The concept of privacy within our 2014 context took centre stage this week. The now effective ability for governments and powerful bodies to surveillance our individual, daily activities and consequently predict and ‘control’ our actions was explored. The concept of ‘souveillance’, a term coined by Steve Mann, ” to describe the present state of modern technological societies where anybody may take photos or videos of any person or event, and then diffuse the information freely all over the world” (Ganascia, 2010), was introduced.
Whilst it was not a huge surprise that networked computing has enabled us to engage in tasks already familiar to us, such as shopping, research and entertainment, what was not predicted was its potential to ” upend the foundations of capitalism and bureaucratic administration that had been in place for centuries” (Morozov, 2013). What we are now experiencing is concern surrounding the ability of the government to monitor our every move, and consequently, our growing ability to monitor theres.
Whilst many government programs introduced over recent years have demonstrated the intent to deal with issues of national security, often the data collected has been used to impede our right to privacy. An example of this can be seen through a tool introduced by the Italian government called ‘redditometro’, possessing the ability to access receipts and spending patterns of individual consumers to catch out those suspected of cheating tax. On a global scale, smart phone users can now be ‘pinged’ when they are about to “do something stupid, unhealthy or sound” (Morozov, 2013). But what exactly counts as “stupid, unhealthy or sound”? It would now appear that we as a society do not make this call, but rather the “system’s algormithms” that create a “moral calculous of their own”. Building on this is the belief that such compilations of individuals habits, intents and practices are not undertaken to improve our decisions and actions, but rather to “nudge” the individual to fit the mould of the ideal consumer, taxpayer, citizen and so forth (Morozov, 2013). Consequently, it is not only an absence of privacy that should be of societal concern, but also this attempt to mould or ‘nudge’ the individual into the ‘ideal’ citizen.
Whilst it would appear society is powerless to the watch full eye and growing control of the government, the actions of certain individuals such as Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, demonstrate the individuals ability to ‘impede’ on the privacy of the government. Snowden, who leaked information revealing the existence of various global surveillance programs, remains a figure of controversy, being labeled a hero and patriot, as well as a whistleblower and traitor (Wikipedia, n.d). It is controversy surrounding whether his actions are illegal or admirable that truly highlight this growing and increasingly complex issue of privacy within our 2014 context.
References:
1. Morozov, Evgeny (2013) ‘The Real Privacy Problem’, MIT Technology Review, October 22, <http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520426/the-real-privacy-problem/>
2. Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Edward Snowden’, Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden>
3. Ganascia,Jean-Gabriel. ‘The generalized sousveillance society’, Pierre et Marie Curie University (Paris VI), computer science laboratory of the Paris VI university (LIP6), Social Science Information September 2010 vol. 49 no. 3 489-50