Skip to main content


According to Wikileaks this week, the CIA has plans to eavesdrop on us all via the microphones in smart TVs and smart phones.

Listening to a phone-in about this story (Radio 2’s Jeremy Vine show), one caller predictably took the line that if honest citizens didn’t have anything to hide, why should any of us worry? This was then followed by two oddball stories. One listener claimed to have heard faint voices coming out of the TV discussing his own lounge, which understandably spooked him. Another claimed she’d sent back her smart TV after cursing at it and seeing a message appear on screen asking her not to use abusive language.

I mention these three calls, as they illustrate the way that the opportunity to get into the real core of stories such as these, often gets  lost.
Don’t worry. I’m not expecting phone-ins to suddenly become logical in either order or content. I’ve presented too many of them in 14 years in radio, to expect any kind of structure when you open up the floodgates to the public. That’s part of the joy of them. But it was sad that the opportunity to focus for a few minutes on the increased intrusion aspect was lost. At least in the section I heard.

Anyway back to the frequently used “why should we worry?” argument. It’s true there may be benefits in allowing law enforcement and security services to snoop on private citizens – just as phone tapping has been debated for years by politicians and others - if it really helps them to catch terrorists and criminals and keep the rest of us safe. And such snooping is limited in scale. It’s a small trade off.

But isn’t the real story here that the technology even exists? And that sadly security and law enforcement officers don’t have a monopoly on these things, and once such facilities are out there, it may be only a matter of time before they fall into the wrong hands - exposing all of us to surveillance by all and sundry, including of course the bad guys.

Also, are we sleepwalking into a world like that portrayed in George Orwell’s 1984, where ‘telescreens’ monitor and control citizens in their homes. There are many aspects to society today and the way technology impacts on us, which Orwell would have recognised instantly from his nightmarish vision.
Apple, Samsung and others of course were quick to react with indignation to the news, and to reassure us that their latest software won’t allow such surveillance. And it is possible that improvements in operating systems may head the whole idea off at the pass. Yet nothing is ever that simple. Will governments pressurise manufacturers into leaving in ‘backdoors’ (without telling us!), or as happened a year or so back regarding password protection on an Apple phone, will they whenever it suits them, try to coerce makers into allowing officers access?

As a species, we’re easily seduced by the face value benefits of technology, and just as easily blinded to the downsides. There is no simple answer to all this, as great marketing words like ‘smart’ or ‘connected’ when applied to items like TVs and phones, go hand in hand with ‘their’ ability to monitor us. 
Many of us don’t mind our behaviour being monitored, as long as it doesn’t get personal. And it’s this sensitive part of the slider that we perhaps need to keep our eyes on.

For my part, I’m hoping technology will allow us to protect our identities far more.

Two years ago, there were attempts in the US to hammer out a voluntary code of conduct governing facial recognition technology, amid very real fears that holders of huge numbers of photographs (do I need to name them?) might gather them up and somehow allow everyone on the planet to be identified by anyone who buys the database.

A 2016 article in Wired quoted Alvaro Bedoya a Professor of law at Georgetown University saying it’s not hard to imagine a future where someone walks into a car dealership and immediately the dealership knows who they are, where they live, their income, their credit score – all thanks to Facebook.
OK we’re veering here into biometrics and their dangers, but let’s explore that a little. Two years ago nine groups concerned with personal privacy in the US including the American Civil Liberties Union and Consumer Federation of America had struggled in vain to agree terms with the biometrics lobby. As a parting shot they stressed that it was the facial recognition companies’ unwillingness to ask people’s permission that worried them. In a joint statement, they said “At a base minimum, people should be able to walk down a public street without fear that companies they’ve never heard of are tracking their every movement – and identifying them by name – using facial recognition technology”.

My own fear is that eventually a Pokemon-style app will become available, allowing anyone walking down the street to know instantly who everyone else is, and how much they’re worth.

We are interested in working with a company which does voice recognition for call centres. What I haven’t asked (yet) is whether people’s permission is being sought every time a member of the public for instance, phones a local authority or utility company. Maybe they are asked, but perhaps they think there’s no choice?

In an ideal world, there might be legislation which forces companies selling this kind of mass-use biometric identification technology to seek our permission first. And if we choose not to be on their database, there could be an optional way of proving we are who we say we are, which doesn’t require us to give away personal details.

Now where on earth could we find such a system?

March 10, 2017 | By Jonathan Craymer

Social Media

Copyright © 2017 Cloud-pin Limited. All rights reserved.