Subjecting students to surveillance tech is nothing new. Most schools have had cameras installed for years. Moving students from desks to laptops allows schools to monitor internet use, even when students aren’t on campus. Bringing police officers into schools to participate in disciplinary problems allows law enforcement agencies to utilize the same tech and analytics they deploy against the public at large. And if cameras are already in place, it’s often trivial to add facial recognition features.

The same tech that can keep kids from patronizing certain retailers is also being used to keep deadbeat kids from scoring free lunches. While some local governments in the United States are trying to limit the expansion of surveillance tech in their own jurisdictions, governments in the United Kingdom seem less concerned about the mission creep of surveillance technology.

Some students in the UK are now able to pay for their lunch in the school canteen using only their faces. Nine schools in North Ayrshire, Scotland, started taking payments using biometric information gleaned from facial recognition systems on Monday, according to the Financial Times. [alt link]

The technology is being provided by CRB Cunningham, which has installed a system that scans the faces of students and cross-checks them against encrypted faceprint templates stored locally on servers in the schools. It’s being brought in to replace fingerprint scanning and card payments, which have been deemed less safe since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the Financial Times report, 65 schools have already signed up to participate in this program, which has supposedly dropped transaction times at the lunchroom register to less than five seconds per student. I assume that’s an improvement, but it seems fingerprints/cards weren’t all that slow and there are plenty of options for touchless payment if schools need somewhere to spend their cafeteria tech money.

CRB says more than 97% of parents have consented to the collection and use of their children’s biometric info to… um… move kids through the lunch line faster. I guess the sooner you get kids used to having their faces scanned to do mundane things, the less likely they’ll be to complain when demands for info cross over into more private spaces.

The FAQ on the program makes it clear it’s a single-purpose collection governed by a number of laws and data collection policies. Parents can opt out at any time and all data is deleted after opt out or if the student leaves the school. It’s good this is being handled responsibly but, like all facial recognition tech, mistakes can (and will) be made. When these inevitably occur, hopefully the damage will be limited to a missed meal.

The FAQ handles questions specifically about this program. The other flyer published by the North Ayrshire Council explains nothing and implies facial recognition is harmless, accurate, and a positive addition to students’ lives.

We’re introducing Facial Recognition!

This new technology is now available for a contactless meal service!

Following this exciting announcement, the flyer moves on to discussing biometric collections and the tech that makes it all possible. It accomplishes this in seven short “land of contrasts” paragraphs that explain almost nothing and completely ignore the inherent flaws in these systems as well as the collateral damage misidentification can cause.

The section titled “The history of biometrics” contains no history. Instead, it says biometric collections are already omnipresent so why worry about paying for lunch with your face?

Whilst the use of biometric recognition has been steadily growing over the last decade or so, these past couple of years have seen an explosion in development, interest and vendor involvement, particularly in mobile devices where they are commonly used to verify the owner of the device before unlocking or making purchases.

If students want to learn more (or anything) about the history of biometrics, I guess they’ll need to do their own research. Because this is the next (and final) paragraph of the “history of biometrics” section:

We are delighted to offer this fast and secure identification technology to purchase our delicious and nutritious school meals

Time is a flattened circle, I guess. The history of biometrics is the present. And the present is the future of student payment options, of which there are several. But these schools have put their money on facial recognition, which will help them raise a generation of children who’ve never known a life where they weren’t expected to use their bodies to pay for stuff.

Source: UK Schools Normalizing Biometric Collection By Using Facial Recognition For Meal Payments | Techdirt

The UK’s intelligence services are to store their secret files in the AWS cloud in a deal inked earlier this year, according to reports.

The GCHQ organisation (electrical/radio communications eavesdropping), MI5 (domestic UK intelligence matters), MI6 (external UK intel) and also the Ministry of Defence (MoD) will access their data in the cloud, albeit in UK-located AWS data centres.

The news was first reported in the Financial Times newspaper (paywall), which said GCHQ drove the deal that was signed earlier this year, and the data will be stored in a high-security way. It is claimed by unknown sources that AWS itself will not have access to the data.

Apparently the three agencies plus the MoD will be able to access information faster and share it more quickly when needed. This is presumably in contrast to each agency storing its own information on its own on-premises computer systems.

[…]

The US’s CIA signed a $600m AWS Cloud contract in 2013. That contract was upgraded in 2020 and involved AWS, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle in a consortium.

Of course, for the US, AWS is a domestic firm. The French government is setting up its own sovereign public cloud called Bleu for sensitive government data. This “Cloud de Confiance” will be based on Microsoft’s Azure platform – and will include Microsoft 365 – but will apparently be “delivered via an independent environment” that has “immunity from all extraterritorial legislation and economic independence” from within an “isolated infrastructure that uses data centres located in France.”

In GCHQ’s reported view, no UK-based public cloud could provide the scale or capabilities needed for the security services data storage requirements.

[….]

Source: UK government hands secret services cloud contract to AWS • The Register

Huq, an established data vendor that obtains granular location information from ordinary apps installed on people’s phones and then sells that data, has been receiving GPS coordinates even when people explicitly opted-out of such collection inside individual Android apps, researchers and Motherboard have found.

The news highlights a stark problem for smartphone users: that they can’t actually be sure if some apps are respecting their explicit preferences around data sharing. The data transfer also presents an issue for the location data companies themselves. Many claim to be collecting data with consent, and by extension, in line with privacy regulations. But Huq was seemingly not aware of the issue when contacted by Motherboard for comment, showing that location data firms harvesting and selling his data may not even know whether they are actually getting this data with consent or not.

“This shows an urgent need for regulatory action,” Joel Reardon, assistant professor at the University of Calgary and the forensics lead and co-founder of AppCensus, a company that analyzes apps, and who first flagged some of the issues around Huq to Motherboard, said in an email. “I feel that there’s plenty wrong with the idea that—as long as you say it in your privacy policy—then it’s fine to do things like track millions of people’s every moment and sell it to private companies to do what they want with it. But how do we even start fixing problems like this when it’s going to happen regardless of whether you agree, regardless of any consent whatsoever.”

[…]

Huq does not publicly say which apps it has relationships with. Earlier this year Motherboard started to investigate Huq by compiling a list of apps that contained code related to the company. Some of the apps have been downloaded millions or tens of millions of times, including “SPEEDCHECK,” an internet speed testing app; “Simple weather & clock widget,” a basic weather app; and “Qibla Compass,” a Muslim prayer app.

Independently, Reardon and AppCensus also examined Huq and later shared some of their findings with Motherboard. Reardon said in an email that he downloaded one app called “Network Signal Info” and found that it still sent location and other data to Huq after he opted-out of the app sharing data with third parties.

[…]

Source: Location Data Firm Got GPS Data From Apps Even When People Opted Out

Our smart devices are listening. Whether it’s personally identifiable information, location data, voice recordings, or shopping habits, our smart assistants know far more than we realize.

[…]

All five services collect your name, phone number, device location, and IP address; the names and numbers of your contacts; your interaction history; and the apps you use. If you don’t like that information being stored, you probably shouldn’t use a voice assistant.

[…]

Keep in mind that no voice assistant provider is truly interested in protecting your privacy. For instance, Google Assistant and Cortana maintain a log of your location history and routers, Alexa and Bixby record your purchase history, and Siri tracks who is in your Apple Family.

[…]

If you’re looking to take control of your smart assistant, you can stop Alexa from sending your recordings to Amazon, turn off Google Assistant and Bixby, and manage Siri‘s data collection habits.

Source: Amazon’s Alexa Collects More of Your Data Than Any Other Smart Assistant

The new FTC report studied the privacy practices of six unnamed broadband ISPs and their advertising arms, and found that the companies routinely collect an ocean of consumer location, browsing, and behavioral data. They then share this data with dodgy middlemen via elaborate business arrangements that often aren’t adequately disclosed to broadband consumers.

“Even though several of the ISPs promise not to sell consumers personal data, they allow it to be used, transferred, and monetized by others and hide disclosures about such practices in fine print of their privacy policies,” the FTC report said.

The FTC also found that while many ISPs provide consumers tools allowing them to opt out of granular data collection, those tools are cumbersome to use—when they work at all. 

[…]

The agency’s report also found that while ISPs promise to only keep consumer data for as long as needed for “business purposes,” the definition of what constitutes a “business purpose” is extremely broad and varies among broadband providers and wireless carriers.

The report repeatedly cites Motherboard reporting showing how wireless companies have historically sold sensitive consumer location data to dubious third parties, often without user consent. This data has subsequently been abused from everyone from bounty hunters and stalkers to law enforcement and those posing as law enforcement.

The FTC was quick to note that because ISPs have access to the entirety of the data that flows across the internet and your home network, they often have access to even more data than what’s typically collected by large technology companies, ad networks, and app makers.

That includes the behavior of internet of things devices connected to your network, your daily movements, your online browsing history, clickstream data (not only which sites you visit but how much time you linger there), email and search data, race and ethnicity data, DNS records, your cable TV viewing habits, and more.

In some instances ISPs have even developed tracking systems that embed each packet a user sends over the internet with an individual identifier, allowing monitoring of user behavior in granular detail. Wireless carrier Verizon was fined $1.3 million in 2016 for implementing such a system without informing consumers or letting them opt out.

“Unlike traditional ad networks whose tracking consumers can block through browser or mobile device settings, consumers cannot use these tools to stop tracking by these ISPs, which use ‘supercookie’ technology to persistently track users,” the FTC report said.

[…]

Source: Internet Service Providers Collect, Sell Horrifying Amount of Sensitive Data, Government Study Concludes

In August, Apple declared that combating the spread of CSAM (child sexual abuse material) was more important than protecting millions of users who’ve never used their devices to store or share illegal material. While encryption would still protect users’ data and communications (in transit and at rest), Apple had given itself permission to inspect data residing on people’s devices before allowing it to be sent to others.

This is not a backdoor in a traditional sense. But it can be exploited just like an encryption backdoor if government agencies want access to devices’ contents or mandate companies like Apple do more to halt the spread of other content governments have declared troublesome or illegal.

Apple may have implemented its client-side scanning carefully after weighing the pros and cons of introducing a security flaw, but there’s simply no way to engage in this sort of scanning without creating a very large and slippery slope capable of accommodating plenty of unwanted (and unwarranted) government intercession.

Apple has put this program on hold for the time being, citing concerns raised by pretty much everyone who knows anything about client-side scanning and encryption. The conclusions that prompted Apple to step away from the precipice of this slope (at least momentarily) have been compiled in a report [PDF] on the negative side effects of client-side scanning, written by a large group of cybersecurity and encryption experts

[…]

Only policy decisions prevent the scanning expanding from illegal abuse images to other material of interest to governments; and only the lack of a software update prevents the scanning expanding from static images to content stored in other formats, such as voice, text, or video.

And if people don’t think governments will demand more than Apple’s proactive CSAM efforts, they haven’t been paying attention. CSAM is only the beginning of the list of content governments would like to see tech companies target and control.

While the Five Eyes governments and Apple have been talking about child sex-abuse material (CSAM) —specifically images— in their push for CSS, the European Union has included terrorism and organized crime along with sex abuse. In the EU’s view, targeted content extends from still images through videos to text, as text can be used for both sexual solicitation and terrorist recruitment. We cannot talk merely of “illegal” content, because proposed UK laws would require the blocking online of speech that is legal but that some actors find upsetting.

Once capabilities are built, reasons will be found to make use of them. Once there are mechanisms to perform on-device censorship at scale, court orders may require blocking of nonconsensual intimate imagery, also known as revenge porn. Then copyright owners may bring suit to block allegedly infringing material.

That’s just the policy and law side. And that’s only a very brief overview of clearly foreseeable expansions of CSS to cover other content, which also brings with it concerns about it being used as a tool for government censorship. Apple has already made concessions to notoriously censorial governments like China’s in order to continue to sell products and services there.

[…]

CSS is at odds with the least-privilege principle. Even if it runs in middleware, its scope depends on multiple parties in the targeting chain, so it cannot be claimed to use least-privilege in terms of the scanning scope. If the CSS system is a component used by many apps, then this also violates the least-privilege principle in terms of scope. If it runs at the OS level, things are worse still, as it can completely compromise any user’s device, accessing all their data, performing live intercept, and even turning the device into a room bug.

CSS has difficulty meeting the open-design principle, particularly when the CSS is for CSAM, which has secrecy requirements for the targeted content. As a result, it is not possible to publicly establish what the system actually does, or to be sure that fixes done in response to attacks are comprehensive. Even a meaningful audit must trust that the targeted content is what it purports to be, and so cannot completely test the system and all its failure modes.

Finally, CSS breaks the psychological-acceptability principle by introducing a spy in the owner’s private digital space. A tool that they thought was theirs alone, an intimate device to guard and curate their private life, is suddenly doing surveillance on behalf of the police. At the very least, this takes the chilling effect of surveillance and brings it directly to the owner’s fingertips and very thoughts.

[…]

Despite this comprehensive report warning against the implementation of client-side scanning, there’s a chance Apple may still roll its version out. And once it does, the pressure will be on other companies to do at least as much as Apple is doing to combat CSAM.

Source: Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments | Techdirt

CSAM is like installing listening software on a device. Once anyone has access to install whatever they like, there is nothing stopping them from listening in to everything. Despite the technically interesting name CSAM basically it’s talking about the manufacturer installing spyware on your device.

The Party for the Animals (PvdD) wants clarity from outgoing minister Dekker for Legal Protection about a camera on Albert Heijn’s self-scanner. It concerns the PS20 from manufacturer Zebra. According to this company, the camera on the self-scanner supports facial recognition to automatically identify customers. PvdD MPs Van Raan and Wassenberg want to know whether facial recognition is used in Albert Heijn stores in any way. The minister must also explain what legal basis Albert Heijn or other supermarket chains can rely on if they decide to use facial recognition. Finally, the PvdD MPs want to know what Minister Dekker can do to prevent supermarkets from using facial recognition now or in the future.

Source: PvdD wil opheldering over camera op zelfscanner van Albert Heijn – Emerce

More than 240 metro stations across Moscow now allow passengers to pay for a ride by looking at a camera. The Moscow metro has launched what authorities say is the first mass-scale deployment of a facial recognition payment system. According to The Guardian, passengers can access the payment option called FacePay by linking their photo, bank card and metro card to the system via the Mosmetro app. “Now all passengers will be able to pay for travel without taking out their phone, Troika or bank card,” Moscow mayor Sergey Sobyanin tweeted.

In the official Moscow website’s announcement, the country’s Department of Transport said all Face Pay information will be encrypted. The cameras at the designated turnstyles will read a passenger’s biometric key only, and authorities said information collected for the system will be stored in data centers that can only be accessed by interior ministry staff. Moscow’s Department of Information Technology has also assured users that photographs submitted to the system won’t be handed over to the cops.

Still, privacy advocates are concerned over the growing use of facial recognition in the city. Back in 2017, officials added facial recognition tech to the city’s 170,000 security cameras as part of its efforts to ID criminals on the street. Activists filed a case against Moscow’s Department of Technology a few years later in hopes of convincing the courts to ban the use of the technology. However, a court in Moscow sided with the city, deciding that its use of facial recognition does not violate the privacy of citizens. Reuters reported earlier this year, though, that those cameras were also used to identify protesters who attended rallies.

Stanislav Shakirov, the founder of Roskomsvoboda, a group that aims to protect Russians’ digital rights, said in a statement:

“We are moving closer to authoritarian countries like China that have mastered facial technology. The Moscow metro is a government institution and all the data can end up in the hands of the security services.”

Meanwhile, the European Parliament called on lawmakers in the EU earlier this month to ban automated facial recognition in public spaces. It cited evidence that facial recognition AI can still misidentify PoCs, members of the LGBTI+ community, seniors and women at higher rates. In the US, local governments are banning the use of the technology in public spaces, including statewide bans by Massachusetts and Maine. Four Democratic lawmakers also proposed a bill to ban the federal government from using facial recognition.

Source: Moscow metro launches facial recognition payment system despite privacy concerns | Engadget

Of course one of the huge problems with biometrics is that you can’t change them. Once you are compromised, you can’t go and change the password.

After two years of offering car insurance to drivers across California, Tesla’s officially bringing a similar offering to clientele in its new home state of Texas. As Electrek first reported, the big difference between the two is how drivers’ premiums are calculated: in California, the prices were largely determined by statistical evaluations. In Texas, your insurance costs will be calculated in real-time, based on your driving behavior.

Tesla says it grades this behavior using the “Safety Score” feature—the in-house metric designed by the company in order to estimate a driver’s chance of future collision. These scores were recently rolled out in order to screen drivers that were interested in testing out Tesla’s “Full Self Driving” software, which, like the Safety Score itself, is currently in beta. And while the self-driving software release date is, um, kind of up in the air for now, Tesla drivers in the lone-star state can use their safety score to apply for quotes on Tesla’s website as of today.

As Tesla points out in its own documents, relying on a single score makes the company a bit of an outlier in the car insurance market. Most traditional insurers round up a driver’s costs based on a number of factors that are wholly unrelated to their actual driving: depending on the state, this can include age, gender, occupation, and credit score, all playing a part in defining how much a person’s insurance might cost.

Tesla, on the other hand, relies on a single score, which the company says get tallied up based on five different factors: the number of forward-collision warnings you get every 1,000 miles, the number of times you “hard brake,” how often you take too-fast turns, how closely you drive behind other drivers, and how often they take their hands off the wheel when Autopilot is engaged.

[…]

Source: Tesla’s Bringing Car Insurance to Texas W/ New ‘Safety Score’

The idea sounds reasonable – but giving Tesla my location data and allowing them to process and sell that doesn’t.

A new research paper written by a team of academics and computer scientists from Spain and Austria has demonstrated that it’s possible to use Facebook’s targeting tools to deliver an ad exclusively to a single individual if you know enough about the interests Facebook’s platform assigns them.

The paper — entitled “Unique on Facebook: Formulation and Evidence of (Nano)targeting Individual Users with non-PII Data” — describes a “data-driven model” that defines a metric showing the probability a Facebook user can be uniquely identified based on interests attached to them by the ad platform.

The researchers demonstrate that they were able to use Facebook’s Ads manager tool to target a number of ads in such a way that each ad only reached a single, intended Facebook user.

[…]

Source: Researchers show Facebook’s ad tools can target a single user | TechCrunch

England’s National Data Guardian has warned that government plans to allow data sharing between NHS bodies and the police could “erode trust and confidence” in doctors and other healthcare providers.

Speaking to the Independent newspaper, Dr Nicola Byrne said she had raised concerns with the government over clauses in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

The bill, set to go through the House of Lords this month, could force NHS bodies such as commissioning groups to share data with police and other specified authorities to prevent and reduce serious violence in their local areas.

Dr Byrne said the proposed law could “erode trust and confidence, and deter people from sharing information, and even from presenting for clinical care.”

Meanwhile, the bill [PDF] did not detail what information it would cover, she said. “The case isn’t made as to why that is necessary. These things need to be debated openly and in public.”

In a blog published last week, Dr Byrne said the bill imposes a duty on clinical groups in the NHS to disclose information to police without breaching any obligation of patient confidentiality.

“Whilst tackling serious violence is important, it is essential that the risks and harms that this new duty pose to patient confidentiality, and thereby public trust, are engaged with and addressed,” she said.

[…]

Source: England’s Data Guardian warns of plans to grant police access to patient data • The Register