Nothing to Hide,Nothing to Fear?

Abstract

Demand for surveillance technologies often assumes that these technologies would accurately identify those guilty of crimes and only those guilty of crimes. But how accurate are surveillance technologies as “diagnostic” tools? Surveillance technologies have not been tested for accuracy in the manner we expect for medical diagnostic technologies. Tests of medical technologies are designed to address sensitivity (How many of those affected by a disease does the test identify?) and specificity (How many unaffected by the disease does the test show as healthy?). Even for tests with more than 90% sensitivity and specificity, the majority of test positive results are false. Using value estimates for facial recognition and DNA identification, this article estimates the answers to these questions for crime surveillance technologies. The vast majority of test positive results would be false. In other words, even those of us with “nothing to hide” may have much to fear from crime surveillance technologies.

Keywords

forensic technology assessment false positive predictive value

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ashmore, M. , Mulkay, M.J. , & Pinch, T.J. (1989). Health and efficiency: A sociology of health economics. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Beck, Ulrich. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.

Blume, S.S. (1991). Insight and industry: On the dynamics of technological change in medicine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bowker, G.C. , & Leigh Star, S. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cartwright, L. (1995). Screening the body: Tracing medicine's visual culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cole, S.A. (2001). Suspect identities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dahle, D.Y. (2005, November 16). Ser kriminaliteten i Oslo-gatene. Gjengslagsmål, knivstikking, brutale ran og mishandling med planker. Politiets egne bilder viser hva som foregår i Oslo-gatene [They see the crime in Oslo's streets. Gang fights, knifings, brutal armed robberies and beating with planks. The police's own pictures show what's happening in Oslo's streets]. Aftenposten. Retrieved from http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/oslo/article1150858.ece

Denmark Prime Minister's Office. (2005). Det danske samfunds indsats og beredskab mod terror [Danish society's efforts and preparedness against terror]. Retrieved from http://www.stm.dk/publikationer/terror/index.htm

Facial Recognition Vendor Test. (2002). Facial Recognition Vendor Test 2002. Retrieved from http://www.frvt.org/FRVT2002/default.htm

10.

Fine, A. (2006). Health care technology assessment handbook. Boston: Jones and Bartlett.

11.

Giddens A. (1991). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

12.

Inahta. (2001). A checklist for health technology assessment reports. Retrieved from http://www.dimdi.de/static/de/hta/methoden/sammlung/inahtachecklist.pdf

13.

Introna, L.D. , & Wood, D. (2004). Picturing algorithmic surveillance: The politics of facial recognition systems. Surveillance & Society , 2(2/3), 177-198. Available from Surveillance & Society Web site, http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/cctv.htm .

14.

Koehler, J.J. (2001). The psychology of numbers in the courtroom: How to make DNA match statistics seem impressive or insufficient. Southern California Law Review, 74, 1275-1306.

15.

Kristensen, F.B. , Hørder, M. , & Poulsen, P. (2001). Metodehåndbog for medicinsk teknologivurdering [Methods handbook for medical technology assessment]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Statens Institut for Medicinsk Teknologivurdering.

16.

Norwegian Rail. (2005). NSB ønsker trygghetskameraer [NSB wants security cameras]. Retrieved from http://www.nsb.no/internet/no/Nyheter/article.jhtml?articleID=29884&language=no

17.

Skolbekken, J.-A. (1995). The risk epidemic in medical journals. Social Scientific Medicine, 40, 291-305.

18.

Tagg, J. (1993). The burden of representation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

19.

Thacker, S.B. (1985). Quality of controlled clinical trials. The case of imaging ultrasound in obstetrics: A review. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 92, 437-444.