As the digital world advances, we have seen many new different industires arise. Digital world and social media has become one of the most rapid growing industires of our time. The internet and cyberspace are the main reasons for such growth. Users have become consumers, as well as producers through the interactivity that cyberspace provides. One that uses facebook or simply uses the search bar on Google Chrome is providing enough information to cyberspace to be consider a producer. I, personally, do not use most of the social media outlets. However I do use Facebook, Snapchat and LinkedIn, and as it is evident by these three social media outlets, all of them do not produce any content instead they allow their users to post pictures, to like, to share ideas and thoughts, basically to create content,  while also allowing each of their followers , friends or connections to be the consumers of the content. Well, it sounds like a dream come true, one no longer has to wait to see their special friend to able to connect with them, or even have to wait to see their friends to show them their amazing time at that awesome vaction trip. Now it is easy to do all those things through the interactivity of cyberspace, but what can possibly go wrong? Well here is the catch as Mark Andrjevic states on his book, “Interactivity is not necessarily a two-way street; more often than not, it amounts to the offer of convenience in exchange for willing or unwitting submission to increasingly detailed forms of information gathering”. Users of cyberspace are not just providing content that their friends can see, they also providing information to these platforms by allowing them to surveilled their actions in exchange of the convenience of using cyberspace. Well, how much information is being obtained and stored by these platforms? Mark provided us with an example of one his close friends, whom currently works with these information storage platform. His friend showed a 25 page long report on just the basic transactions the friend had done. Within these reports, there were so much information including addresses of the person residency, even names of roomates and much more. But where does it stop? It doesn’t, I don’t think it will ever stop. Here’s the reason why. As Mark stated, much of these digital survellience is happening for two reasons prevention of crimes in other words security and also for capitalism. Market survellience has surpass our privacy standards with things such as contextual adverstising, digital enclosure and more. Contextual Advertising might seem appealing to some consumers but I, personally, do not agree with the concept. Mark refers to contextual advertising, as the ability to custome advertising depending on your location, your search history or your recent online transactions. To me this seems a little overboard, and exactly where is not acceptable for my consumer profile to be invade. I look at the bigger picture although, it might seem convenient for someone who’s looking for a future vaction spot to keep getting ads or beautiful places; where will it stop? Next thing that might happen is that these algorithms might control our actions, bombarding us with information of what to buy, what news to see, what to eat, etc.

State Survelliance, is another example how our actions are being monitored and controlled through cyberspace. This technique of disciplinary power affects each and everyone of us. One way that it has affected me is while job searching or simply graduate school searching. As some of us might know, jobs and schools recruiting teams are now looking through social media outlets and sometimes basing their decision on what they might find about the candidate. Some may even argue that the excistance of the electronic panopticon is sufficient to reduce crimes and misdemeanors from oncurring.

http://www.today.com/video/schools-social-media-monitoring-draws-criticism-privacy-concerns-518595139752

This idea is very close to the idea of the panopticon. Focault uses the example of a new form of prison architechture in British, which gave the inmates an illusion that they were constantly being watched. This design was one of the best way to control the inmates behavior. Similarly digital survellience and all these programs are now being the new panopticon. It creates the idea of being watched and also being the one doing the watching. As Foucault states “The major effect of panopticon is to induce in the inmate a state of concious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic funcitioning of power. So to arrange things that surveillance is permanent in its effect, even if its discontinuous in actions.” Personally this concept has stopped from doing certain things  not necessarily illegal. But even the thought of encountoring with your future boss, or simply being on the web looking for a job  and being afraid that they might find that stupid icture of you and your frined from snapchat. Now that we know our actions are being watched, we behave differently. Now my questions to you are: Do you think anyone has privacy in today’s world? If you had access to your future date or lover’s information will you use it to based your decision?

Everything we do is being monitored online, tracked and stored somewhere, and accessible to whoever holds that degree of power. Even when we are using the “incognito” feature of Chrome’s web browser, it’s not technically “surveillance-free” and that no one will know what pages you have visited or what you have done online during that time. It just deletes your cookies and browsing history for that session, but your IP address and location are still traceable and just by logging on the web, you are opening yourself up to data storing.

source: Jonathan McIntosh 

Some forms of market surveillance that I have produced myself is by using Spotify. I love everything about Spotify. I can discover, stream, and download music both efficiently and effectively. Spotify uses a surveillance algorithm of its own. They have a feature called “Your Daily Mix” which tailors music specifically to your liking. When I click on a song to listen, Spotify saves that information so it can suggest similar music it thinks I may enjoy as well. I personally love that feature because I can just click on that playlist with songs that Spotify has recommended to me to discover more music!

source: me!

According to Carole Cadwalladr’s article, “Google, democracy and the truth about internet search”, she interviews Jonathan Albright, an assistant professor of communications at Elon University. He states that, “They have created a web that is bleeding through on to our web. This isn’t a conspiracy. There isn’t one person who’s created this. It’s a vast system of hundreds of different sites that are using all the same tricks that all websites use. They’re sending out thousands of links to other sites and together this has created a vast satellite system of rightwing news and propaganda that has completely surrounded the mainstream media system.” Albright is saying that many digital authorities have created a new era basically in the digital world. Now that everything you do online is capable and probably is being traced and stored somewhere, it makes the individual using the web to think a little more when surfing the web. It’s like someone is following you in the digital world, just observing what you do. For me, I do think twice a little more when I fill out surveys, create new accounts for websites, and even what I’m doing at the current time. For example, I wouldn’t just click on any advertisement that pops up in my screen, because most of the time they are asking you to create an account, enter your credit card information for a chance to win a MacBook… thanks but no thanks.

source: Phillip Hirsch

State surveillance is somewhat on a different level that market surveillance. The purpose for state surveillance is to reduce crimes online and deviate any illegal activity. So therefore, I believe the perceived existence of the “electronic panopticon” is sufficient to reduce the likelihood of crimes and misdemeanors occurring. The government does participate in their share of state surveillance. According to Athique, “In responding to the effective emergence of an interactive public sphere, governments everywhere are forced, to some extent at least, to demonstrate their public authority by entering this turbulent domain of public discussion under new terms and conditions (page 337.)” An example of this, was back in January of 2012, the FBI shut down Megaupload Ltd, which was online file-sharing company that was allegedly dedicated to host files that are subject to copyright infringement and piracy. Consumers who used the file-sharing company were not prosecuted but only the founders of the company were.

source: Eddie Wrenn

In conclusion, the fact that online surveillance is inevitable does make me be cautious of what I do online. I have illegally downloaded software, music in the past but that was because I did not know better. Now that I am older and wiser, I know what to do and what not to do. I’m not saying I don’t do any illegal activities online, even if it is minor, but I do limit myself. For example, I don’t illegally download music anymore because I use Spotify now, unless that song is not on Spotify, then that’s a different story 🙂

Do you think market surveillance is better/worse than state surveillance, or vice versa? In what way(s) do you think digital surveillance can be limited in order to protect privacy?

Like Mark Andrejevic states, Google did not give free Internet to the U.S (starting with San Francisco) out of the kindness of their hearts (1), but they did so for advertisement profit. Google can see your location and gather other information from you, which is then used to bombard you with advertisements. Google makes money out of providing “free Internet”. Internet access is “free” because there is access to the Internet when you don’t need to pay, but you do pay in a sense, you pay by providing companies like Google with information about you so they can sell it to advertisers. On top of that, we still pay for Internet plans and web access on our smart devices, so we pretty much pay to see these advertisements. We are constantly being watched and monitored on cyberspace. “Most of us have some vague understanding that marketers are gathering information about us… but we have very little knowledge about what information is being gathered, who has access to it, and how it is being used” (7). Today, we need the internet, whether it be for school, our job, or personal use. The kinds of personal information that would be collected from me on the web is a good chunk since my Instagram and Facebook profiles are public. Information like my location, age, interests, and friends are few of the many things that companies have collected from my “consumer profile”. The web (Google definitely included), is very beneficial, but we must learn to use it as safely as possible. I don’t really mind my information being collected because I am media literate. If anything, we can use these advertisements and algorithms to our advantage to find cheaper prices, to learn about new innovations, and so fourth. The way to make these type of situations a little better is to in fact become media literate. If we are media literate, then ads should not affect us in the same way, and we should have a more in-depth understanding of it. I took a media literacy class before, and I think it is a course that should be given in high school and college, it teaches you about the media itself, how we are flooded with advertisements, and how to become literate when it comes to the media. Why is a Media Literacy class not a mandated one in today’s day and age? Do you think a Media Literacy class would benefit you?

Although I don’t mind my likes and public profile being watched, I do feel weird about my private information being watched as well. As humans in this day and age, we use technology to send all sorts of private information, which we assume are private. But if we are constantly under surveillance, is anything really private? As our generation grew up using the web, we were taught that nothing is fully private online, however the Government also monitors “offline” information, like phone records and so forth, which further invades our privacy. The statement “if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t worry about it” makes sense to a certain extent. Only because something is illegal does not mean it is wrong, and we have seen this with many of the laws in our society. This surveillance can be used and indeed sometimes is used as a form of control, like Michel Foucault states “The disciplinary society, then, is a prison both within and without walls. One outcome of disciplinary action on this mass scale is ‘govern-mentality’, a new form of impersonal, rationalized, authoritarian rule” (211 – 212).

I do not constantly keep in mind that I am being “watched”. We are entitled to private conversations that should not be monitored however. With all this being said, when I do my business online, the only time I do things differently have been when a party I am speaking with says that the conversation is better for “in person” and/or if I am looking to travel, I search in a private browser so prices do not increase. I don’t do anything “illegal” online anymore though, although I did use LimeWire before, watched free movies and shows online, etc. Many people are not aware of the surveillance they undergo when participating online, so surveillance alone would not be sufficient enough to stop crime, being caught is another story though.

This all reminds me of when Edward Snowden leaked classified information from the National Security Agency in 2013, many people did not even know about it. In the video below, Edward Snowden talks about the surveillance that occurs, how he feels about it, and why he leaked the classified information. You can learn more about the leaks and more from the following article.

Digital surveillance.  Whether you have thought about it or not, we all know we’re being watched by society and marketing agency.  The part that tends to freak us out is the impact the information gathered society and marketers have on our day-to-day lives.

Image Source

Mark Andrejevic  states “companies are able to track our movements, transactions, and communications without our permission or, in many cases, knowledge” (4); a concept that blends together digital enclosure and interactivity.  Michel Foucault similarly believes without us even being aware of what is happening we’re being disciplined .. disciplined to believe whatever society and marketers want us to believe.  “The disciplinary society is a social formation in which we become both jailor and the jailed” (Athique 212).

During the past week online, my online activities consisted of Instagram searching of a new hairstylist, Facebook and Pinterest searching of a new hair style for the spring/summer season as well as a new color.  For the purpose of this blogpost, it’s important to note that these searches were conducted on my iPhone.  A few days into my iPhone searches, I found whenever I found myself googling something on my laptop there was an AD for different NYC hair colorists and hair salons.  At first, I found this strangely useful because the marketing agencies that Apple shared their algorithms with are successfully reaching consumers.  But as I thought about it more in the context of what is actually happening, I was being digitally surveilled.

I realized the only way my laptop was able to capture what I was searching on my phone was the fact I have my Apple ID and iMessage enabled on all my Apple devices so data is constantly being synced from one device to another which constitutes my permission.  In this particular case, I found it acceptable that my “consumer profile” was collated and stored for future use by third parties.  However, if the algorithms gave more of my personal information such as the mileage I was willing to travel, my mode of transportation, or access to my bank records to estimate the price I would be willing to pay for a hair appointment, it won’t be acceptable.

In the above situation, the technique of disciplinary power that applies is the observation of consumer behaviors for commercial advantage.  This technique applies to me and most likely many of you on a day-to-day basis without you even thinking about it.  When you’re online shopping for example and you add items into the shopping cart but don’t actually purchase the item, you might find on Facebook and throughout your internet browsing ADs pertaining to that particular store.  Marketing agencies use this technique to get you, the consumer, to go back to their website and purchase the items in the shopping cart; the ultimate goal of making a profit.

But how do marketers get access to this information in the first place?  The answer can best be explained as an “electronic panopticon.”  It’s obvious that there’s either some algorithm or spyware-like layer in our devices that allow marketers to do this but are we always aware of this?  It depends on what you’re doing on your device at the moment.  I believe depending on the act, your mind triggers this knowledge on so you second guess yourself–second guess yourself as to whether what you’re doing is illegal or legal, right or wrong, and even acceptable or not.  For example, I’ve had multiple experiences when I was younger where I would download music from a music website that promised free downloads and during the download, the website would ask for personal information such as my name and a credit card information.  When this occurred, I had enough knowledge at the time to realize what I was doing was illegal and wrong.

• Do you believe we are entitled to privacy from all websites and/or devices?
• With the knowledge we have now, do you see yourself changing your online activities?

Image Source

Technology has brought us incredible ways to reach out information by just a click. Unfortunately this information can also be about what we like, what we don’t like, where are we and where we will be. And this doesn’t necessarily make our lives too “private”.

The last example I can think of about market surveillance was 2 days when planning my trip for spring break. I have an app on my phone called “Skyscanner” (it is also a website) where you can find really good deals for round trip flights in the US and internationally. The good thing about it is that all the info that I put when I was doing my search will be saved,(such as dates, places that I will like to visit, prices that I’m willing to pay, etc). And by that, they will inform me if the prices go down, go up, alternative deals, etc. As you can see my inbox below.

Image Source: Myself (screenshot of my inbox)

To me it is an excellent way to find the best deals since I’m not on my phone 24 hours checking for flights and all these endless destinations. And this doesn’t happen just to me, this pattern happens to many other users of this app with their respective search data. So basically Skyscanner is doing exactly what Mark Andrejevic explained, “ There is a pattern: the use of new media devices lends itself to the generation or cybernetic information, feedback about the transactions themselves”.(Page 3). Andrejevic argues that this feedback “becomes the property of private companies that can store, aggregate,sort and sell information in the form of database”. (Page 3). And that is exactly what happened with the info I put in for my trip.  Although some people might think this is a negative effect  because it violates privacy, I see it as a helpful tool that helps me narrow my search data and provide me with the best deals.

Then we have state surveillance which also plays an important role in our lives. I agree that somewhere, somehow there is a technique of disciplinary power that won’t allow us to commit crimes. But the most recent example I can give is a website where you were able to watch recent movies for free. The website was 123movies.is , but unfortunately they took it down. Probably a sort of investigation was held and they found out that this website was violating copyright laws. Even though I don’t know the specific method or the agency who discover this website, I can put it as an example for this section. I know I was wrong for entering this website , but it was good to be able to watch a movie on my free time and without paying theater prices. This will probably affirms Michel Foucault belief that “ The major effect of the panopticon is to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power”.(Page 212).  I was watching this website because nobody was there to tell me that it was wrong; but If I knew for sure somebody will accuse me, probably my actions would have been different. I found this article about a similar website that was ban from the internet for publishing movies. This is another example that somehow we are been monitored in the internet to make sure we follow laws and rules.

1. Would you create an illegal site knowing that you will make great profit out of it?
2. What do you consider as “invaded privacy”?

Source

Living a metropolitan city like New York City (especially after 9/11) digital surveillance is something we encounter daily in various ways from surveillance and store cameras to tourists recording their time in our city. We are constantly being watched and monitored and even though we don’t call attention to it, it still in the back of our minds.
During the week, I’ve visited numerous websites like Groupon, J. Crew, Yahoo Mail and Capital One. I have noticed when I check my emails, the ads section on the left was an ad of the recent shopping site I visited and along with that I also received a bunch of emails about credit cards offers from different companies. This calls to Andrejevic’s concept of market surveillance, they used my previous history online to lure me back to purchase more from that site, he calls it “predictive analytics”, he quotes “As one accounts puts it, “predictive analytics” – the attempt to unearth correlations from mountains of data – “uses past behaviour and complex algorithms to anticipate future behaviour by customer segments in a way that cannot be accurately performed using human intuition” (Business Times 2010, 8)” (Page 281).

Source

I had a friend who downloaded a bunch of illegal movies and music that was available online for free, and unaware that those activities were illegal and ignore the warnings from Homeland Security, due to his ignorance, he was then lock out of his phone. (A relatable article.) This shows the digital authorities that takes place today without walls, which I find to be violating our personal “privacy” which isn’t so private. Foucault quotes “The disciplinary society, then, is a prison both within and without walls. One outcome of disciplinary action on this mass scale is ‘govern-mentality’, a new form of impersonal, rationalized, authoritarian rule.” (Page 211 – 212)

                                          

Source

1) What kind of illegal online activities do you participate in knowingly or unknowingly?
2) Are you aware that Homeland Security have the power to lock you out of your own phone?

 

 

As a new immigrant to the U.S. I had the privilege of serving in the U.S Marines from 1999-2004. This was a time when mobile phones were just starting to become the new standard for communication and most mobile phones were very primitive versions of their modern counterparts. Although the Marine Corps is known to be one of the most prestigious branches of military and prescribes values of honor, courage and commitment, there are a lot of events and everyday rituals that occur behind the scenes which people in the civilian world would not be able to handle. One could possibly attribute the aforementioned everyday rituals to deployment boredom and a warrior ethos where a subculture promotes brute savagery as a characteristic of masculinity. The difference between that time and current Marines is that now service members have easy access to social media by having a cell phone and the ability to post a picture video or comments  of questionable behavior in real time. As a result of this access, questionable behavior is heavily surveilled by people on the internet.

 

Take for example a recent scandal where a former Marine and purple heart recipient reveled that there were Marines posting images of women on a Facebook site. You can read that article Here. There is an ongoing investigation by NCIS uncovering the scope of this scandal. With this said, i want to point out that the only reason these Marines were caught was because they were being surveilled by someone who  pointed it out. This doesn’t mean that this behavior didn’t exist when i was in, merely the digital realm has replaced an analogous version of behavior where in those cases physical pictures were the medium. The price of being surveilled could be literal punishment. In the case of the military, if one is caught violating the U.C.M.J ( Uniformed code of military justice) the person could loose rank, pay and even be court marshalled. Therefore there is a direct correlation between being surveilled and punished as Foucoult mentions in page 212, as “The primary mechanism for the rise of self discipline of this kind is not the old medieval regime of torture and confinement, but rather a new set of techniques that are essentially intangible and visual.

1. Does the idea of surveillance deter you from doing things you really want to do?
2. If you were sure that you weren’t being watched how would you behave differently?

In an hour alone I have found a pair of glasses that to purchase, new songs to listen to, a restaurant from which I could order delivery, and a pair of shoes that I’ll most likely order within the following week. Within that hour alone I have had the convenience and accessibility to update my style, my tastes, and even the food that I’ll eat. But at what cost? at face value, it only cost me about $225 for the glasses and food that I ordered. As for the convenience to purchase such items? It only cost me my privacy and freedom. Within that hour alone I had inadvertently given third party advertising companies the data which tells them the services I use to look for glasses, the types of styles that I was looking for, my credit card information, shipping address, the artists that I listen to, the genres of music I listen to, the several platforms I use to listen to music (Spotify, Youtube, Apple Music), the app I use to order food, the kinds of food I was craving, my location for delivery, and the websites that I use to look for sneakers.

On a daily basis, individuals are unknowingly reporting all kinds of informations through the internet to companies that sell your data to third party advertising companies, all so that that they could better cater different products and services to you; the consumer. Although this further enables convenience for consumers to customize their daily experience, at what point is the line drawn for data collectors to infringe upon your privacy? “Thanks to the capability of interactive networked technology, consumers are being enlisted and equipped to assist in the process of their own manipulation” (Andrejivic, 15). This elusive term “interactive” has evolved in its meaning as the distribution of knowledge starts resembling a one way street, as third party advertising companies learn more about you with every second used on the internet meanwhile we still know little to nothing about these third party advertising companies. As Adam Alexander expresses in his article on The Guardian  accountability and monitoring needs to be enforced on such third party companies. With our limited knowledge on what these companies do with our data, Alexander states that our society is worse than that of George Orwell’s. The extent to which my “consumer profile” is collated and stored for future third party use should stop once it begins to subject me to very distinct and unique sources of information, as opposed to my entertainment. Customizing my profile to provide me entertainment I’m more inclined to watch is great, but limiting the different sources for knowledge is a hinderance and a danger of our overall existence. Knowledge is power, and interference in our knowledge is interference in our power.

“We are talking about the most powerful mind-control machine ever invented in the history of the human race” (TheGuardian). With this constant surveillance through our navigation on the internet, it is only obvious for a disciplinary power to hang above our heads when using the internet . However, in contemporary methods of piracy, it is almost a culture to commit illegal practices to obtain entertainment. For example, there are certain website that a person can go to to download or stream a movie that has just hit the theaters. The same applies for music as well, yet no one seems to bat an eye when they illegally do so. The risk of being persecuted for such actions is close to none, so people all over the nation(s) continue to do so, despite this “electronic panopticon”. For me personally, this hasn’t hindered me from doing such minor offenses, and probably won’t stop me from doing so in the future as well. I have downloaded several movies off of putlocker and have downloaded even more songs from other website, just like every other friend that I have.

The topic surveillance via cyberspace is prevalent and evolving issue that can be talked about for years to come. However, I will end this post with the following two questions:

1.) Is there a way for the people to regain control of their privacy, or is it too late?

2.) Within the next century, do you think privacy will still be a right, or a privilege?

source

The past week and always, I listen to Pandora’s music Station, but this week more than ever because we are on midterms and I can concentrate better while listening to music. But since I refused to pay for the “free commercial app” then I have to listen to their commercials/ads. Before our class and our readings, I always wondered how Pandora’s commercials/ads were (and still are) announcing; “ready to try out our new gym location?” “if you owe money” ready to buy a car?” “want a new degree?” “ready for a vacation?” “do you or do you know anyone who suffers from depression?” (I hope the depression ad is because I ‘m always listening to spiritual music). While I’m listening to Pandora’s station, I’m also using Google’s search engine, registering for a gym class, paying my bills, opening my Baruch email, etc. Because I have so many windows open at once, I’m giving away my personal preferences or information. Somehow, somewhere later I’ll be reminded of what I should be thinking about or buy. Andrejevic states that “Most of us have some vague understanding that marketers are gathering information about us when we use our credit cards, register our preferences online, surf the Web, or use our mobile phone, but we have very little knowledge about what information is being gathered, who has access to it, and how it is being used” (page 7). Now, do I accept this “consumer profile?” Well, before I would say “this is scary.” After our readings and conversation in our class, I think all we should do is to educate ourselves and just go with the flow. We are the consumers sending free information to the “market surveillance” and they are tailoring our needs and wants. At the end, as consumers we have the power and knowledge to decide if we want to buy something or not.

This is something that happened to one of my friends. She was usually downloading “free” movies from the internet (I swear, it was not me but because of her I understand this “panoptic” idea). One day she got a message on her computer’s screen saying “warning, if you continue to “download movies” you will be taking to court and pay a fine or go to jail for conducting an illegal behavior.  At some point, I thought of doing the same but now that I know that we are being “watch” I changed my mind. David Lyon says, “The prison-like society, where invisible observers track our digital footprints, does indeed seem panoptic” (page 219). For this kind of situations, I agreed with the idea of being under surveillance because it helps and reminds people to avoid unwanted behavior(s).

Question 1. Do you guys agree with me about Pandora, if yes which commercial/ad do you think was tailored to your “consumer profile”?

Question 2. So, if we are being watched, then, who do you think is watching the people that are watching us?

The next YouTube video gives more details about the Panopticon, Discipline and Punish topics. Note: I think this YouTube video might help for our midterm.