Digital authorities
Actions Becoming Rationalized
Our lives have been monitored by companies since we’ve entered this digital age. It is not that this surveillance has emerged, and become known to the public, it is just that we just never realized its capacity and scale.
Here’s something to consider: if you use your credit card or ATM card to pay for a metrocard, you can be tracked through your metrocard. Because your credit or ATM card is linked to that purchase of metrocard fares, and you’d be using your fare to get around, people can see where you’ve been and what you’ve bought. But the real question is “who would be tracking me?” I bet this guy didn’t expect anything when the Metro Transit Police tracked him through his metrocard for a sexual assault case back in December.
Source: MTA, Flickr Creative Commons
(P.S that picture is appropriately placed)
Basically, we do not see the complexity of technology and the levels of tracking attached to what we do, because we are deceived by convenience. That case can be connected to this quote “An unprecedented level of convenience is enabled by a network of complex and costly information technology whose increasing functionality is inversely proportional to to the typical user’s knowledge about how the system works. (Andrejevic, p.4)” The nature of surveillance ends up becoming rationalized, institutionalized, normalized — whatever you can call it. “Finally, its operation becomes diffused throughout the social structure, enabling mutual surveillance on a mass scale. (Athique, p.210)” And that is how we either fail to recognize this tracing, or ignore that it is happening.
Just last night, I had sold this concert ticket I had to someone using Paypal and Ticketmaster. I retrieved his email, first and last name then requested payment, then he sent it over and Paypal sent me an email of the money transfer, which also connected his address incase I needed to ship the tickets. But I didn’t need it because Ticketmaster allows electronic transfers of tickets (P.S not endorsing them). It makes me consider what information he received on his end of the transaction.
I think as long as we consent to use of stored information, even if the terms and conditions are extremely boring to read, it is acceptable for the market to use our “consumer profile,” it is until the third parties try to do anything, like bombard me with unnecessary emails or mail me ads, that it becomes unacceptable.
While we’re aware that watching an online movie for free or illegally downloading a song is bad, it is also a mass reaction to ignore such doubts and continue with it anyways. It can be extremely hard to track down every single person who downloaded a certain song, or consider how much of a movie people saw to create a punishment equal to the crime. I admit I actually do not download songs illegally if they come in albums (I like albums and concerts if it’s not apparent in this blog), but I would download a song where you can’t get a physical copy of an album with the song in it. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few songs in my playlists that come from talent shows, you can think of shows like American Idol, where people cover songs. Even admitting it here does not bother me, because it doesn’t bother a big fraction of the mass who also does the same thing.
Now I ask:
- At what point did you guys realize that surveillance has become increasingly common in our lives?
- Do you guys ever look around and consider “what if there’s someone watching me right now?” and how would we react to it if it was a person staring at you versus a camera being pointed at you?
Is Your Digital Footprint Worth a Concern?
Digital surveillance is increasingly becoming a double-edged watchdog. To some people, digital monitoring is derailing their privacy, however, to some, digital surveillance is apt in our digital times. Nevertheless, our continued use of the digital media is gradually becoming a source of tracking our every move. Our personal information is being trapped in the digital corridors as we leave behind many digital footprints that can be used to “unravel” us. From Chapter Seven, Athique posits that “In the context of SnS private individuals seeking to serve both audiences simultaneously must take great care of their self-presentation of their public figures” ( Pg,104). Our inevitable digital media consumption is undoubtedly enough to leave behind traces of our personal information. Imagine of the vast personal information we leave behind in the form of comments, posts, tweets, status update, likes, videos, memes, and pictures, all over on Snapchat, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and App use. All these can communicate our personal information such as our names, gender, date of birth, health status, employment, marital status, education history and even our finances.
Our interactive era has become a perfect avenue for market processing, as market surveillance is increasingly becoming popular in the twenty-first century. However, market surveillance is causing uproar in public regarding the extent it is acceptable for the “consumer profile” to be collected and stored for future use by third parties. Firms are understood under the concept of market surveillance to be storing the personal data of their customers to better understand them and address their needs. However, the collection and storage of such pertinent information are raising issues to do with privacy. My “consumer profile” can be collated and stored for future use by the third parties in the move to advance consumer choices through an innovative creation of consumer goods that address individual needs and what can be improved in promoting user product loyalty. However, the collection and storage of my “consumer profile” for future use by third parties should not breach my rights to privacy and security. According to Turkle, digital liberation allows people to become multidimensional beings, something more than physical selves (page 127). Nevertheless, my “consumer profile” should be protected to promote consumer confidentiality.
The state surveillance is gradually turning out as a “disciplinary society” that seeks to instil discipline in the usage of digital media and punish acts that are perceived uncouth. However, the increased discretion by the state in acting as a prison for its people by curtailing their internet freedom of expression and opinion, and privacy is a matter of concern. However, as much as the state surveillance may try to exercise its disciplinary power, the existence of an “electronic panopticon” is not sufficient enough to reduce the likelihood of crimes and misdemeanors. Nevertheless, the state surveillance to some extent is called for when internet users have to act within the preset laws governing internet use. Personally, I believe that having the knowledge of state surveillance at the back of your mind regarding something tracking your digital movement can deter crime and misdemeanor but equally curtail your freedom of expression and privacy. We should all understand that in as much as freedom is good but an unregulated freedom is dangerous as well. For that case, in as much state surveillance can be construed as a violation of our internet freedom and privacy but to some extent, it can be important in keeping “illegal “activities such as piracy and illegal downloading on the check.
Questions
- Are you always aware of your digital footprints while using digital media?
- Is state surveillance justified under the right to freedom of expression and privacy of its citizens?
Digital surveillance refers to the collection and management of data through the use of digital technologies and algorithms for numerous purposes including market research and state control. Using Mark Andrejevic’s concept of market surveillance and Michel Foucault’s “disciplinary society,” reflect on how your online activities leave digital traces that are useful for various entities to understand you and predict as well as shape your behaviors in the future.
- On market surveillance: What forms of personal information are produced by your own usage of digital media in the past week? To what extent is it acceptable to you that your “consumer profile” is collated and stored for future use by third parties?
- On state surveillance: Identify and explain an example of a technique of disciplinary power that applies (or likely applies) to you. Is the perceived existence of an “electronic panopticon” sufficient to reduce the likelihood of crimes and misdemeanors occurring? In other words, are you always aware that something somewhere in the hidden computer layer of your online activity is watching your digital movement? If so, does it hinder you from doing ‘illegal’ activities such as illegal downloading, piracy etc? Relate your answer to your own experience.
Include two quotes from the readings we’ve read in class, two questions, and a link as well as visual media in your post. Due Sunday, March 26 by midnight.