Archive for December, 2006

The New Decayed Painting by Stanza: Private View Invite.

December 17th, 2006
Stanza artworks 1990 Oil On Canvas

Stanza artworks 1990 Oil On Canvas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

stanza image

Stanza: Private View invite. (Ten years online…The New Decayed)

There are several of my artworks about data cities and how this can be represented and visualized online. I have interpreted data from security tracking, and environmental monitoring. These artworks involve collecting the data, visualizing the data, and then displaying the data. The outputs from the online interfaces and online visualizations are realized as real time dynamic artworks as diverse as installations, and real objects, made out of new display materials back in physical space.

Check out the site http://www.stanza.co.uk

Ethical grounding and changing relationship to our data in our surveillance driven society

December 9th, 2006

The ethical implications of using personalized data and CCTV recordings are embedded within the UK Data Protection Act.

The lawyers at the Watershed media Centre looked into this on my behalf. They concluded that provided the images were abstracted then this also met the guidelines of the Data Protection Act.

In general I aim for transparency, and gain consent if I use personal data. I also open the data via shared ownership which is placed in public domain. In my work collected data is subject to abstraction through my working process; once the personal identifiers have been removed from the data, then the resulting anonymized dataset is no longer subject to the Data Protection Act.

The key rules underlying the Act are:

  • Transparency – ensuring individuals have a very clear and unambiguous understanding of the purpose(s) for collecting the data and how it will be used;
  • Consent – at the time that the data is collected, individuals must give their consent to their data being collected, and also at this time, have the opportunity to opt out of any subsequent uses of the data.

Key to the rules of the Data Protection Act is what we describe as personal data. Within “The Emergent City”, I will initially focus on the data sets of noise, pollution, light, and temperature. In the collection of this type of data there is no conflict with data protection of privacy laws.

In the case of CCTV and more specific data for personal use, signs are usually put up in the public domain. Where I put my owns networks I will place signs. Consent has been sought in previous projects that make work which doesn’t have anonymity.

Issues of data protection have a great deal currency due to emerging technologies that are being embedded into the fabric of our everyday lives.

The whole emphasis of my work is in data relating to urban spaces to make informed, interpretive media artworks. However the use of the data that can be utilized from these tracking and surveillance technologies will also be important and have influence on my artistic working practice.

I am continuing to explore these issues, especially as data protection expands into technologies such as; smartcards for national identification (ID) schemes; biometric data, including proposed biometric passports; microchip implants and radio frequency identification (RFID) technology.

In summary the ethical grounding and changing relationship to our data in our surveillance driven society bring up a whole paradigm of debate that I am keen to engage in. This debate is very complex and also very current, and I aim to follow it and engage within it closely.

Stanza questions systems and the ethics of The Control Space

December 8th, 2006

Stanza question systems and the  ethics of The Control Space

Up until recently this technology was mediocre at best. The concepts that fuelled this infrastructure seemed to lean to Orwell and the deployment of all CCTV has been paid for by and large using public money which could have been spent elsewhere (housing hospitals schools etc).

Stanza: Visitors To A Gallery. 2007. CCTV systems and ethics.

Stanza: Visitors To A Gallery. 2007. CCTV systems and ethics.

The question is, how are these new technologies being sold to government? Ie the hugely costly National Health database or ID cards schemes. In both cases new technologies sold largely untested. In so many cases new technologies are bought by ministers who don’t understand the technology.

How could they understand these implications of these technologies? They couldn’t understand that in the early days of CCTV most cameras would run out of tape and all of the rest would probably have such bad lenses that you couldn’t see anything anyway. However, it is their duty to understand the conceptual unpinning of the tech rather than how it works. And the conceptual underpinning seems to have been ignored, or if it hasn’t been ignored then this has gone on unchecked and un-monitored.

Rather like a bush fire, once one system had been put in place by one council; they all followed suite. None of them really checked to see how these systems actually worked or where evaluated. Plenty of people here have spent plenty of other peoples money fuelling a whole industry to watch us moving about just to spot a few criminals.) or has there always been a bigger picture , a master plan)

CCTV CCTV CCTV.  Stanza question systems and the  ethics of The Control Space

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Despite ten years of poor CCTV and stories of people getting attacked only to find CCTV systems not working, the powers that be, have stuck with this agenda and now the tech ( after huge development and investment) can read the time off your wristwatch. So know we have men sit in kiosks watching our movement through city space and software that can detect patterns on the flow, where you are going.

Now the technology has got interesting there are other considerations. The patterns we weave through our urban infrastructure can inform us about our urban and rural environment. But these systems should be used to watch people, we should trust our people. The premise of all this current deployment is mistrust. Ie these systems have been put in for the wrong reasons.

As much as people watch and vet criminal activity for employment in schools etc who is watching these people watching and monitoring these systems.

Certainly data bases of information are growing and expanding and in theory the public think there are hackers out there using sophisticated techniques to get access to data. By and large back doors are like all doors, most entry is done because the doors aren’t closed ie they are left open . The idea of thinking about back doors is to suggest that criminals are looking to leverage there way in ( although this my be the case ) it its too focused of the criminal misuse of collective data and not focused enough on what value the data give the collective.

 

There is far worse response it the collective abuse by the owners of these systems, this is what needs to be monitored Take the national DNA database which is owned by the forensic science department. Who owns this data, could it ever be sold. How else is the data being exploited? Who owns each individuals data, surely we each and all own the copyright to our own DNA. Why is the state taking our possessions, our DNA and re appropriating our data like another tax. Although they say they seek to protect us (ie the reason for collecting the data) how are they actually protecting my data? How do they seek to exploit ‘ property’ which is mine that has a value? Why do I feel abused?

More importantly in the systems data can be mined in ways that we cannot conceive. The development of new algorithms, data mining, and computer techniques can leverage and present new meaning from these systems in ways that we haven’t come close to guessing at. These new data sets can be exploited for corporate gain, even though the data belongs to the individual. This data can also be exploited to track patterns that we have spent the best part of the 20th C trying to avoid, ie totalitarian, iron curtains, Bent ham observation systems where everyone is spying on everyone.

For example lets get complicated and mix your tax records with patterns of spending from your credit cards, and your DNA type, mix this up with you mobile phone records and we can probably find for example any man of Irish decent who is married that might have bought a condom….or Muslim who travels regularly or….

The issue with most of this vulnerability of new technology is that most people who want to use it have no idea how to use it, or no idea that thing can always be used for others reasons. Example mobile phone for speech communication is now widely used as typewriter text editor for sending tested messages. This is just an example of a ubiquitous technology that goes to market and the people that brought it to market aren’t even aware what it might be used for. (I mean who would have guessed it)

Now with CCTV and chips and data mining of databases things are getting complex, without some ethical monitoring we will have no idea what is being sourced here and how its is being used and abused. Nor will we have any idea how this data is being shifted around, cross referenced and exploited by companies and governments never mind terrorists and criminals.

 

Stanza Art CCTV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe the world is indeed full of criminals but by and large we shouldn’t baton down the hatches Let the data be made public, open it up…..not just one gate keeper. Everyone whose data is on the system should have access. Lets try another approach lets trust one another.

I believe we should remove the passwords. What is the point of just trusting a select few people we don’t know we should trust everyone. It’s surely better to trust everyone than to mistrust everyone which is the road we have taken.

I am researching data within cities and how this can be represented, visualized and interpreted. Data from security tracking, traffic, and environmental monitoring can all be interpreted as a medium to make artworks. I investigate new ways of comparing, conceptualizing and then visualizing complex concepts related to the relationship of emergent data and real space in the built environment. In all my work I try to exploit the changing dynamics of city life as a source for creativity and create meaningful artistic metaphors. I utilize new technologies and integrate new media artworks into the public domain as part of this ongoing research into the visualization of city space. In essence I am researching data as a medium for creativity and how meaningful experiences of our cities may result. By investigating these data structures I aim to create new metaphors relevant to the experience of the city. The patterns we make, the visual and imaginative interpretations we give to real world events, are already being networked into retrievable data structures that can be re-imagined and source for information. These patterns disclose new ways of seeing the world. The value of gathering and re-presenting this data in artistic form, and then analyzing its impact and influence, lies in making meaning accessible to a wider audience.

I have a number of related artworks on my that you might find of interest….please go and have a look.

Here are four below.

Genomixer …….an open source DNA database….http://www.genomixer.com

Urban generation…… http://www.stanza.co.uk/urban_tapestry/index.html

Sensity artworks are made from the data that is collected across the urban and environment infrastructure. http://www.stanza.co.uk/sensity/index.html

Publicity. All the resulting data from a cctv network is projected over the building so that the outside of the building becomes a huge display network. http://www.stanza.co.uk/publicity/index.html

regards

Stanza