- by Ayesha Ali
When Edward Snowden leaked massive amounts of information detailing the domestic surveillance program conducted by the NSA, the general public was shocked at the ease with which the government was able to actively intrude upon their private actions. Citizens, growing increasingly wary of the scope of scrutiny the government possess, have questioned the legality of such an invasive program, but as of yet the actions of the NSA have not been held unconstitutional in any lower courts, as a recent New York Times article reported. However, it is possible that a recent case might make its way through the system soon, believed to have the potential to carry the matter all the way to the Supreme Court for a final decision making it the first time a defendant has legitimate standing to bring to court the issue of warrentless surveillance.
Though the article is interesting in itself and the issue is certainly important, what particularly interested me was that it acted as reminder that the issue of surveillance by the government has always, and likely will continue to, generate far more outrage and concern among people than surveillance by private industries. When Target systems were hacked and the personal information of millions of Black Friday shoppers was compromised, there was certainly shock and outrage, but it seemed to stem more so from concerns of identity theft than the realization of mass surveillance by a corporation that is storing that information in order that they better engage consumers. There has been little if anything said about the constitutional legitimacy of Target’s collections of personal information, and certainly nothing about seeking to bring it before the Supreme Court.
This presents the problem which is the common equation of government surveillance to Big Brother, while private surveillance is disregarded, comparatively. It seems that the public is far more affronted by surveillance that, though warrentless, is justifiable at minimum as an intended means of national security than they are by surveillance from private entities that seek to use such information against them, for various reasons and in numerous ways. This relentless policing allows for subtle yet active control of our behavior, in that it provides these entities with the information necessary to most effectively influence us through marketing campaigns, advertisements on web pages, suggested posts on social networking sites, etc. Further, it creates a culture of lateral policing (Andrejevic 13) as popular opinion normalizes certain ideals--consider Apple’s ability to convince it’s customers that it is necessary to purchase a slightly newer model of their popular phones every two years or less. While in part they provide shiny advertisements and great new deals, much of the public is equally motivated by their desire to keep up with the Jones’, as they see friends and family making the switch and are encouraged to do so as well, a subtle manner of securing conformity.
When policing is not overt, it is difficult to see and harder to fight against, but in an increasingly capitalist society, it is necessary to understand that the diminished boundaries between the public and the private police further the abilities of each, and if the public does not recognize it and take action against it, they will only continue to increase the collective scope of surveillance.
Sources Cited
You bring up so many pertinent topics that I don't know which to respond to! Nevertheless, I found your conclusion about the diminishing boundary between public and private policing to be most interesting. This reminded me of the architectural channeling that Professor Musheno mentioned in class previously. Because of this nebulous boundary between state and corporate surveillance, our values have changed, thus the line between our private duties as citizens and our public obligations as contributors to the national economic market has thinned as well. Your point about society wanting to "keep up with the Jones'" illustrates this point perfectly, for as consumers we want to purchase the constantly evolving technologies, but at the same time we do this in order to fulfill a sort or civic responsibility to be relevant in having the latest gadgets to impress our peers and social groups. Overall your post provides a lot of interesting points of discussion/debate for our class.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Berry-Smith
One aspect of your post that intrigued me was the public's vastly different reactions to public and private policing, and its implications as the distinction between the two forms blurs. As you point out, people are much more accepting of private surveillance, even though they often don't know exactly how their information will be used. This reminds me of the fusion centers brought up in SuperVision, and the closer relationship between private data aggregators and government agencies. As the two become more integrated, the government has even more access to information because it can purchase it from private companies. Would people still be so complacent about private security if they knew it was very possible that the government would eventually end up with their information? Or do they care more about who is doing the actual surveillance?
ReplyDeleteChristine Prior
This post was very well informed and I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the synthesis of public and private police forces. We share a similar fascination with the general public's lack of awareness about market surveillance. Although the government has access to our information, it is comparatively less than the information accessed, hacked, and stored by private corporations. I find it odd that there is continual outrage about a covert operation that will supposedly benefit us and little to no indignation about an overt operation that is only in place to profit off us.
ReplyDeleteThe above post was submitted by Chelsea Goddard.
DeleteThis blog brought up the interesting topic between government surveillance and market surveillance. The government surveillance was always thought to be explicitly and visible like police monitor suspicious people; they monitor them to prevent crime, to keep the order of communities. On the other hand, market surveillance is more implicit and invisible; we don not know which information of us is collected by the market and how the information is used in what purpose. However, this incident of NSA greatly proved that the government surveillance is as invisible and implicit as market surveillance. Moreover, when either of the surveillances have problems. we expect other surveillances to monitor the problems. For example, when the Target system was hacked and many personal information was exposed, we expect our government to do something to deal with the issue, we expect our government to have a stronger surveillance system over these markets, so our information will be protected. On the other hand, while the government has some problems, we expect private surveillance will act to protect us. This creates surveillance circle; the problem of surveillance causes more surveillance. In addition to that, hey, there is no strict line between government and market surveillance anymore, and we cannot rely on neither of them.
ReplyDeleteSansui Iwamoto
I find your differentiation between public and private surveillance extremely compelling. While I do agree that individuals ought to take caution under each, I would also argue that there is a different dynamic and the boundaries exist for a reason. When something large and public like the government collects data and information about us, it is often times used for a much different purpose than that taken from a private corporation/entity. It seems as if the public is much more concerned with public surveillance these days; however, the purpose for collecting that information is usually harmless and exists as a precautionary safety measure for society. I would agree with you that it is the PRIVATE surveillance that people need to shift their attention towards. These are where the motives change significantly. Instead of protection driving the surveillance, private policing typically involved ulterior motives rooted with malicious intent. Indeed there are always exceptions to each, but these are definitely issues that society should pay a little bit more attention to.
ReplyDelete-Kim Newton