Hunted: Rural areas are connected, but in an entirely different way | The Friday Article

In a post-Leveson society and with the Investigatory Powers Bill making its way through Parliament, ethics and surveillance remains a hot topic in the western world. The mystery and eeriness concealing the spying powers of the state has been exposed in Channel 4’s brilliant reality/gameshow/drama, Hunted – which returned for a second series last night.

Underneath its tense and suspenseful tone, the show asks: if you had to hide from expert hunters for 28 days, where would you run?

Avoiding London is an obvious point to make, and a new infographic by We Sell Electrical shows just how flawed a decision to stay in the capital could be, with more than 13,000 CCTV cameras watching our every move in the city.

Photo: We Sell Electrical (
Photo: We Sell Electrical (

Newcastle is the major city with the fewest cameras – with only 79 of them present in the area. However, with cities being complete with video sightings, ATM and more, it’s unsurprising that most fugitives from the last series and this series are staying clear of London and other big cities. Instead, the quieter rural areas – where technology is lacking – seems to be the obvious choice for those on the run.

With MPs continuing to work on plans regarding getting more rural areas online, the question of whether the current lack of connection in villages is something fugitives can exploit is an interesting one. Yet, this delay has prompted villagers and those living in the countryside to come up with traditional but effective ways of sharing information.

Photo: Rafael Parr on Flickr. Licensed under Creative Commons -
Photo: Rafael Parr on Flickr. Licensed under Creative Commons –

It’s something we see a lot on television dramas, documentaries and more. People know when someone new arrives in their area because word of mouth is so strong in the countryside. Something we saw in the first series of Hunted was the hunters handing out leaflets in these communities because when such a large group of people are on the lookout for a person – often incentivised with a possible cash reward – it’s almost as though the hunters have extra recruits on the team.

At the end of the day, it comes down to which is more valuable to these investigative teams: a close-knit community with word-of-mouth at its heart, or a rural area which has only just joined the grid? Of course, places with internet connections are obviously great for surveillance, but if Parliament does indeed make the push to get more villages and northern places online, then which is the best asset for these communities and the hunters? Old or new? Word of mouth, or online?



‘The Snooper’s Charter’ – Part Two: Finding a needle in a haystack? | The Friday Article

Yesterday, the Investigatory Powers Committee published its report on the so-called ‘snooper’s charter’ or Investigatory Powers Bill. In its report, the committee states that a lot of work still needs to be done to the proposed legislation before it should be put before Parliament. Now that more details have emerged about Theresa May’s bill – and there has been more scrutiny of it – I thought it would be worth discussing this bill in more detail.

First of all, the question of how Internet Service Providers will collect, store and manage this data is still yet to be explained. I won’t go into too much detail about this element as I talked about it in part one (read it here).

Similarly, the idea of the government storing this mass amounts of data is excessive – why should everyone’s data be collected just in the hope of finding a few bad eggs? (Nick Clegg shared a similar opinion, as mentioned in this BBC article).

However, whilst these are just some criticisms of the bill, there is one aspect of the ‘snooper’s charter’ which sounds promising. At the moment – during my university course – I’m learning about how the state’s powers are split into three branches: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. All are separate from one another.

One feature of the bill is how operations which have been agreed by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, can be prevented by a board of judges. This separation (as mentioned above) is the perfect way to ensure that the actions of the Home Secretary and Government are ethical. But whilst this is a good aspect of the bill, I remain sceptical.

You can find out more about the Investigatory Powers Bill and committee in this insightful BBC article, here.

What do you think of Theresa May’s ‘Investigatory Powers Bill’? Should it be passed? Is it ethical? Comment below!


Frequency Festival: What are our digital rights?

Yesterday the first night of Lincoln’s Frequency Festival opened with an interesting discussion into our digital rights and freedom. With the city celebrating the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta this year, the festival’s first event asked: what would the digital Magna Carta would look like?

Speakers at the debate included Professor Raul Espejo (Director-General of the World Organisation of Systems and Cybernetics), Wendy Grossman (a writer, folksinger and journalist) and Richard Barbrook (senior lecturer at the University of Westminster). The event also saw contributions from the audience.

Admittedly, I was under the impression that the event would be a debate, when it was more a series of three lectures from the main speakers. All three of them – Professor Espejo, Dr Barbrook and Ms Grossman – all presented different views on the proposed digital bill of rights. Whilst it was interesting to see three different perspectives, I was particularly interested in Professor Espejo’s talk about Cyberfolk and Algedonic Meters.

Basically, the discussion was around a data loop between the people and the state. The meter itself was for an ‘inclusive democracy’ and enabled the public to “[respond] to what policy makers were doing” (Espejo, 2015). In particular, this would be the public saying that they liked a particular debate or proposal.

At the same time, government discussions were being broadcast to the masses. However, at the top of this loop (or dichotomy, if you will), the state are overwhelmed with public data and are unable to handle the data correctly or ethically. According to Espejo (2015), the “extreme proliferation of data today is misunderstood” and proposed that “digital abuses of freedom and privacy […] need to be replaced by a society and individually fair ‘variety engineering” – the term variety referring to Ashby’s law of requisite variety.

This abuse of freedom and privacy at the top is something which I discussed previously in my post about the Channel 4 series, Hunted. After writing this post, one of the key questions I raised, which I wanted to explore further, was whether we as individuals have the right to complain about breaches of privacy when – through social media sites for example – we publicly and freely volunteer that information?

It’s a question I still don’t think that I have the answer to. But, having said that, one of the points raised about this issue was the fact that, alongside the state not knowing how to handle the mass amounts of data, the individual does not know how to properly volunteer data. In particular, someone does not know how that data could be used to benefit themselves, or others in the future. An example which Wendy Grossman gave was the first college-goers at Harvard who used the early version of Facebook, without knowing that what they post may one day be available on Google.

In that respect, I think we, as individuals, need to learn about digital footprints in detail. But in terms of a Digital Bill of Rights, perhaps it would be wise to place regulations on the individual to prevent them from volunteering certain data. If not that, then we should be made aware of what that data could mean in the future, or where it could be made available (like a Harvard student’s Facebook post being visible on Google, for instance – as mentioned above).

Once again, it comes back to the line between public and private in terms of technology. If a Digital Bill of Rights were to be drafted, then it’s likely that the main defence for an accusation of a privacy breach would be that the data in question is readily available to the public. An interesting example of this is a piece of work by Liz Sterry called ‘Kay’s Blog’. This, which was part of a Furtherfield exhibition entitled ‘Being Social’, was a project which saw Sterry reconstruct the bedroom of a blogger (named Kay) – with the information being obtained solely from her blog posts.

Admittedly, I myself would find this a rather large invasion of privacy, especially when it goes on to appear in a public exhibition. But as mentioned beforehand, if this information has been made public, then there is no defence. To be honest, should the terms and conditions of social media platforms not cover this already, then a Digital Bill of Rights should include an agreement. This agreement would state that as much as an individual would consider information published online as private, everyone who uses the Internet today knows that it is a public hub for creativity and information. For that reason, the Digital Bill should remind individuals that information obtained about them from social media cannot be seen as a breach of privacy. However, I do think that there are some exceptions when it comes to state surveillance (see my Hunted post for more information).

Similarly, this can be an issue when it comes to copyright and intellectual property. Yes, whilst most cases are easily identified and breaches of copyright can often be dealt with, it’s a piece of legislation which tries cover as much of the ever-expanding Internet as possible.

In a somewhat similar example, the music industry has been impacted by illegal downloading for a while now. Admittedly, the problem has escalated to the point that enforcing a legislation would simply not work, but that just demonstrates how hard it is to place laws on a rapidly changing entity such as the Internet. In terms of intellectual property, how can we stop the majority from breaching copyright, rather than the few?

Finally, if we were to consider the web as being this massive creative pool for the public, then who owns the Internet? This was a question raised by an audience member and it certainly was an interesting one. In the past, control over the Internet has turned into a bizarre free-for-all, with companies and the government both being eager to regulate or control aspects of technology. For example, a recent campaign to promote net neutrality talked about stopping Internet Service Providers from restricting Internet access to certain sites or content. A more recent example is Home Secretary Theresa May’s Draft Communications Data Bill (dubbed ‘the snooper’s charter’), where the government plans to gain more powers in terms of investigation and surveillance.

However, what we don’t have is rules or laws put in place by the public. If a Digital Bill of Rights was to be introduced, then how could it be made law? Who would enforce it? How could it be maintained, updated and enforced on every single online citizen?

Whilst governments and companies may be trying to control certain aspects of technology and the web, the Internet will always belong to ‘the people’. In a sense, the Internet is a Marxist hub. If we are to call it that, then of course one of the main issues is that the promotion of Marxism is contradictory – in order to enforce Marxism you need a leader.

So, in that case, how can a Digital Bill of Rights for the digital citizen and ‘the people’ be enforced – and by whom? How could the bill be maintained and updated?


Channel 4’s Hunted: A worrying insight into surveillance

“Everything you do now ends up in your permanent record. The best plan is to overload Google with a long tail of good stuff and to always act as if you’re on Candid Camera, because you are.” – Seth Godin

First it was Humans, which offered a slightly concerning, but mainly thought-provoking, insight into the rise of artificial intelligence. Now, the six-part, real-life series Hunted – which concluded last night – sheds a light onto the complex and powerful world of surveillance.

The show comes at a time when Home Secretary Theresa May’s new, proposed surveillance bill – dubbed ‘the snooper’s charter’ – raises questions about the ethics of spying on members of the public.

The real-life thriller, where 14 individuals go on the run, saw the country’s top detectives and analysts use high levels of surveillance to track them down.

In the first episode, ‘fugitives’ have their social media profiles scanned by detectives. Whilst some consider this an invasion of privacy, we can’t really complain when we volunteer this data ourselves.

With technological advancements leading to us placing so much of our private lives online, one of the questions we have to ask ourselves is how much of our private life actually is private? The answer: not much. Technology has become the main way to store data and communicate. If anything, the way to prevent our privacy from being breached is through going offline. But with technology being such a huge part of all of our lives, it’s become something we all have to accept – the small-print when it comes to signing up to email services and social networks.

Aside from how to best protect your privacy, Hunted shows the somewhat unethical methods the state can use to get information. In the third episode, we see the ‘hunters’ impersonate Ricky Allen in an attempt to get his friends and family to reveal information about his location. Similarly, later on in the series, we see the investigators use a phishing technique to gain access to someone’s iCloud so they can clone their iPhone. This type of impersonation (when the hunters sent texts pretending to be Ricky) must be illegal, surely? Whilst that may be a grey area, we all know that phishing – along with when the hunters hack a fugitive’s Facebook to display a wanted poster – are both illegal if a member of the public were to do these actions. This of course raises the debate of our country’s surveillance services using unethical means to protect our national security or for ‘the greater good’.

Another ethical question which is raised from the show is how the hunters place certain amounts of psychological pressure on the fugitives. Surely this raises questions from a human rights perspective – being almost like a form of psychological torture – as well as from an ethical perspective?

Lastly, another issue for discussion is the use of recording devices. In the world of journalism, the undercover news reports that use covert cameras can only be used when it is in ‘the public interest’. Two main ethical codes (Ofcom and IPSO) prohibit journalists from using covert recordings if it is not for that reason. Whilst this isn’t journalism, but surveillance, surely similar rules must apply to this too?

On the whole, it’s fair to say that the best way to protect yourself is by being offline, but with almost everyone having a smartphone these days, that is near enough impossible.

In terms of ethics, questions need to be asked as to how many rules can be broken by the state where it may be illegal for a member of the public to do the same thing. In particular, with this new ‘snooper’s charter’ bill, we need to ask what new powers this gives the state.

What do you think about the so-called ‘snooper’s charter’? Have you been watching Hunted? Comment below!