from the don't-worry-the-metadata-are-"anonymized" dept.
Surveillance has been creeping unabated across schools, universities, and much of daily life over the past few years, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Back in October, however, graduate students at Northeastern University were able to organize and beat back an attempt at introducing invasive surveillance devices that were quietly placed under desks at their school.
Early in October, Senior Vice Provost David Luzzi installed motion sensors under all the desks at the school's Interdisciplinary Science & Engineering Complex (ISEC), a facility used by graduate students and home to the "Cybersecurity and Privacy Institute" which studies surveillance. These sensors were installed at night—without student knowledge or consent—and when pressed for an explanation, students were told this was part of a study on "desk usage," according to a blog post by Max von Hippel, a Privacy Institute PhD candidate who wrote about the situation for the Tech Workers Coalition's newsletter.
[...] Von Hippel told Motherboard, however, that desk usage can already be tracked because desks are assigned and badges are required to enter the rooms. Instead, he believes the sensors were a rationale for the administration—which owns the building—to push out computer science students who don't use the building as much as others might.
In response, students began to raise concerns about the sensors, and an email was sent out by Luzzi attempting to address issues raised by students.
[...] At this first listening session, Luzzi asked that grad student attendees "trust the university since you trust them to give you a degree," Luzzi also maintained that "we are not doing any science here" as another defense of the decision to not seek IRB approval.
[...] After that, the students at the Privacy Institute, which specialize in studying surveillance and reversing its harm, started removing the sensors, hacking into them, and working on an open source guide so other students could do the same. Luzzi had claimed the devices were secure and the data encrypted, but Privacy Institute students learned they were relatively insecure and unencrypted. "The students of this facility, including myself, the way that we get publications is that we take systems like this and we explore flaws in them. We explain what's bad about them, why they don't work, and so they could not have picked a group of students who were more suitable to figure out why their study was stupid."
[...] Another listening session followed, this time for professors only, and where Luzzi claimed the devices were not subject to IRB approval because "they don't sense humans in particular - they sense any heat source." More sensors were removed afterwards and put into a "public art piece" in the building lobby spelling out NO!
[...] Afterwards, von Hippel took to Twitter and shares what becomes a semi-viral thread documenting the entire timeline of events from the secret installation of the sensors to the listening session occurring that day. Hours later, the sensors are removed and Luzzi writes one last email:
"Given the concerns voiced by a population of our graduate students around the project to gather data on desk usage in a model research building (ISEC), we are pulling all of the desk occupancy sensors from the building. For those of you who have engaged in discussion, please accept my gratitude for that engagement."
[...] These rollouts are part of what Cory Doctrow calls the "shitty technology adoption curve" whereby horrible, unethical and immoral technologies are normalized and rationalized by being deployed on vulnerable populations for constantly shifting reasons. You start with people whose concerns can be ignored—migrants, prisoners, homeless populations—then scale it upwards—children in school, contractors, un-unionized workers. By the time it gets to people whose concerns and objections would be the loudest and most integral to its rejection, the technology has already been widely deployed.
Related Stories
The Times Higher Education has an essay by Professor Andy Farnell where he rethinks digital technologies which disenfranchise, dehumanize, excludes, and even bully both students and teachers. These unfortunate technologies with their problems and misfeatures have been plaguing institutions of higher education for quite some time now. Not too long ago, universities took the lead in creating and advancing performant technologies. The triumvirate of LDAP, Kerberos, and AFS is just one which comes to mind, though there are also the original Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) and many more. Now these institutions have mostly lost their way and have become followers and "consumers" of products that not only don't meet their needs but actively work against institutional goals. He starts by asking which digital technologies could, or rather ought to, be removed from higher educational environments.
Harm occurs when technologies divert equity away from key stakeholders toward powerful but marginal stakeholders, namely chancellors, trustees, directors, dignitaries, landlords, governments, industries, advertisers, sponsors, technology corporations, suppliers and publishers. Harms arise because these entities have become invested in pushing technologies that favour their products and interests into the education ecosystem.
Obviously, we can't entertain the idea of removing all technologies from education, if only to dodge the pedant's retort that we'd better burn all books and blackboards while we're at it. Rather than looking for technical errors, let's recognise that technologies are fraught with political and psychological shortcomings in their models, structures and behaviours, which lead to misuse.
As a brief summary, we wish to identify and eliminate systems that:
- disenfranchise and disempower
- dehumanise
- discriminate and exclude
- extract or seek rent
- coerce and bully
- mislead or manipulate
What steps can you take locally?
Recently:
(2022) 'NO': Grad Students Analyze, Hack, and Remove Under-Desk Surveillance Devices Designed to Track Them
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, @08:49AM
__________________
| Students 1 |
| Administration 0 |
|__________________|
[I had a prettier layout, but a red message said I used too much whitespace.]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 08, @11:12AM (18 children)
This smells like an underhanded (underdesked? Which spell corrects to: undressed) ethics lesson more than an attempt to monitor desk usage.
I agree that no IRB is required, the way that no IRB is required for classroom occupancy monitors that automatically turn off the lights and reduce the AC when empty. The difference, ethically, is the classroom monitors (at least didn't used to) record and aggregate their data and they didn't track identifiable individuals.
I'm sure the outraged students covered all this in depth, but tracking identifiable individuals is different, and monitoring desk usage is weak value compared with massive energy savings.
Plus, pointing a surreptitious sensor at students genitals and sending the data to a central repository is just tacky. Doubly so when the data is claimed to be encrypted and de-identified and it isn't.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday December 08, @01:57PM (7 children)
While the desk sensor might not be able to track the individual student by itself if you combine said sensor data with other data such as the one from the various door sensors or keycards (or whatever they use) they could see who is in the building, who is in the room and then also by deduction be fairly certain who is sitting at what desk and when and for how long etc (door opens at time X, someone sits down at desk at X+).
That said I don't really know what they would gain from this desk sensor. Do they think that people that enter the room just enter the room and stand around for some time and then leave again? Does it matter which desk they use? Or are they just trying to figure out which desks are the most popular once so they get more usage and need to be replaced or serviced more often? They want to get rid of students that doesn't use the lab very often? That makes no sense at all, the best student isn't that one that pays but then never use any of the facilities? So there is no wear and tear on the building and appliances but they still pay the same amount.
But sure their building and I guess they can add however many sensors they like to it. I still don't understand why they would want to. Clearly this didn't work out very well for them. I guess they better put them someplace with less tech-nerds students, or in a sorority.
That it's an under-desk-sensor is just extra creepy. Just add a camera to it and they could finance the entire project by selling it to pervs.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 08, @03:03PM
>what they would gain from this desk sensor.
The best value I can identify is the ethics lesson.
In the weak sauce end of things, you could trend desk usage, determine if more desks are warranted, relocate desks from low demand areas to high demand areas... weak sauce, someone sitting in the room could tell you the same.
>this didn't work out very well for them.
Depends on the actual motives. I wouldn't be surprised if some bonehead proposed the project and an ethically minded prof who knew how it would play out said: "sure, absolutely, that's a great idea!"
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 08, @03:12PM (5 children)
No, it's not. It's the property of the university not this administrator. And the university is subject to contractual agreements (they've probably have anti-harassment policies on the books, for example), and state and federal law that restricts what they can do (lot of privacy laws on the books). If they accept public funding - which they probably do, they are likely subject to constitutional restrictions as well (such as the Fourth Amendment's restrictions on unlawful searches).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 08, @03:30PM (2 children)
The argument (that I don't really agree with, but it's sound nonetheless) is that detection of a butt is not the same as graphic imagery of the butt. There's no (actual) invasion of privacy, the sensor is just telling you the same thing someone standing in the room could but at a much lower cost for the full bandwidth data on: live butt in seat, yes or no? at all times of the day and night. The use of a heat sensor is better than a more traditional pressure or weight sensor because it can discriminate live occupants vs stacks of books or other heavy things.
The way this was done, and the population it was done to, seems like it was engineered as an ethics and data security lesson. Even if there are sound arguments for the collection of the data, without consent, the nature of the sensor was just so creepy that anyone with two functioning brain cells should have made the leap to predict this reaction and outcome.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 08, @11:55PM (1 child)
My bet is that there weren't two functioning brain cells involved. Never underestimate the power of stupidity.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 09, @01:19AM
Regardless of how it started, it is an ethics and data security lesson now, and if it was an idiot project brighter bulbs now are aware and probably spinning the messaging around it for better PR.
In other words, we are unlikely to ever know the true story which may actually have been a(n idiot) plot to hide upskirt cameras in some of the sensors.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday December 08, @04:04PM (1 child)
Yes it is. The students doesn't own the building. By their building I mean the University. The department in question probably doesn't own the building either. I don't think, the article isn't clear on the matter, that this was Vice Provost Luzzi sneaking in at night and installing these sensors by himself. Unless he is some kind of upskirt heat sensor pervert. But if he was I would assume he would have been dragged away in cuffs by now. But there should be paperwork and decisions involved in this. Clearly the biggest issue here is probably that Luzzi apparently got caught in a lie when he claimed the project had passed review when it had not, it had not even been submitted for review according to the article. Telling people that it had been reviewed when it had not is in that regard possibly an ethics violation. It could also very well be a shitty study, poorly planned, costly and so forth. But that is besides the point.
But in the end it's their building and they can in that regard install whatever systems they like. The reasoning behind it might matter tho. If this was a science project then it becomes troubling cause the humans using the labs are in that regard like guinea pigs. If this was just building maintenance and security, they really just want to see how much their desks are used or however often doors are opened or whatever then it's not really an issue you have to check with the students and their feelings.
How would the sensor harass and intimidate anyone? I very much doubt that an under desk heat sensor would be much of an invasion of privacy by itself, that said it could be combined with other sensors and systems to violate privacy if they wanted to. Question is if you are in a more or less public building or a building you are allowed to be in do you even have a right to privacy in that regard? But I don't see this one sensor being more of an invasion then other sensor systems already in place, there will be sensors already for who is in buildings and opening doors etc. So in that regard their privacy have already been violated many times over before they even sat down at the desks in question. Even tho the reasoning behind the hidden heat desk sensors seems a bit iffy.
That said if you wanted to install desk sensors, for whatever reasons, where would you put them if not under the desk? On top of the desk (they would most likely be destroyed or stolen then)? In/on the ceiling over each desk (obvious and it might be to far away)? In or under the chairs (just as bad as under the desks then)? They are all equally bad in that regard. Should there be a large sign at the door saying heat ass sensors experiment installed in this room? That might invalidate the project or whatever their reasons behind it was. There should be paperwork and decision made and involved and those are the once that should be looked at, not that some students felt violated for some kind of reasons. The object of study doesn't have to be aware that they are being studied, that would just invalidate the observation.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 08, @11:23PM
Except, of course, when they can't because of their contractual obligations or the laws of that part of the US. Universities have a lot of constraints to their operation that get in the way of these 1984 surveillance schemes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, @02:28PM (2 children)
TFS says migrants, prisoners, and homeless are the vulnerable populations, with students and garbagemen a tier above that.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 08, @05:46PM (1 child)
Cory Doctrow is an opinionated character. I like him, I like his opinions, but sometimes he does come off as just making shit up (and not just for his fictional novels.)
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 09, @01:40AM
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Thursday December 08, @08:42PM (5 children)
IRB is not based on, if other people not conducting studies are doing comparable things. The Staff literally said this is a "study" on the students. While the study does not on its face seem obviously harmful, it is a study on humans collecting bio-medical data. Psych departments conduct studies where they ask some people 5 multiple choice questions and these require ethics committees.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 08, @09:10PM (4 children)
The whole thing feels like a brinksmanship game: how far can we push and what pushback will we get?
>students were told this was part of a study on "desk usage,"
So, are the students being studied, or is the desk usage being studied? Desks don't require informed consent, just like a traffic study doesn't require informed consent from the cars being counted or their drivers and occasional passengers.
The fact this was deployed in a department specifically focused on Cybersecurity and Privacy: "we take systems like this and we explore flaws in them. We explain what's bad about them" pretty much is the inverse of Cory Doctrow's "vulnerable population." What would be shocking is if none of them did question what just appeared under all the desks, why is it there, how does it work, WTF are you trying to pull here?
It feels like someone behind the "study" wants to encourage a conversation about what the limits are, how do we know when we have crossed the line? I doubt they give a damn about "desk usage."
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 08, @11:53PM (3 children)
My bet is that you have this completely backwards and it's some idiot obsessing over desk usage because they are incapable of anything more than that. This looks like the bike shed effect. They might know nothing about running their niche in the university, but they know that desk usage and looking busy are important.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 09, @01:14AM (1 child)
I have seen plenty of that level of idiocy in the world. At my University was not one of the places rife with such lack of communication and collaboration.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 09, @01:18AM
Makes one of us.
(Score: 2) by owl on Friday December 09, @03:35AM
That was my thought as well. That this sounds just like some some middle managers half-arsed idea of something to do to justify their continued employment.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday December 09, @02:30AM
Actually, it sounds like a final exam, which the students passed with flying colors!
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Frosty Piss on Thursday December 08, @04:16PM
I own a pair of wire clippers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, @08:48PM
If you don't like it, leave. There's a queue of Chinese students ready to take your place who will put up with all this lovely authoritarian bullshit. They don't complain, they spend all day there - just don't look too closely at their results. Publish quick, grab the grant money!