With surveillance and security around the Olympics intensifying from country to country, purportedly to prevent terrorism and serious crimes, activists are increasingly concerned about a growing trend: once the Games are finished, authorities rarely cut back on public surveillance. And with the pricey new infrastructure installed for good, individuals’ rights to personal privacy are at risk of being permanently diminished.

London already bears distinction among privacy watchdogs as being one of the most closely surveilled cities in the world, yet routine security practices pale in comparison with the exhaustive measures to be imposed during the 2012 Summer Olympics. Surveillance and security measures were recently described in the UK’s Independent newspaper as the ‘biggest operation since the Second World War’ to be undertaken by UK intelligence agency MI5. Plans call for the installation of a new monitoring and intelligence gathering system, plus the mobilisation of nearly all of MI5’s 3,800 agents. While details of the intelligence-gathering programme remain classified, it appears to be intended for long-term use.

As London beefs up its security infrastructure, meanwhile, Brazil has already begun mapping out a security strategy in anticipation of the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. The situation there is shaping up to be another cause for concern, particularly because the government seems eager to follow London’s lead – and Rio is also one of the most surveilled cities in democratic countries around the world. According to Agence France Presse (AFP) reporter Javier Tovar, Brazilian security agencies plan to use surveillance drones, tough border controls and IP-based surveillance systems during the 2016 Olympics.

Brazil will also host the World Cup in 2014, run by the international governing body for football, FIFA. For both competitions, most of the events will take place in poor urban suburbs of Brazilian cities, where the homicide rate is among the highest in South America. Because of rising crime rates, the announcement that Brazil will host these high-profile sporting events led to a spike in Brazil’s video surveillance market, according to market analyst firm 6Wresearch. The surveillance measures are largely going unchallenged — there seems to be little public debate or attention focused on these issues or the privacy implications they present.

Brazil’s video surveillance market generated US$124.96 million in 2011 and is expected to reach $362.69 million by 2016, research analysts predicted, with a compounded annual growth rate of nearly 24 per cent from 2011 to 2016. 6Wresearch expects “a shift towards more secured IP-based surveillance systems” since advantages include “low cost, video analytics, remote accessibility and [are] easy to integrate with wireless networks”.

No sooner had Rio been selected for the 2016 Olympic Games than the US government sought to strike a partnership with the Brazilian government on security and information-sharing strategies, according to secret diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks. In December 2009, the US embassy in Brazil sent a cable to the US government entitled, “The future is now”. The message encouraged the US to use the Olympic Games to justify the expansion of its influence over Brazil’s critical infrastructure development and cyber security measures. By highlighting concerns about the possibility of power outages or breakdowns in infrastructure, particularly in the months leading up to the Games, the US government could justify a bid for increased co-operation with Brazil on counterterrorism activities. There were “opportunities for engagement on infrastructure development” and “possibly cyber security”, the cable stated. In a second cable, sent on 24 December 2009, the embassy again emphasised its interest in broadening US objectives in Brazil. “Taking advantage of the Games to work security issues should be a priority, as should co-operation on cybercrime and broader information security,” it read.

In the lengthy diplomatic exchanges between the US embassy in Brazil and the US government, the absence of any reference to the very serious privacy, civil liberties and public accountability implications of widespread surveillance technologies stood out as a glaring omission. The same could be said for current public discourse in Brazil. So far, there has not been any significant criticism of the security and surveillance measures being introduced — in marked contrast to the UK, where privacy campaigners have been active.

Brazil’s safeguards for privacy in the face of such pressure aren’t especially promising. There is a need for an impact assessment to evaluate whether cameras installed to help combat crime in Rio are actually needed and to ensure that these intrusive measures do not become an Olympic Games legacy, especially if there are less intrusive methods of combatting serious crimes. There is no legislation pertaining to the privacy of personal information in Brazil, but a draft bill that, if introduced, would protect the collection, use and disclosure of this information is under consideration. It remains to be seen whether the bill will bypass privacy protections by allowing exemptions — namely, databases created for the sole purposes of public security, national security or law enforcement activities.

It’s too early to say exactly what security and privacy protocols Brazil will keep once the 2016 Summer Olympic Games end, or to what extent the Brazilian government will agree to go along with an agenda carved out by the US. But if history is any guide, there is reason to believe that a surveillance regime ushered in by the Olympics will continue to pose threats to individual privacy well into the future. Privacy advocates, having assessed the range of measures implemented in connection with previous Olympic Games, warn of a “climate of fear and surveillance” that could have a detrimental effect on “democracy, transparency, and international and national human rights law”.

But the proliferation of surveillance technology around the Olympics is hardly new. Greece’s contract with technology company SAIC called for the creation and support of a C4I (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence) system to “allow Greek authorities to collect, analyse, and disseminate information” by leveraging SAIC’s expertise in telecommunications, wireless communications and video surveillance. The technology blends the use of data-mining, data-matching, and profiling capabilities. Those researching this area have referred to the adoption of such security measures as an emergence of a “super-panopticon” and a “marriage of camera, computers and databases”.

One report revealed that Greek law enforcement and intelligence agencies installed more than 1,000 surveillance cameras in Athens in advance of the 2004 Summer Olympics – and then continued to make use of them for policing purposes long after athletes and spectators had packed up and left. While the stated purpose for the continued use of the cameras in Greece was to monitor high-traffic roadways, the report found that they were actually employed to monitor public spaces – including during political demonstrations. This revelation triggered heated exchanges between law enforcement officials and the Greek Data Protection Authority, leading to the resignation of the authority’s head, Dimitris Gourgourakis, and his deputies. At the time, Gourgourakis stated that police use of surveillance cameras ‘directly breached’ privacy regulations. In 2007, the country’s data protection law was amended to exempt surveillance cameras from its privacy provisions.

The use of surveillance cameras in Athens barely registers in comparison with the all-out monitoring campaign Chinese authorities implemented in 2008, when the Olympic Games were held in Beijing. Chinese authorities installed a whopping 200,000 cameras and employed other surveillance measures in an effort to make Beijing secure. And, in a move that drew widespread condemnation, the Chinese government ordered foreign-owned hotels to install internet monitoring equipment to spy on hotel guests.

When it was announced that Vancouver had won the bid for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, Canadian civil society organisations feared a repeat of the privacy-invading security measures adopted by Greece and China. Privacy advocates called for the government to remain open and transparent about the necessary security and surveillance practices that were planned; they called for a full, independent public assessment of these measures after the Games and sought to prevent “a permanent legacy of increased video surveillance” and other security measures. “It is already clear that the event allowed for new surveillance technologies to gain a foothold in Vancouver that would never otherwise have been accepted,” noted Tamir Israel of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic.

In the run up to the Games, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, in conjunction with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia, issued recommendations to prevent security measures from unduly infringing on individual’s rights. “The duty of governments to provide for the security of citizens must, in democratic societies, be tempered by the values that underpin our way of life,” said Jennifer Stoddart, Privacy Commissioner of Canada. “The right to privacy must be upheld, even during mega-events like the Olympic games, where the threat to security is higher than usual.” At this critical juncture, the agencies seeking to implement security measures in London and Rio would do well to heed her words. Unfortunately, the message did not get through.

Violations of individuals’ privacy can range from the loss of anonymity in public places to the inability to communicate and associate freely with others. The capabilities of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) have risen dramatically, and due to the technology’s relative affordability, street cameras are now everywhere. Technological advances make it possible for CCTV to perform surveillance tasks similar to electronic wiretapping, intelligence sharing and identification systems that link images not stored on databases with images that have actually been archived. Given the prevalence of this technology and how easy it’s become to identify one unnamed face amidst thousands, individuals who care about anonymity will have a very difficult time protecting their identity in the imminent future.

While it’s important to take security precautions prior to the Olympics, these actions should not result in the implementation of public surveillance without regard for personal privacy. It’s crucial that the public scrutinise the security and privacy measures the Brazilian government is considering. There must be an informed and open debate about privacy and security.

Most importantly, the public has a right to know whether enhanced security measures will be reversed after the games. The true spirit of the Olympics as an opportunity for cultural exchange ought to be preserved. Using the Games as an excuse for trampling civil liberties violates this spirit.

Katitza Rodriguez is international rights director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). She tweets at @txitua. Rebecca Bowe is international privacy coordinator at EFF. She tweets at @ByRebeccaBowe.

More London 2012:

- Locog: The ultimate bad sport

- What?!? Now we’re not even allowed to link to the Olympics website?

- Olympic organisers shut down “Space hijackers” protest Twitter account

- In a league of its own

Plus read more on Sport v human rights in Index on Censorship magazine’s Sports issue

The post London 2012: Spy games appeared first on Index on Censorship.

As a general rule, when a private company says that its ruthlessly tight protection against copyright infringement is for public benefit, my skin starts to itch. Sometimes at least you can understand the rationale: if we all stop buying music and pinch it off the internet, there will undoubtedly be fewer musicians making enough money to stay in the music-making business, and that would be rotten. The charts will be packed out with trust-fund babies and bankers having a mid-life crisis (in my house, we call them U2).

But the way to stop this happening is probably not to threaten anyone who’s ever had broadband and an iPod with a lengthy jail sentence and a bazillion dollar fine, because that is simply antagonistic, and makes them forget how much they like musicians in their dislike of record companies. And while you’re at it, you remind the rest of us that we hate global corporations too.

The same is true of what appears to be the most heavily copyrighted event the world has ever seen: the 2012 Olympics. Now, you may have been thinking that Locog, the London Olympic organisers, have been playing a long game, with their piss-poor logo, weirdly condomic mascots and vile 80s’ graffiti font. We scoffed as each one was released, little realising that this was surely the strongest protection against counterfeit items: who could possibly want to fake something so intrinsically crappy?

Nonetheless, Locog takes its copyright position very seriously. So seriously, in fact, that it has released a 61-page document of guidelines to explain how we can all not infringe their rights. They begin by stating that they hope all the information given will be used in good faith, which makes it all the odder that they let smart-arse journalists anywhere near it. While each page concludes with a footer stating that it is no substitute for legal advice, it does offer two separate flowcharts, and some Olympic background.

Given how much of the Olympic background is really quite dodgy and racist, I was hoping for a good read. But there is no mention of the Nazi background of the Olympic torch (the torch relay first took place in Berlin, 1936, and has nothing to do with ancient Greece, beyond the fact that Hitler liked to associate himself with the ancient world, because it seemed to validate him).

There’s also no mention of the dubious colour-scheme origins of the Olympic rings, which were once meant to symbolise directly the continents involved: blue for Europe, green for Australia (nice and uncontroversial), red for America (oh, like the native Americans? Wait, this is less controversial, right?), yellow for Asia (now, hang on) and black for Africa (okey dokey, then). The executive committee of the International Olympic Committee removed the paragraph explaining this from its booklet in 1951. But again, sadly no mention in the Olympic background info this year.

What they do mention is how many, many ways you could breach the Olympic copyright, even if you weren’t trying. “Controlled phrases”, in Locog parlance, include ‘”Games, two thousand and twelve, 2012, and twenty twelve” (that’s list A), and “Gold, silver, bronze, London, medals, sponsors and summer” (that’s list B). Combining words from either or both lists might give rise to a ‘Listed expression’, which is another thing you’re not supposed to be doing.

Don’t feel that Orwell has descended, however. Locog makes exceptions (possibly – they’re listed as ‘defences’, just so you know you’re in the wrong before you start). Gratifyingly, you can use words associated with the Olympics if it’s perfectly clear you aren’t trying to have anything to do with them. So, to quote their example, an antique store could advertise an “Original Marble Olympian Statue, circa 500 BC”, and that would probably be fine.

And if you have a company name which sounds a bit Olympicky, that’s okay too, so long as you existed before the Olympics and don’t pretend that you have anything to do with them. The example they give for this is my favourite bit of the whole document (page 17, in case you were thinking I stopped early). They suggest that if a pen manufacturer had trademarked the name ‘Olympens’ that would probably be okay. Seriously? Olympens? Suddenly, the amazing rubbishness of brand names that contestants on The Apprentice come up with all makes sense. Was Olympens really the best anyone could come up with? They couldn’t put aside four more seconds and invent a company that sells ice picks for climbing in Greek mountains?

But it’s not just the logos of the Olympics, or words that might loosely have anything to do with them, which are subject to these controls. Just to clarify: “An infringing association can be created by the use of any ‘representation’. This may be an image, graphic design, sound, or word (spoken or written) etc” (their emphasis). What, you may be wondering, is the sound of the Olympics? The gentle flow of tenners as they sink into an open drain?

Locog are keen to point out, as I said back at the start, that they are doing all of this for our benefit. If their sponsors aren’t protected, then they might pull out. And if they do that, there will be a big fat chasm in the Olympics budget, and you and I will be left with the bill.

At no point does it seem to have occurred to them, in their mesmerising arrogance, that every London council tax payer is also one of their sponsors, and has been for years. It also hasn’t occurred to them that they could always have simply spent less on their massive school sports day, instead of tanking billions and then telling us we should count ourselves lucky that McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Adidas will pick up a tiny bit of the tab.

Natalie Haynes is a comedian and writer. Her books include The Ancient Guide to Modern Life (Profile Books) and The Great Escape (Simon & Schuster). This article originally appeared in Index on Censorship magazine’s Sport On Trial issue

More London 2012:

What?!? Now we’re not even allowed to link to the Olympics website?

Olympic organisers shut down “Space hijackers” protest Twitter account

In a league of its own

Plus read more on Sport v human rights in Index on Censorship magazine’s Sports issue

The post Locog: the ultimate bad sport appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post UK: receives police warning for Facebook joke about Olympic flame appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Politburo-like transport privileges are not the only corporate gifts to be found in what is now the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006. Section 19 of the Act provides a legal basis for the executive regulation of advertising ‘in the vicinity of London Olympic events’. Of particular concern to some, the Act provides that the regulations ‘may apply in respect of advertising of any kind’, including non-commercial advertising and ‘announcements or notices of any kind’.

‘Advertising’ may include ‘the distribution or provision of documents or articles’, ‘the display or projection of words, images, lights or sounds’, and ‘things done with or in relation to material which has or may have purposes or uses other than as an advertisement’. The executive is empowered by the Act to impose obligations on the owners and occupiers of properties, and breach of the regulations will be an offence punishable by an unlimited fine. Further, the police will be entitled forcibly to enter property to ‘remove, destroy, conceal or erase’ anything deemed inconsistent with the advertising regulations.

The Act’s provisions on advertising are objectionable because they cede to the executive the power to make draconian rules, rather than risking parliamentary vote on the content of those rules. The threat of ‘ambush marketing’ (as at the 1996 Atlanta Games, when Nike swamped the area around the Olympic sites with advertising to the chagrin of Adidas, an official sponsor) may well justify some restrictions. Indeed so dependent is the International Olympic Committee on sponsorship (worth around £200 million a year in 2005) that it imposes stiff requirements on host nations to deal with this threat. London has already secured all the billboards around the Olympic sites for official sponsors. But the Olympic Act would provide a legal basis for the criminalisation of those wearing Pepsi Cola T-shirts or Burger King baseball caps (Coca-Cola and McDonald’s being official sponsors). This is objectionable enough. But the extension of ‘advertising’ to include non-commercial advertising and ‘announcements or notices of any kind’ is worse again, covering as it would the display of a notice protesting against sponsors’ labour practices, or their contributions to global warming or the epidemic of obesity. Further, advertising restrictions may apply well beyond Olympic arenas to, for example, the front windows of private homes in the vicinity of the games. The prospect of heavy-handed coppers breaking down front doors to remove offending posters in the bay windows of private homes is perhaps alarmist. It is, however, within the contemplation of the Olympic Act.

The Olympic Act carries obvious implications for freedom of speech. Any regulations passed under it will be subject to the European Convention on Human Rights, given effect to in the UK by the Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular to Article 10 thereof. That article, which protects the right to freedom of expression, allows restrictions that are ‘necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of [amongst others] national security, territorial integrity or public safety … [and] the protection of the reputation or the rights of others’. It is doubtful whether the protection of corporate sponsors against competition in the form of the occasional T-shirt or baseball hat, or the gagging of their critics, falls within the permissible limits on free speech. It is a matter for regret, however, that the Olympic Act has created the scope for regulations which will exercise an extraordinary chilling effect on freedom of expression, subject to eventual Human Rights Act challenge to them by individuals sufficiently robust and resourceful to tolerate the prospect of criminal conviction.

Aileen McColgan is a professor of law at King’s College, London

The post The 2012 Olympic: Big Brother comes to town? appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post China: Beijing protest zone sham appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Read ‘Notes on the Net’, Zola’s article on Internet activism for Index on Censorship‘s ‘Made in China’ issue here (pdf)

The post China: Index on Censorship writer detained appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post China: Olympics media restricted appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Continuing our series of articles from Index on Censorship’s ‘Made In China’ issue, Internet pioneer Isaac Mao explains why freedom of thought is what China needs most.

Read here (pdf)

The post Countdown to Beijing, part 4 appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Chinese man sentenced to ‘re-education’ for quake photos appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Continuing our series of articles from Index on Censorship‘s ‘Made In China’ issue, Rebecca MacKinnon discusses how online pioneers are changing Chinese culture

Read article here (pdf)

The post Countdown to Beijing, part 3 appeared first on Index on Censorship.