• integrity (pro that what the user is reading is, in fact, the original unaltered message)
• non-repudiation (the sender cannot deny sending messages)
• The concept of encryption, rather translating messages from their original form goes back centuries;
from earlier examples such as the use of certain non-customary hieroglyphs in order to mask the true
meaning of the inscription (Egypt) to Spartans writing classified messages on slim bands of leather
which were wrapped around sticks and recently the use of a machine created by Alan Turing which
was created to decrypt the cryptographic algorithm of the Enigma Code (though this is a story for
another time).
• Three basic components: the original data, which is commonly known as plaintext, the encryption
algorithm and a key
• Assurance of the integrity of messages, rather, data in general. The concept of encryption survives to
ensure that only those who were the intended recipients of the message can view it.
• Symmetric-keys — private — using same key in order to encrypt a message or file.
• Asymmetric cryptography — public-key cryptography
GIGAOM | Why 2015 is the year of encryption?
• There is a misconception that the companies are encrypting this data and using it for nefarious purposes.
However, this is not the case. They do not have access to the information once it has been encrypted. There
are rare cases where the key is list whilst encoding, rendering the message irretrievable.
• assimilating to new digital technology in modern time. protection of the consumer.
• The cell phone has become a staple in the home/everyday life. In this society where data and personal
information are not commodities, encryption is in the interest of the consumer.
• Improvements to outdated HTTP including compression and ability to withstand more-data transfer, faster
speeds (content to browser). There were hopes that this would lead to the entire world wide web to be
encrypted, which has not happened. Rather Individual companies have been taking a stance in the matter,
Mozilla and Google to ensure that the consumer is receiving the latest in software, and also encouraging
website to upgrade to tougher security of risk losing an audience.
PAPER STRUCTURE
• One sentence overview.#
• New digital technology and emerging media#
• #views on privacy and surveillance which are antiquated, it is important to update technology, which is in the
interest of both the consumer and technological companies.
• #BRIEF ON ENCRYPTION.
• What is it?
• Types?
• DEBATE: 
!Apple and Google recently started developing and selling encrypted smartphones that cannot be unlocked
either by law enforcement or by the companies producing them.
• !Should smartphone communications and other content be capable of encryption preventing law
enforcement access? 
#Technologists: Yes, we should be able to develop encryption technologies even if they prevent law
enforcement access to smartphone communications and other content.
• #YES, IT IS IN EVERYONE’S INTEREST
• #consumers/audience
• #companies (in the eyes of consumers/cannot be help accountable, for lack of better word, in court)
• #GOVERNMENT LOOPHOLES AND OVERSIGHT, loophole to laws, law enforcement surpassing warrants
in the interest of obtaining information from the direct source, technology companies.
• encryption, saves time and is loophole to getting out of subpoenas, the company can legitimately
state that they do not have access to

SOURCE:
Why 2015 is the year of encryption
https://gigaom.com/2015/02/28/why-2015-is-the-year-of-encryption/
During a visit to Silicon Valley earlier this month, President Obama described himself as “a strong believer in strong
encryption.” Some have criticized the president for equivocating on the issue, but as “strong believers” ourselves,
we’ll take him at his word. Obama isn’t alone; everyone is calling for encryption, from activists to engineers, and
even government agencies tasked with cybersecurity.
In the past, using encryption to secure files and communication has typically only been possible for technically
sophisticated users. It’s taken some time for the tech industry and the open source community to ramp up their
efforts to meet the call for widespread, usable encryption, but the pieces are in place for 2015 to be a turning point.
Last fall, [company]Apple[/company] and [company]Google[/company] announced that the newest versions of iOS
and Android would encrypt the local storage of mobile devices by default, and 2015 will be the year this change
really starts to takes hold. If your phone is running iOS 8 or Android Lollipop 5.0, photos, emails and all the other
data stored on your device are automatically secure against rummaging by someone who happens to pick it
up. More important, even the companies themselves can’t decrypt these devices, which is vital for protecting
against hackers who might otherwise attempt to exploit a back door.
There is a misconception that the companies are encrypting this data and using it for nefarious purposes. However, this
is not the case. They do not have access to the information once it has been encrypted. There are rare cases where
the key is list whilst encoding, rendering the message irretrievable.
Of course the protection from these updated operating systems relies on user adoption, either by upgrading an old
device or buying a new one with the new OS preinstalled. Gigaom readers might be on the leading edge, but not
everyone rushes to upgrade. Based on past adoption trends, however, a majority of cell phone users will finally be
running one of these two operating systems by the end of 2015. As the Supreme Court wrote last year, cell phones
are a “pervasive and insistent part of modern life.” The world looks a whole lot different when most of those
phones are encrypted by default.
assimilating to new digital technology in modern time. protection of the consumer.
The cell phone has become a staple in the home/everyday life. In this society where data and personal information are
not commodities, encryption is in the interest of the consumer.
There are two more developments involving encryption which might not make the front page this year, but they’re
equally as important as the moves by Apple and Google, if not more so.
First, this month saw the finalization of the HTTP/2 protocol. HTTP/2 is designed to replace the aging Hyper-Text
Transfer Protocol (HTTP), which for almost two decades has specified how web browsers and web servers
communicate with one another. HTTP/2 brings many modern improvements to a protocol that was designed back
when dial-up was king, including compression, multiplexed data transfers, and the ability for servers to
preemptively push content to browsers.
Improvements to outdated HTTP including compression and ability to withstand more-data transfer, faster speeds
(content to browser). There were hopes that this would lead to the entire world wide web to be encrypted, which
has not happened. Rather Individual companies have been taking a stance in the matter, Mozilla and Google to
ensure that the consumer is receiving the latest in software, and also encouraging website to upgrade to tougher
security of risk losing an audience.

HTTP/2 was also originally designed to operate exclusively over encrypted connections, in the hope that this would
lead to the encryption of the entire web. Unfortunately that requirement was watered down during the standards-
making process, and encryption was deemed optional.
Despite this, Mozilla and Google have promised that their browsers will only support encrypted HTTP/2 connections—
which means that if website operators want to take advantage of all the performance improvements HTTP/2 has to
offer, they’ll have to use encryption to do so or else risk losing a very large portion of their audience. The net result
will undoubtedly be vastly more web traffic being encrypted by default.
But as any sysadmin can tell you, setting up a website that supports encryption properly can be a huge hassle. That’s
because in order to offer secure connections, websites must have correctly configured “certificates” signed by
trusted third parties, or Certificate Authorities. Obtaining a certificate can be complicated and costly, and this is
one of the biggest issues standing in the way of default use of HTTPS (and encrypted HTTP/2) by websites.
Fortunately, a new project launching this summer promises to radically lower this overheard. Let’s Encrypt will act as a
free Certificate Authority, offering a dramatically sped-up certificate process and putting implementation of
HTTPS within the reach of any website operator. (Disclosure: Our employer, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is
a founding partner in Let’s Encrypt.)
Of course there are sure to be other developments in this Year of Encryption. For example, both Google and Yahoo
have tantalizingly committed to rolling out end-to-end encryption for their email services, which could be a huge
step toward improving the famously terrible usability of email encryption.
Finally, we’d be accused of naiveté if we didn’t acknowledge that despite President Obama’s ostensible support, many
high-level law enforcement and national security officials are still calling for a “debate” about the balance between
encryption and lawful access. Even putting aside the cold, hard fact that there’s no such thing as a “golden key,”
this debate played out in the nineties in favor of strong encryption. We’re confident that in light of the technical
strides like the ones we’ve described, calls for backdoored crypto will come to seem increasingly quaint.
Andrew Crocker is an attorney and fellow at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Follow him on Twitter @AGCrocker.
Jeremy Gillula is a staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Prior to EFF, Jeremy received his
doctorate in computer science from Stanford, and a bachelor’s degree from Caltech.
encryption
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/encryption
Encryption is the conversion of electronic data into another form, called ciphertext, which cannot be easily understood
by anyone except authorized parties.
Download Your Guide to the ISACA CISM Certification
Take a closer look at the ISACA Certified Information Security Manager certification, including the value it provides
security professionals, how it compares to other security professionals, and what the CSX program offers
• Corporate Email Address:
By submitting your personal information, you agree that TechTarget and its partners may contact you regarding
relevant content, products and special offers.
You also agree that your personal information may be transferred and processed in the United States, and that you have
read and agree to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy.
The primary purpose of encryption is to protect the confidentiality of digital data stored on computer systems or
transmitted via the Internet or other computer networks. Modern encryption algorithms play a vital role in the
security assurance of IT systems and communications as they can provide not only confidentiality, but also the
following key elements of security:
• Authentication: the origin of a message can be verified.
• Integrity: proof that the contents of a message have not been changed since it was sent.
• Non-repudiation: the sender of a message cannot deny sending the message.
Protection of the audience// only those who were intended to be the audience are able to access the messages.

Key features of encryption: authentication (knowing the origin of the message) /integrity(pro that what the user is
reading is, in fact, the original unaltered message) /non-repudiation (the sender cannot deny sending messages)
History of encryption
The word encryption comes from the Greek word kryptos, meaning hidden or secret. The use of encryption is nearly as
old as the art of communication itself. As early as 1900 BC, an Egyptian scribe used non-standard hieroglyphs to
hide the meaning of an inscription. In a time when most people couldn't read, simply writing a message was often
enough, but encryption schemes soon developed to convert messages into unreadable groups of figures to protect
the message's secrecy while it was carried from one place to another. The contents of a message were reordered
(transposition) or replaced (substitution) with other characters, symbols, numbers or pictures in order to conceal its
meaning.
The concept of encryption, rather translating messages from their original form goes back centuries; from earlier
examples such as the use of certain non-customary hieroglyphs in order to mask the true meaning of the
inscription (Egypt) to Spartans writing classified messages on slim bands of leather which were wrapped around
sticks and recently the use of a machine created by Alan Turing which was created to decrypt the cryptographic
algorithm of the Enigma Code (though this is a story for another time).
In 700 BC, the Spartans wrote sensitive messages on strips of leather wrapped around sticks. When the tape was
unwound the characters became meaningless, but with a stick of exactly the same diameter, the recipient could
recreate (decipher) the message. Later, the Romans used what's known as the Caesar Shift Cipher, a
monoalphabetic cipher in which each letter is shifted by an agreed number. So, for example, if the agreed number
is three, then the message, "Be at the gates at six" would become "eh dw wkh jdwhv dw vla". At first glance this
may look difficult to decipher, but juxtapositioning the start of the alphabet until the letters make sense doesn't
take long. Also, the vowels and other commonly used letters like T and S can be quickly deduced using frequency
analysis, and that information in turn can be used to decipher the rest of the message.
The Middle Ages saw the emergence of polyalphabetic substitution, which uses multiple substitution alphabets to limit
the use of frequency analysis to crack a cipher. This method of encrypting messages remained popular despite
many implementations that failed to adequately conceal when the substitution changed, also known as key
progression. Possibly the most famous implementation of a polyalphabetic substitution cipher is the Enigma
electro-mechanical rotor cipher machine used by the Germans during World War Two.
It was not until the mid-1970s that encryption took a major leap forward. Until this point, all encryption schemes used
the same secret for encrypting and decrypting a message: a symmetric key. In 1976, B. Whitfield Diffie and Martin
Hellman's paper New Directions in Cryptography solved one of the fundamental problems of cryptography,
namely how to securely distribute the encryption key to those who need it. This breakthrough was followed shortly
afterwards by RSA, an implementation of public-key cryptography using asymmetric algorithms, which ushered in
a new era of encryption.
How we use encryption today
Until the arrival of the Diffie-Hellman key exchange and RSA algorithms, governments and their armies were the only
real users of encryption. However, Diffie-Hellman and RSA led to the broad use of encryption in the commercial
and consumer realms to protect data both while it is being sent across a network (data in transit) and stored, such
as on a hard drive, smartphone or flash drive (data at rest). Devices like modems, set-top boxes, smartcards and
SIM cards all use encryption or rely on protocols like SSH, S/MIME, and SSL/TLS to encrypt sensitive data.
Encryption is used to protect data in transit sent from all sorts of devices across all sorts of networks, not just the
Internet; every time someone uses an ATM or buys something online with a smartphone, makes a mobile phone
call or presses a key fob to unlock a car, encryption is used to protect the information being relayed. Digital rights
management systems, which prevent unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted material, are yet another
example of encryption protecting data.
How encryption works

Data, often referred to as plaintext, is encrypted using an encryption algorithm and an encryption key. This process
generates ciphertext that can only be viewed in its original form if decrypted with the correct key. Decryption is
simply the inverse of encryption, following the same steps but reversing the order in which the keys are applied.
Today's encryption algorithms are divided into two categories: symmetric and asymmetric.
Three basic components: the original data, which is commonly known as plaintext, the encryption algorithm and a key.
Assurance of the integrity of messages, rather, data in general. The concept of encryption survives to ensure that only
those who were the intended recipients of the message can view it.
Symmetric-key ciphers use the same key, or secret, for encrypting and decrypting a message or file. The most widely
used symmetric-key cipher is AES, which was created to protect government classified information. Symmetric-
key encryption is much faster than asymmetric encryption, but the sender must exchange the key used to encrypt
the data with the recipient before he or she can decrypt it. This requirement to securely distribute and manage large
numbers of keys means most cryptographic processes use a symmetric algorithm to efficiently encrypt data, but
use an asymmetric algorithm to exchange the secret key.
Symmetric-keys — private — using same key in order to encrypt a message or file.
Asymmetric cryptography, also known as public-key cryptography, uses two different but mathematically linked keys,
one public and one private. The public key can be shared with everyone, whereas the private key must be kept
secret. RSA is the most widely used asymmetric algorithm, partly because both the public and the private keys can
encrypt a message; the opposite key from the one used to encrypt a message is used to decrypt it. This attribute
provides a method of assuring not only confidentiality, but also the integrity, authenticity and non-reputability of
electronic communications and data at rest through the use of digital signatures.
Asymmetric cryptography — public-key cryptography
Cryptographic hash functions
A cryptographic hash function plays a somewhat different role than other cryptographic algorithms. Hash functions are
widely used in many aspects of security, such as digital signatures and data integrity checks. They take an
electronic file, message or block of data and generate a short digital fingerprint of the content called a message
digest or hash value. The key properties of a secure cryptographic hash function are:
• Output length is small compared to input
• Computation is fast and efficient for any input
• Any change to input affects lots of output bits
• One-way value-- the input cannot be determined from the output
• Strong collision resistance -- two different inputs can't create the same output
In 2012, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced Keccak as the winner of its
Cryptographic Hash Algorithm Competition to select a next-generation cryptographic hash algorithm. The Keccak
(pronounced "catch-ack") algorithm will be known as SHA-3 and complement the SHA-1 and SHA-2 algorithms
specified in FIPS 180-4, Secure Hash Standard. Even though the competition was prompted by successful attacks
on MD5 and SHA-0 and the emergence of theoretical attacks on SHA-1, NIST has said that SHA-2 is still "secure
and suitable for general use."
The ciphers in hash functions are built for hashing: they use large keys and blocks, can efficiently change keys every
block and have been designed and vetted for resistance to related-key attacks. General-purpose ciphers used for
encryption tend to have different design goals. For example, the symmetric-key block cipher AES could also be
used for generating hash values, but its key and block sizes make it nontrivial and inefficient.
Contemporary encryption issues
For any cipher, the most basic method of attack is brute force; trying each key until the right one is found. The length
of the key determines the number of possible keys, and hence the feasibility of this type of attack. Encryption

strength is directly tied to key size, but as the key size increases so too do the resources required to perform the
computation.
• Margaret Rouse asks:  
Will the industry ever reach a point where all encryption algorithms can be broken by brute force and
rendered useless or uneconomic? 
 
5 Responses  
Join the Discussion 
• PrevNext
Alternative methods of breaking a cipher include side-channel attacks, which don't attack the actual cipher but its
implementation. An error in system design or execution can allow such attacks to succeed.
Another approach is to actually break the cipher through cryptanalysis; finding a weakness in the cipher that can be
exploited with a complexity less than brute force. The challenge of successfully attacking a cipher is easier of
course if the cipher itself is flawed in the first place. There have always been suspicions that interference from the
National Security Agency weakened the Data Encryption Standard algorithm, and following revelations from
former NSA analyst and contractor Edward Snowden, many believe they have attempted to weaken encryption
products and subvert cryptography standards.
Despite these issues, one reason for the popularity and longevity of the AES algorithm is that the process that led to its
selection was fully open to public scrutiny and comment ensuring a thorough, transparent analysis of the design.

FEDERAL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE LAW: ECPA; INTELLIGENCE GATHERING,
NSA & EDWARD SNOWDEN
WEEK 9 (WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2016
To be covered 
• Federal Electronic Surveillance Law
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
• the NSA and Edward Snowden 
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)
• Protects communication
• Question of use of camera (ex. While shopping)
• Fine, unless there is audio
• 180 Day rule
• Originally: the email would have been there 6 months
• You did not read it, you do not care
• Makes no sense in this day and age
• Cloud computing
• Information can be kept for unlimited amounts of time
• Industries want reform 
This is means clarity/no ambiguity
• Intercepting
• Applies to private sectors
• Cannot wire tap people
• EXCEPTIONS
• Consent
• Some states have 1 party consent/ sometimes 2 party consent is necessary
• If the product is publicly available
• Ordinary course of business
COURT CASE
Ordinary law enforcement • 4th amendment/probable cause (needs a warrant)
• Warrants
• have to be specific
• they have time limits
Domestic national security 4th amendment/ ECPA
Foreign surveillance, re: nat’l
security
• wider net (can be vague)
FISA/ Patriot Act
• secret court, public was unaware of this court until Snowden
• approves warrants to surveil under this category
Patriot Act
• authorize non-US people
• amendment to FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)
• the 4th amendment applies to person on US soil
• probable cause that person is an agent of a foreign power
• the true target is abroad
• specific section authorizing certain practices
• authorize metadata, whole cell metadata from telecom companies, who could not
disclose that this was going on
• can subpoena
• silence the recipient of the subpoena, in order to allow surveillance to be done
• prison program: targeting the internet communications of Non-US people//target
could encompass US citizen if in contact

PRIVACY IN PLACES: IN THE SCHOOL AND IN THE WORKPLACE
WEEK 11 (WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2016
[on previous virtual class]
• Man with mustache lobbying for electronic company
• interests fueled by data
• create rules for disseminating data
• when to delete
• take away personal identiﬁers
• pro. able to utilize information to see statistics
• con. hinders the concept of personalized learning
• commercial interests
[brief annotations from course work on next few pages]

ANNOTATIONS
PRIVACY AND CLOUD COMPUTING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

ANNOTATIONS
WORKPLACE PRIVACY AND EMPLOYEE MONITORING

NANDI CLARKE
N. CAMERON RUSSELL
PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE
FALL SEMESTER 2016
On this section, PERSPECTIVE:
Throughout the course, and as one became more familiar with the realm of surveillance, whether it be
on a federal or local level, and its implications on privacy, several writing assessments were assigned
offering one to take a stance on an issue [within the realm of privacy]. Position papers offered the
student the chance to research a given topic and respond as if one were a professional or simply a
member of a given field or demographic (for example, a technologist). For the final research paper, one
was to choose a technology or some sort of object which affects one on a daily basis and research it,
getting to the root of the object in questions’ ties to surveillance.
What you see is not always what you get. 
PERSPECTIVE

POSITION PAPER 2
ENCRYPTION, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE GATHERING
Nandi A. Clarke
N. Cameron Russell
Privacy and Surveillance
Position Paper 2: Encryption, Law Enforcement and Intelligence Gathering
In a tense political atmosphere, encryption explores the controversial debate of privacy versus security.

The concept of encryption, rather, translating messages from their original form goes back centuries; from earlier
examples such as the use of certain non-customary hieroglyphs in order to mask the true meaning of the inscription (Egypt)
to Spartans writing classified messages on slim bands of leather which were wrapped around sticks and recently the use of a
machine created by Alan Turing which was created to decrypt the cryptographic algorithm of the Enigma Code (which
enabled Germany to transcribe messages which The Allies could not crack during World War II).
Today, encryption is not discussed on such a broad scale, but on a smaller spectrum based on the relationship
between consumers, their technology and the government. Most recently, companies such as Google and Apple began
developing and marketing encrypted smartphones which could be unlocked neither by the government nor the companies
which produced the product. There are many that will argue the case that this directly hinders law enforcement’s ability to
sufficiently do their job as the general public’s views on surveillance and privacy are antiquated at best. However, this is not
case. Drastic government oversight regarding one’s right to privacy are constantly being implemented in light of
surveillance. Encryption provides a solution to this and is in the best interest of consumers, companies, and to some extent
the law enforcement.
Encryption entails the altering of electronic data into a completed different structure, known as ciphertext. It is
composed of three basic components: the original data — commonly known as plaintext — the encryption algorithm and a
key; an equation ensuring that only those who were intended to be the audience of the encrypted data are able to access the
information.
Encryption encourages companies to meet emerging standards. When the consumer is contented, sales increase.
Encryption ensures that companies are kept on their toes, essentially creating competition between different companies as
to whom offers more security to the general public. Before the use of any item or product, consumers sign, whether
physical or implied, forms detailing that they understand that by using certain products, they are adhering to certain security
and privacy standards set by the company. Encryption is essentially the manifestation of the modern privacy policy. In such
a digital age, assimilating to new digital technologies are key to increasing sales and levels of consumer reliability. The cell
phone has become a staple in the home/everyday life. In this society where data and personal information are now
commodities, encryption is in the interest of the consumer. Improvements are even being made to the outdated HTTP
(Hyper-Text Transfer Protocol) including compression and the ability to withstand more-data transfer, faster speeds (content
to browser). There were hopes that this would lead to the entire world wide web to be encrypted, which has not happened.
The push towards greater security for for consumers did encourage individual companies to take a stance in the matter,
Mozilla and Google to ensure that the consumer is receiving the latest in software, and also encouraging website to upgrade
to tougher security of risk losing an audience.
On any given day, unbeknownst consumers interact with varying forms of encrypted date, whether it be through
email, perusing social media accounts or using downloaded applications without the worry of their information being
compromised. This is in part due to the system of encrypting data: coded data allows integrity within the realm of data
sharing, giving consumers the piece of mind that not only are they receiving original unaltered information, but also being
privy to both the source of data and knowing they the sender of the data cannot deny having sent messages. There is a
misconception that the companies are encrypting this data and using it for nefarious purposes. However, companies do not
have access to the information once it has been encrypted. There are rare cases where the key is list whilst encoding,
rendering the message irretrievable.

Encryption provides a fix to government loopholes. Time and time again, newspapers have done reports on law
enforcement misusing their powers, essentially overstepping the law. This proves problematic when juxtaposed with the
hyper-surveillance oriented government that inhabits many government systems, referring mainly to that of the United
States. Consumer are now wary of the law enforcement accessing personal/private data illegally. The key word here is
illegally. The Fourth amendment directly references the right to privacy, protecting civilians and their property from being
taken, looked through or accessed without a warrant signed by a neutral party. As an added incentive to civilians, there is
the Exclusionary Rule stating that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used against the civilian. Law enforcement
circumvents these through the Third Party Doctrine, which enables them to access previously guarded data via third party
under the assumption that the user free relinquished the privacy of said data at the time of signed privacy policies and such.
With this being said, how is it possible for companies to protect the integrity of their customer’s information and still abide
by the law? Encryption. Considering the time, effort and expertise required to even attempt to retrieve encrypted data from
third parties, companies are now afforded the ability of legitimately stating that they have no access to the requested data.
Companies cannot be help accountable for irretrievable data.
Still on the topic of governments and encryption, it is important to note that the same process which block law
enforcement from retrieving data without the authorization of the user also protect the government from cyberattacks. It is
important to note that encryption protocols are not impossible to hack, however it would take a significant amount of time
and technology in order to hack into and retrieve data in a time sensible fashion.
Though encryption proves a hindrance for law enforcement seeking to access unauthorized data, it has varying
redeemable qualities: protection the web from massive cyberattack, protecting the integrity of the fourth amendment as well
as creating a healthy relationship between companies manufacturing and producing goods and their consumers.
WORKS CITED
"Benefits of Encryption." Benefits Of. 26 Apr. 2011. Web. 23 Oct. 2016. <http://benefitof.net/benefits-of-encryption/>.
Crocker, Andrew, and Jeremy Gillula. "Why 2015 Is the Year of Encryption.” Gigaom. 28 Feb. 2015. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.
Kang, Cecilia. "Ron Wyden Discusses Encryption, Data Privacy and Security." The New York Times. The New York Times,
09 Oct. 2016. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.
Nakashima, Ellen, and Barton Gellman. "As Encryption Spreads, U.S. Grapples with Clash between Privacy,
Security." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 10 Apr. 2015. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.
Scott, Mark. "American Tech Giants Face Fight in Europe Over Encrypted Data." The New York Times. N.p., 27 Mar. 2016.
Web. 23 Oct. 2016. <http://nyti.ms/1RIcauW>.
"What Is Encryption?" SearchSecurity. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.

FINAL RESEARCH PROJECT
PROPOSAL
A seemingly innocent installation is causing controversy.
There is seldom an instance where an invention neglects to surpass its original intended use.
The invention in question is the newest addition to New York City’s streets: the LinkNYC kiosk. Under
the guise of free wifi and promoting social connectivity, this device is aiming directly at your wallet. It
is impossible to walk a block in Manhattan without seeing these multicolor eyesores. These large
tablets have been popping up all over the city claiming to “bring the fastest free public Wi-Fi to
millions of New Yorkers and visitors.” This sounds absolutely great on paper, except at what cost. Is
free wifi really worth the privacy it costs?
The LinkNYC kiosk offers a variety of services: free wifi, maps and directories, free phone
calls, a distress button (911), device charging and announcements (whatever that may pertain to). The
kiosk does exactly as it says, so what exactly is the issue? Disclosure. The issue is not is what the
device is claiming to do but rather what it has yet to mention. No where on the website does it state a
claim regarding plans to roll out features which would enable monitoring those who use the deviceor
the fact that it collects data weather or not the consumer in question actually uses the product directly.
Herein lies two connected issues: surveillance and reaffirmation of previous economic boundaries.
SURVEILLANCE
As previously states, it is somewhat expected with the ever advancing digital technology
industry that devices will in deed evolve and therefor, be able to do a multitude of task which may not
have originally be in the blueprints. However, this is most likely not the case with these kiosks. As they
are now, there are already a minute camera surreptitiously placed about the touchscreen of the kiosks
(suspiciously above eye level) which are most likely monitoring passersby to gage how much interest
the installations are getting, and this would make sense, had it not been paired with information theft.
REAFFIRMATION OF BOUNDARIES
There is also something to be said to the locations in which these kiosks are being place. If the
real goal of the creators of the kiosk was really to provide city-wide wifi to the community, then why
are the majority of them stations in already affluent neighborhoods. One would assume that if
providing this free service to all New York Residents was really the initial intent then the placement of
said kiosks would have been more strategically places, unless there was a more malicious intent. Pair
free information, soon to be facial recognition and live commercial marketing together and one arrives
at a very different message that free wifi for all. 

OUTLINE
Nandi A. Clarke
N. Cameron Russell
Privacy & Surveillance
November 9, 2016 updated
LINKNYC: TERMS OF MISUSE
INTENT, IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT
Commentary on the LinkNYC Initiative
Outline Updated: November 9, 2016
Subtitle subject to change
Intent, Implementation and Impact//The economics of information
General Quotation
Never trust anything that can think for itself if you cant see where it keeps its brain.— Arthur Weasley
Tagline subject to change
A seemingly innocent installation is causing controversy.
Paper Specifics
• Required length: 8-10 pages
• Touchpoints
1. observation and discussion of how the technology works, its basic technical architecture, and how it affects your daily life
2. discussion of how the technology may cause privacy concerns for you and others;
3. identification of any competing interests unrelated to privacy in the creation and deployment of the technology
4. a prediction as to the trajectory of the technology and its future societal effects;
5. given this outlook, a recommendation as to how current laws and/or policy should respond with respect to the technology to
balance privacy with the various competing interests in play and to resolve the conflict
Breakdown
In order to address the varying facets regarding the LinkNYC program, the paper has been hypothetically divided into three sub-
categories, detailed below. The five above touch points have been absorbed into the three main categories and are outlined underneath
each titles.
Update
Intent (background, mention noticing several kiosks pop up in Manhattan)
Implementation (secretive background, kiosks themselves, privacy policy inconsistencies)
Impact (effects of initiative on society and law proposals) 

I. INTENT
A. Purpose
1. History — introducing the LinkNYC initiative
a) Who is behind the program?
b) Purpose of program
B. History
1. [Issue] 2012 — city seeks to fix pending ‘issue’
a) Reinvent Payphone Design Challenge (December 4,2012 — March 5,2013)

(1) Goal — find an answer to the question: How can New York City reinvent payphones to make our city
more accessible, safer, healthier, greener and better informed?

(2) Issues w/ payphones

(a) vendor agreement expiration in 2014

(b) decreased use of communication

(c) Communication

i) partial incentive: keeping up to date with new demographic

ii) remember government missing out on prime surveillance (discuss later)

iii) WHY NOW? Payphone use has been declining for years//many were not even working

2. [Solution] 2014 — plan is chosen
a) CityBridge chosen as winner of competition w/ LinkNYC idea

b) Goal as explained by city leaders

(1) branded simply as “free super fast wifi”

(a) “Communications network”

(b) “fastest municipal Wi-Fi to millions of New Yorkers, small businesses and visitors

(c) Where: “five-borough” [network]

(d) Funding

i) “advertising revenues”

ii) “no-cost to taxpayer

iii) set to generate $500 million in 12 years

(e) Links are supposed to transform “access to information”

End: Most things branded as free come at a cost.

Next — Suspicious beginnings//kiosk features


II. IMPLEMENTATION
A. Purpose
1. Touchpoints 1-2
a) What does it do? How does it affect me?
2. Origin continued — suspicious findings

3. Privacy concerns/things overlooked in the policy

4. Surveillance/features

5. Touchpoint 3 — competing interests (also touched upon in IMPACT)

B. Suspicious beginnings
1. Ownership

a) CityBridge announced as winner

b) CityBridge is a consortium including:

(1) Titan and ControlGroup//the original companies who had been in charge of the payphone franchise
previously

(2) Comark — in charge of manufacturing kiosks

(a) Antenna created physical design

(3) Qualcomm — internet

c) Around same time, Google creates Sidewalk Labs

(1) previous deputy mayor of NYC placed as head of the company, Dan Doctoroff

d) Sidewalk labs then acquires LinkNYC, launching INTERSECTION

(1) Intersection (group formed from Control Group and Titan)

(2) Comark becomes CIVIQ Smartscapes

e) Google is the owner of the company claiming to offer you free wifi

2. LinkNYC
a) Initiative

(1) 10,000 links

(2) 3 cameras per link (also under surveillance)

(a) cameras reportedly not on

i) person from Civil Liberties Unions wrote letter to city regarding the cameras and such,
LinkNYC responded saying these are not turned on yet

(3) 30 sensors per link

(4) 2 wifi networks

(a) Public — requires email//apparently no verification system

(b) Private — additional security, required device with iOS7 (certain target market)

b) Kiosk features

(1) free wifi

(2) Maps and directories

(3) free phone calls

(4) 911 button

(5) Charging

(6) public service announcements (P.S.A) 
3. Privacy Concerns
a) 2 separate polices: one for the kiosk and one for the network

(1) LinkNYC — https://www.link.nyc/privacy-policy.html/

(a) Updated on October 27,2015

(b) only applied to the website and information sent across the website

(c) fairly self explanatory/broken into specific sections

(2) CityBridge — http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doitt/downloads/pdf/Proposed-PCS-Franchise-Exhibit-2-
CityBridge-Privacy-Policy.pdf/

(a) Updated January 25,2016


(b) Sign-in — three pieces of key information are taken: username, email address and password

(c) The information being collected is supposedly If you only use the kiosk

(d) Data

i) Collection [What is being collected?]

(1) MAC Address

(2) IP address

(3) device identifier

(4) full url clickstream

(5) pages you viewed

ii) Use [What is the data used for?]

(1) CityBridge will not sell personal identifiable information, however they may share

(a) Loophole provision: one does not need to sell information for it to be used by
another party

(b) Either information is exchanging hands

(c) Any third party which acquired CityBridge would then have access to the
information

(2) Notification

(a) CityBridge will take “reasonable attempts” to notify one if their information is
requested (by government)

(b) What constitutes a reasonable attempt? If one is only providing an email,
password and a username (legal name has not been referenced/email verification
was not previously a feature on the kiosks), how would this occur?

(c) CityBridge may share non-personally identifiable data (which means what exactly?
This needs clarification.

(d) Answer:

iii) Type (in surveillance section)

(1) Video footage

(2) Beacon

(a) each link has a beacon, pins devices using bluetooth/general location/ yet to be
mentioned in privacy policy

4. Surveillance
a) Design Features

(1) Cameras, each link has 3 cameras, multiplied with hundred of kiosks, many cameras

(a) Video Footage

i) 2014 — Cameras not on according to CityBridge// CityBridge responded to letter from rep
at American Civil Liberties Union

ii) 2016 — apparently the cameras are on, though I have not found verification besides the
fact that a provision has been added to the CityBridge privacy policy labeled
ARTICLE: GOOGLE IS TRANSFORMING NYC’S PAYPHONES INTO A
‘PERSONALIZED PROPAGANDA EGINE’
— NICK PINTO, VILLAGE VOICE
DOCTOROFF AT THE YALE CLUB
“By having access to the browsing activity of people using the
Wi-Fi — all anonymized and aggregated — we can actually then
target ads to people in proximity and then obviously over time
track them through lots of different things, like beacons and
location services, as well as their browsing activity. So in effect
what we're doing is replicating the digital experience in physical
space.”

INFORMATION COLLECTED BY OUR SENSORS AND CAMERAS [taken directly from the
CityBridge privacy policy]

(a) We will not keep any footage captured by any camera for longer than seven days, unless the
footage is necessary to investigate an incident.

(b) We will not give any data collected by environmental sensors or cameras to anyone other
than the City or governmental law enforcement, unless 1) we are legally required to, 2) it is
necessary to operate and maintain the System and the Services, or 3) we get advanced,
written permission from the City.

(c) We will not use facial recognition technology for any reason, and we will not use our cameras
to track your movement through the city.

(2) Sensors// what are they really for?

(3) Beacons// pinning location, nothing in privacy policy

(4) Browser// search history, any interactions with the kiosk are collected

(5) Phone// calling history is recorded

b) Location

(1) [Articles — Why Location is the new currency of Marketing]
5. Public Private Partnership//City and Citybridge
a) Misrepresentation

(1) Google

(a) Connection with LinkNYC project

i) head of Sidewalk Labs which acquired LinkNYC, creating sub called Intersection [made
only of the previous owners of the payphone franchise — Titan and Control Group]

(b) No statement from Google

i) strange considering the novelty of the project that it has yet to make a public statement
claiming any connection to the kiosks popping up around the city

(c) Revenue: What exactly is Google’s role in this initiative?

i) Google slowly making its way into varying facets of life [search engine — data projects like
Sidewalk Labs

ii) Phones: tracking capabilities, google automatically pins the location of your device every
few hours, imagine what information the free-wiﬁ could gage

(1) track someone their entire commute

(2) Titan found to have placed bluetooth beacons in old phone booths in Manhattan

(a) [article: LinkNYC Privacy Issues — Fully Story]

i) Notiﬁed customers of sales

ii) Other uses included surveillance and data collection

(1) DeBlasio had ordered the beacons removed

(3) City

(a) American Civil Liberties Union

i) (Article: Will New York City’s Free Wi-FI Help Police watch you?)

ii) Q. letter asking how LinkNYC preserves data

iii) A. stated that data is preserved for 12 months after user logs in

(b) Regulation

i) City has yet to disclose any of this information//there are set to be 7500 booth throughout
the city in order to provide continuous service (imagine the amount of data it will
aggregate)

ii) remember city is set to receive 50% of the approximated $500 million  

III. IMPACT
A. Purpose
1. Determine the possible adverse effects these links could pose to the members of the city

2. Predict the trajectory of technology and societal effects (touchpoint 4)

3. Give possible solution/law proposal in order to fix issue (touchpoint 5)

B. Future/Trajectory of technology
1. [Broadening technology divide] it was the intention of city leaders when they picked the concept of LinkNYC
as the winner of the design challenge, they believed the program would end the divide.
a) reaffirmation of social boundaries//the initial placement of the kiosks defeated the purpose of the
program

(1) installed in higher income neighborhoods

b) elimination of certain demographic

(1) community complaints//claim people are loitering, increase in crime, homeless lingering

(2) instead of fast forwarding installation/taking away features

(a) web browsing removes, no charging of laptops

(b) Rather than provide kiosks as was stated in 2014 in all five boroughs to those who need them,
taking away of features to ensure only a certain demographic uses the kiosks

(c) commercialism dictating city-scape

2. [Large social experiment]

a) Concept//becoming accustomed to certain technologies, not realizing capabilities

(1) ex. Skynet from Terminator Genesis

(2) ex. Eagle Eye

(3) “When you’re not paying, you’re not the customer — you're the product.” — Benjamin Dean
b) Reality//this could end up being the largest social surveillance experiment

(1) Extensive facial recognition software

(a) Remember the cameras which are supposedly not on/perhaps they are now

i) 3 cameras per link, hundred of links already up, tons of video footage being stored privately

(b) The sensors — their use has not been specified

(c) Google as a whole — phone location, traffic location, face, browsing history

i) The tracking capabilities of this initiative could quickly become problematic with the
demographic being targeted

(1) Possibility 1: narrowed//surveillance targeted at certain class
(a) Affordable wifi targeted at those who can’t afford it on their own (lest we not forget
extra security comes at a cost — a new iPhone), possibility of being lower income,
possibly over policed already
(b) taking advantage of group who have limited choices
(2) Possibility 2: broad//citywide surveillance
(a) everyone basically becomes a walking file and can be monitored
C. Solution/Law Proposal
1. Update privacy policies

a) There needs to a massive update to the two privacy policies.

(1) There should be no drafting notes on an official document.

(2) There should not be two separate privacy policies, especially when the one featured on the website
ONLY APPLIES TO THE WEBSITE

(3) Full disclosure on all working parts of the kiosk//beacons are not mentioned in either policy

b) Terminology

(1) Fix vague wording, otherwise it seems misleading

(2) There are a lot of “may” but not “will”

(3) Also disclose what information is being collected.

(4) “Sell” vs. “Sharing” — clarify, the idea that LinkNYC clearly states that it is not selling your
information, but says I may share it 

LINKNYC:TERMS OF MISUSE
WHAT WOULD TRADE FOR A WIRELESS CONNECTION?

PRIVACY & SURVEILLANCE
NANDI AYANA CLARKE
N. CAMERON RUSSELL
DECEMBER 9,2016 
Never trust anything that can think for itself if
you cant see where it keeps its brain.
— Arthur Weasley

SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY IN THE AGE OF NEW MEDIA
CONTENTS
A SEEMINGLY INNOCENT INSTALLATION IS CAUSING PROBLEMS.
INTENT 44
A brief history on the LinkNYC initiative came to be and the consortium behind its
creation. 
 
LinkNYC: A History
IMPLEMENTATION 44
Discussion on the current status of the initiatives in regard to the fulfillment of
original plans and the creations of others. 
 
Conflict of Origin  
LinkNYC: The Initiative  
Privacy: A Tale of Two Policies  
Surveillance & Misrepresentation
IMPACT 49
What could possibly go wrong?  
Possible adverse effect of well touted and intentioned LinkNYC initiative and
proposals as to how these issues may be fixed. 
 
Trajectory of Project  
Technology Divide 
Social Experiment  
Law and Order
SOURCES 52
A comprehensive list of all texts and works cited

NANDI A. CLARKE
N. CAMERON RUSSELL
PRIVACY & SURVEILLANCE
DECEMBER 9, 2016
Over the past few months, New Yorkers have been noticing new additions to the city’s landscape, the obelisks seen
above, also known as the LinkNYC kiosks. The eyesores in question were installed with the intention of providing
millions within the city with free wiﬁ. From the onset of their installation, these kiosks have raised some concerns. It
is common knowledge that there are always risks to utilizing a “free” source, let alone wiﬁ. Some are skeptical about
how information they provide, consciously or unconsciously, will be used by the providers of the service.
Surveillance is a constant in the minds of citizens especially in this realm of new media and heightened internet
presence. Surveillance is not a foreign concept to New Yorkers. From Stingray phone trackers to beacons, and
excessive security cameras, New Yorkers are hyper aware of their presence. Surveillance isn’t the main issue here.
For a project whose main goal is providing free wireless internet, the city managed the pick the most intrusive
choice, containing numerous cameras and sensors.
WHAT WOULD YOU TRADE FOR A WIRELESS CONNECTION? 

INTENT
LINKNYC: A HISTORY
Two years ago, a connection was born. In 2012, New York City became concerned with the issue of
communication. The Reinvent Payphone Design Challenge was announced in December 4 of the same year
and would run until March 5, 2013, with the goal of answering the question: How can New York City
reinvent payphone to make our city more accessible, safer, healthier, greener and better informed? Vendor1
agreements for the payphone were set to expire in 2014 — insert ulterior motive here — so the city opened
the challenge up to its residents in search of a way to bridge the communication gap [whilst creating more
of its own] as well as set New York further in its goal of becoming a smart city.
The winning idea of the design challenge was announced in 2014 — the LinkNYC kiosk, a
communications network which would provide the “fastest municipal
Wi-Fi to millions of New Yorkers, small businesses and visitors”2
within its five boroughs. From the onset, the project was touted as a
godsend, set to solve all of the city’s issue regarding in the
inaccessibility to technology, furthermore internet. Mayor DeBlasio and
Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams had instilled a lot of trust into
the project. For those living within the city without proper access to
internet…this was set to be their savior.
The prospects were amazing. Setting out simply to fix the issue of quasi pay phones, in a miraculous turn
of events, everything just fell into place…blazing fast city-wide wifi, nearly $500 million in supposed
revenue, funding from advertising venues and all at no cost to the taxpayer.
No cost? Fast forward to 2016 and these obelisks have taken over numerous streets in Manhattan, yet many
of the prime demographic that the links were initially targeting have yet to do so much as touch a kiosk.
Two years ago, DeBlasio stated that we as a city, couldn't “continue to have a digital divide that holds back
so many of our citizens,” yet there are vast regions within the boroughs that yet to be connected. So what3
went wrong?
“Free super fast Wi-Fi. And that’s just the beginning.”4
Too right you are, Link. Too right you are.
IMPLEMENTATION
CONFLICT OF ORIGIN
It is nearing the end of 2016, and the LinkNYC kiosks have barely delivered on their original goal of
adequately providing free wireless internet throughout the five boroughs; inclusive of large bald spots in
coverage — some coincidentally located in lower income areas. To be fair, it was DeBlasio who touted the
initiative as a semi-instant solution. In order to gage where things may have gone wrong, we seek to revisit
2014 when the winner of the design challenge was selected. How much is known about them?
CityBridge, proud owner of the LinkNYC kiosks, is actually not a single company, but a consortium of four
separate companies — currently three — whom are experts in the fields of advertising, technology,
"Reinvent Payphones." Splash. Web. 07 Nov. 2016.1
"De Blasio Administration Announces Winner of Competition to Replace Payphones." The Oﬃcial Website of the City of2
New York. 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 4 Nov. 2016.
"De Blasio Administration Announces Winner of Competition to Replace Payphones." The Oﬃcial Website of the City of3
New York. 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 4 Nov. 2016.
https://www.link.nyc/4
“Free super fast Wi-Fi.
And that’s just the
beginning.”
— LinkNYC

consumerism and integration: Titan and ControlGroup, Comark who was in charge of manufacturing the
kiosks and Qualcomm who provides the actually internet connection. Here is where things get dicy.
If the names Titan and ControlGroup sound familiar — it is more troubling if they do not— that is because
these are very same companies who had control of the payphone franchise previously. Coincidentally the
very company who owned the previously failing franchise (and failed to update the system or even attempt
to fix the product which they must have known was becoming obsolete) manages to maintain ownership of
the next generation of their product…which is set to bring in millions of dollars of revenue within the next
few years. Not a coincidence.
Comark also sought to rebrand itself and has become CIVIQ Smartscapes, specializing in
“SMARTSCAPING CITIES™,” dedicating themselves to “the future of intelligent urban infrastructure.”5 6
Why the consortium running a project to simply, bring free wifi to masses in need would contain a
company whose main goal is consumerism, pushing for integration and reliance on technology is
questionable — notwithstanding the fact that it contains the very companies who failed to successfully
bring communication to the same citizens in years prior.
Qualcomm is really the only company within the group which makes perfect sense in the scope of the
LinkNYC initiative, as it known for its ties to telecommunications and providing innovative technologies
for the current generation.
Around the same time that the companies within CityBridge were rebranding, in 2015, Google was doing
the same — ultimately reorganization a number of its projects and services into a firm called Alphabet . In7
June of 2015, Alphabet launched a subsidiary company, Sidewalk Labs, a “new type of company that works
with cities to build products addressing big urban problems.” Not much was known about the project at the8
time, besides the questionable placing of a former deputy mayor of New York, Dan Doctoroff, as the head
of the company. Sidewalk labs then acquired two companies, Titan and Control Group, in order to form
another subsidiary, Intersection. Once again, the payphone companies reared their heads again in
collaboration with another startup which seemingly has no ties to communication.
If the timeline is followed correctly, we gage that the rebranding of the companies within the consortium of
CityBridge, Google’s restructuring, the creation of Sidewalk Labs (and its acquisition of two of the
companies tied directly to the free wifi initiative) all line up; but what exactly does it mean and why has
Google not yet made a public statement regarding its connection to the kiosks littering the cities? What is
the connection between free wifi and advertising?
It is impossible to walk a block in the city without bumping into these digital giants, so why does the public
seem to know nothing about them?
LINKNYC: THE INITIATIVE
LinkNYC plans to have a total of 10,000 links installed within New York in the coming years, each
containing 3 cameras, 30 sensors and the tablet itself which offers free wifi, maps and directories, free
phone calls, a 911 button, charging and public announcements. As to the use of the cameras and the
sensors, LinkNYC has yet to really comment on their use, citing initially (in 2014) in a response to a letter
drafted by a representative of the New York Civil Liberties Union that the cameras were not currently on.
As for the actual internet network, there are two separate networks, one public and one private (with a
promise of additional security — though one must have a device using iOS7 in order to be eligible for this
benefit). Affordable wifi for all, right?
http://www.civiqsmartscapes.com/5
Seen on the homepage of their website (see note 5) in a section containing a kiosk resembling those of LinkNYC.6
Fung, Brian. "The Diﬀerence between Google and Alphabet, Explained." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 24 Feb.7
2016. Web. 03 Nov. 2016.
http://www.sidewalkinc.com/8

The kiosks’ features are fairly explanatory, as one can find these 6 services listed on the homepage of their
website. However, LinkNYC becomes rather murky when the issue of privacy is brought up. This might be
due to the fact that LinkNYC has two separate policies. The policy on their website is fairly self
explanatory: you automatically accept their terms by using the product, they may collect information from
messages you send them for research purposes, etc. This is standard with most companies. However, this
privacy policy which was last updated on October 27 of 2015, the one advertised in bold on their website,
only applies to the website. Finding the policy which applies to the network and the kiosks is another task
on its own — only found by clicking the link in smaller font on the page entitled ‘Privacy Policy’ or typing
in your request via a search engine. The policy you will find is titled: “Exhibit 2 — CityBridge Privacy
Policy,” which is confusing considering, of the few who are actually aware of the purpose of the network9
and kiosks, CityBridge is not publicly branded in correlation to the product — not including the fact that
there should be only one comprehensive Privacy Policy for the company and its networks.
PRIVACY: A TALE OF TWO POLICIES
The latter policy, dated January 25, 2016 contains 11 sections which I supposed entails all their company
has to offer. Albeit, we shall pay attention to a specific few. According to the policy, three pieces are
information are taken from the user at the onset of use on the network: username, email address and
password — up from just an email in previous years. Also, information is apparently only collected in the
case of one using the physical kiosks. There are specific data points which will be collected: a MAC
address, an IP address, a device identifier, the full url clickstream and all pages which were viewed by the
user for the duration of kiosk use. It is a wonder there is no kitchen sink in sight.
It is fascinating that all mentions of said data points which the company plans to collect are all listed in the
policy with no connection to the original LinkNYC website. As a side note: for the vast majority whom
won’t even give the kiosk a glance (the cameras might know), it is not explicitly outlined where the rules
applying specifically to kiosks end, so I would assume the entirety of the policy applies to both the network
and the kiosk.
As to what specifically is done with the information they may collect, is a puzzle with very few pieces on
the table. The policy states that CityBridge will not be selling personal identifiable information, and will
not “share Personally Identifiable Information with any third party for
that third party's own use.” This provision makes relatively no sense as10
information no longer needs to be sold in order for another party to get
ahold it. There is also specific wording “for that third party’s own use.”
What exactly does that mean? So is the information not being sent to a
third party if their motives don’t sync with those of CityBridge, or is the
information not being shared if the third party choses to do something
other than what CityBridge is already doing at the moment? Also pay
attention to the use of “personal identifiable information.” If and in the
case the information contains no markers which would lead to identifying
any specific person’s identity, there still sounds as if there is a chance that
information will be shared. Lest we forget that CityBridge is a consortium, and any third party who
acquires CityBridge or a member is essentially granted access to the same information; also outlined in
their policy:
“We may share information, including Personally Identifiable Information, with our service providers and
agents to the extent reasonably necessary to provide you with the Services.”
Though I might be looking too fair into the situation, this provision seemingly offers too many loopholes.
Another topic to pay attention to with their privacy policy is notification. Under a section labeled “How we
share you information,” CityBridge states that it will take “reasonable attempts” to notify someone if their
information is requested (by the government). Barring any gag orders, what exactly constitutes a
reasonable attempt? If only an email, password and username have been provided to use the service —
legal name has not been referenced and email verification was not previously a feature on the kiosks —
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doitt/downloads/pdf/Proposed-PCS-Franchise-Exhibit-2-CityBridge-Privacy-Policy.pdf9
see note 910
“So in effect what
we're doing is
replicating the digital
experience in
physical space.”
— Dan Doctoroﬀ

how would sufficient notifications really be sent to the user? Considering the data retention period for the
kiosks is 12 months, this is not shaping out to well for users.
For a company literally branding itself for its free Wi-Fi, there seems to be a lot of focus being put on
anything but. At this point, it is fairly obvious some sort of information is exchanging hands, though how it
is being done is another question entirely. What hasn't been discussed is the purpose of this data collection.
Dan Doctoroff answered this question unknowingly in May.
At an event titled “The Future of Cities, with Dan Doctoroff, Chairman and CEO of Sidewalk Labs” hosted
on May 16 by the Yale Alumni Nonprofit Alliance & Harvard Club of New York's Crimson Impact,
Doctoroff candidly said:
“By having access to the browsing activity of people using the Wi-Fi — all anonymized and
aggregated — we can actually then target ads to people in proximity and then obviously over time
track them through lots of different things, like beacons and location services, as well as their
browsing activity. So in effect what we're doing is replicating the digital experience in physical
space.”11
This the same Dan Doctoroff who was placed as the CEO of Sidewalk Labs, the subsidiary of Alphabet,
Google’s head firm; Sidewalk Labs which created a subsidiary, Intersection; Intersection, which is made up
of two of the companies within the CityBridge consortium. He has direct ties to the kiosk project and was
overheard speaking of the Wi-fi in terms of an advertising scheme. If this was his way of selling the Wi-Fi,
he needs to be fired. In all seriousness, this is problematic. When the message that is being broadcast to the
public is different from the message of the owners (whether direct or indirect), this should draw media
attention, but the media is busy focusing on nonsense: sensationalized stories claiming that unmentionables
are using technology above their pay grade.
SURVEILLANCE & MISREPRESENTATION
CityBridge’s (and associates) lack of transparency, albeit troubling, is the least of the public’s issues. The
lack of precision used when writing the Privacy Policy — just imagine the previous version from 2014
which still contained draft notes — would be excusable had all aspects of the kiosks been disclosed.
Previously, it has been stated that the kiosks had each been created with cameras and sensors. In addition to
this, each kiosk has also been equipped with beacons. Not sure about CityBridge, but these are not the first
things that come to mind when I think of free or affordable wifi. With hundreds of kiosks multiplied by 3
cameras each, one could only imagine the possibilities. These cameras could capture anything, though in
2014 CityBridge claimed that the cameras had not been turned on. Well, it’s 2016 and though CityBridge
has yet to make a public statement announcing any updates on this specific feature, they did make sure to
add a section to their Privacy Policy labeled “Information Collected by our Sensors and Camera” and are as
follows.
(5) We will not keep any footage captured by any camera for longer than seven days, unless the
footage is necessary to investigate an incident.
(6) We will not give any data collected by environmental sensors or cameras to anyone other
than the City or governmental law enforcement, unless 1) we are legally required to, 2) it is
necessary to operate and maintain the System and the Services, or 3) we get advanced,
written permission from the City.
(7) We will not use facial recognition technology for any reason, and we will not use our
cameras to track your movement through the city.
So, the cameras which have never been confirmed as being turned on, don’t keep footage for more than a
week unless of course, law informant needs it and facial recognition technology will not be used. This is an
Pinto, Nick. "Google Is Transforming NYC's Payphones Into a 'Personalized Propaganda Engine'" Village Voice. 06 July11
2016. Web. 03 Nov. 2016.

empty promise considering the kiosk already has access to your device ID, mac address and some sort of
username (and email). There is already a virtual profile of any user who has used this service, whether or
not a photo has been placed with the profile. Another aspect to note is the direct omission of the beacons
and sensors from this sections. They are not even mentioned. What exactly do sensors have to do with
wireless connectivity?  
The world may never know.
However, three entities may have an idea, though they are seemingly unwilling to share: Google, Titan and
the City. With questions coming up in droves, here are a few things to take into considering.
First, Google’s connection to the LinkNYC program and it refusal to offer public commentary on the
kiosks. No statement has been made, which is strange considering the novelty of the project. One would
think Google would be interested in informing its consumers, it’s collaborating on the newest machines to
hit the streets of New York. Unless that information would not sit well with its consumers. Consider
revenue. What exactly is Google’s role in this initiative? Google branched out from simply being a search
engine and controlling its own maps and video service to remodeling and encoding numerous facets to
complete projects under another title, though still very much involved in the lives of its customers (does
anyone recall Waves)?. Their phones (referring to Android devices) already have tracking capabilities,
automatically pinging the location of the device every few hours. Now imagine, hundreds of kiosks posted
all across the city (for continuous service, of course) with beacons able to track your location, cameras
recording footage and sensors all connected in some shape or form to Google. With all of the information at
Google's/Alphabet's disposal, tracking someone for the entirety of their commute seems entirely plausible.
Titan’s stint with malpractice comes in the form of their beacons. Earlier in the year, the company was
found to have placed bluetooth beacons in old phones booths all around Manhattan , which needless to12
say, is a commercialized borough. The job of the beacons was to notify customers walking past of sales.
This is not the issue though. Though the beacons might not have been planted for nefarious purposes, these
items could also be used for surveillance and data collection. For this purpose, the mayor instructed that the
beacons be removed. This is the company that is in charge of the advertising for LinkNYC. This is also13
the same company that stated in its business plan from four years ago stating that they wanted
“opportunities to generate revenue from mobile commerce.” Remember this. A company who believed it14
was perfectly alright to track the location of consumers (and who knows what else) is offering to give you
free wifi. Whatever our hesitations, their four year plan is apparently coming to fruition.
These companies are not the only parties at fault here. The city has been involved in a fair amount of
negligence over the past few years, mainly starting in 2014 when this whole Reinvent Payphones initiative
was born (or so we think). In May of 2016, Mariko Hirose, a senior staff attorney at the New York Civil
Liberties Union, sent a letter to the city regarding concerns that arose consequent to her reading the privacy
policies of CityBridge and the franchise agreement, recommending changes. A City Hall representative15
later anonymously informed the public that there would never be a response. LinkNYC’s general manager
Jen Hensley did try to calm any suspicions with a statement saying: “New York City and CityBridge have
created a customer-first privacy policy, and will never sell any user's personal information. LinkNYC does
not collect or store any data on users' personal web browsing on their own devices. CityBridge would
require a subpoena or similar lawful request before sharing any data with the NYPD or law enforcement,
and we will make every effort to communicate government requests to impacted users.” This isn't saying16
Baaria Chaudhary. "LinkNYC Privacy Issues – Full Story." NYC Tech News. 24 Aug. 2016. Web. 2 Nov. 2016.12
Kosoﬀ, Maya. "NYC Has A New Plan To Give Everyone High-Speed WiFi ..." Business Insider. 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 7 Nov.13
2016.
The Eleventh HOPE: LinkNYC Spy Stations. Prod. Benjamin Dean and Mariko Hirose. Livestream.com. Aug. 2016. Web.14
03 Nov. 2016.
see note 14 — The panel on the fraudulence of the LinkNYC initiative15
see Nick Pinto’s article: Google Is Transforming NYC's Payphones Into a 'Personalized Propaganda Engine'16

Clarke. nb. PRIVATE EYES. privacy and suveillance

Clarke. nb. PRIVATE EYES. privacy and suveillance

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Clarke. nb. PRIVATE EYES. privacy and suveillance

Similar to Clarke. nb. PRIVATE EYES. privacy and suveillance (20)

Clarke. nb. PRIVATE EYES. privacy and suveillance