This article discussed the prevalence/role of online surveillance in contemporary society. In particular, the article looks at how data gathering agencies use their information in risk management strategies and examines how this plays a role in power relations. He notes that there are three main categories of cyberspace surveillance that relate to: 1) employment, 2) to security and policing, and 3) to marketing. He also notes that the line between these categories is blurred as they are connected and often share information.
As previously stated, all forms of surveillance share the common goal of risk management. By collecting data, analyzing trends and generating predictions based upon those trend the surveillant can attempt to influence events in order to create a more desirable future for themselves. In the employment aspect of surveillance, employers monitor the online activities of their employees as a way of maximizing the efficiency of their workers. SurfWatch determined that the three categories accounting for the largest portions of non-work surfing were general news, sexually explicit material, and investment information. It is estimated that this non-work surfing costs companies approximately $450 million annually. If a company’s data reveals that a particular worker is using company time to visit porn sites then they can eliminate him and thusly reduce the risk of employees using company time unproductively. This provides a good example of the panopticon in that since employees know that they are being watched then they are less likely to engage in unproductive activities for fear of punishment.
The security and policing aspect of surveillance is also panoptic for the same reasons. Whether the surveillance is real or imagined the potential threat of punishment deters those who would use the internet for some misdoing. However, this aspect of internet surveillance can also be viewed as being representative of biopower as it also concerns itself with managing populations through the protection of life.
The marketing aspect of surveillance is the most prevalent form of surveillance on the internet today and it is likely that not one of us have escaped its gaze. Unlike the other two forms of surveillance this aspect of surveillance is much less insidious. Marketing groups typically keep track of aggregate data rather than personal data in order to extract meaningful patterns and trends. This essentially allows them to microtarget their customer base and provide “mass customization” to their consumers. Unlike the previous aspects of surveillance this more indicative of biopower than disciplinary power.
The author also discusses the two major concerns regarding the outcomes of surveillance. The first these concerns is that surveillance produces social inequality and thus access and exclusion. One of the ways in which this social inequality is evident is in that the observers in the employment aspect of surveillance often goes unobserved though it is also evident in the fact that it marginalizes the socially disadvantaged by maintaining a barrier between consumer and non-consumer. The second concern regards the invasion of privacy on identity and human dignity. This is as a result of the person being unable to control communication of information about his or her own self. He claims that these two aspects should not be viewed as separate from each other but instead as being two sides of the same coin. To make their relationship clear he states “Identification and identity, for example, may be the means of inclusion and exclusion. Personhood is realized in participation.”
The author also notes that beyond the questions of participation and personhood lie some
further concerns about the nature of contemporary cyberspace surveillance. The kinds of issues just discussed assume that modern discourses of human rights and social justice still hold true in the world of the internet. However, he states that the internet has been implicated in certain cultural shifts that call this into question. The author states that surveillance practices are not so much a threat to the "privacy" of an individual subject, but are actually involved in the very constitution of subjects and that this puts a new slant on surveillance.
This new slant, he argues, has risk management at its core. He claims that this could be seen as “post-disciplinary” situation where the quest for efficiency has become the primary concern. The “mythical goal” of this surveillance, he argues, is to draw predictions from correlations and social data.
Although the author argues that surveillance is a negative aspect of the internet I would argue that he overlooked its capacity for good. If a government were to use this technology to map public opinions and respond to them in an appropriate manner than this technology could be a very useful tool for democracy.
Unfortunately, this is not the case and most often the data that is collected is simply used to measure how well the spread of propaganda is working.
Which aspect of internet surveillance concerns you the most? Why?
Additional Resources
Little Brother is Watching You
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v9n2/brother.html
Data Mining the Kids
http://utoronto.academia.edu/SaraGrimes/Papers/99368/Data_Mining_the_Kids_Surveillance_and_Market_Research_Strategies_in_Childrens_Online_Games
Communication and the Control Revolution
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:m86WVScmCngJ:maghis.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/4/10.full.pdf+the+control+revolution+pdf&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgBiJyOdYJL8hlxI3mKb-EkFxQMxwa5xF16rLy-DrHrGsUVBvGYs8PmD79ScnkY3LHX7l-wENjMQ82Ag_IYbbeIPRAnD5agyJSp9qcMoTyhk86CMuQP60imOX75GLEuqWFJKvFv&sig=AHIEtbRSS39jVJnR8imghmGf4R-VeKmMEA
Online Surveillance Software/Data Mining
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lKpD7MC22I
FACEBOOK: Federal Human Data Mining Program
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwnTWZ1-UWY
The Face Behind Facebook/Is Facebook your Friend?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPX2UrXcFpo&feature=related
I'm interested in the ways in which surveillance can be used for potential good. Often the tension is between surveillance and safety (it is argued that we require CCTV, for example, to prevent crime). Surveillance on the internet, however, seems less like it provides the opportunity for safety; would you suggest that surveillance makes the internet more safe?
ReplyDeleteSorry I took so long to reply. The email from this site goes to an account that I don't use and I only came on here a few days ago to post my other critical responses.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, to some extent, I would argue that internet surveillance does make the internet more safe. If we simply allowed hackers to run rampant on the net, upload viruses and cause mayhem without there being some potential for punishment than I think the internet would be a much more dangerous place. Not to mention child pornography. There was a commercial I saw recently with a man who went on to some teenaged girl site and the girl walked up to her web camera, turned it around, and the man saw that he was looking at himself as a message came on the screen saying, “We’re watching you.” or something like that. I haven’t been able to find the commercial online but I think that it shows how panoptic surveillance can be used to make the internet safer. Of course, this really all depends on how the information collected is being used and there is potential for both good and bad to come out of it.