Surveillance Capitalism
In class, we touched on how
social media capitalism is essentially surveillance capitalism. This reminded me of an
article I read published by The Guardian which drew parallels between the
historical panopticon and digital data capture of users (link below). Surveillance
is an ancient practice and the panopticon was built so that occupants were continually
under the threat of being watched (McMullan, 2015). This type of surveillance in particular was referred to as asymmetrical surveillance or exposure because inmates would
never know if someone was actually watching them. Likewise, Internet users are
also not aware when their data is being collected and when it is not. The
difference between these two situations is that the watch tower in the
panopticon was visible so inmates were overtly aware that they were under surveillance, but there is
no indication of surveillance on the Internet so it is predominantly invisible.
Nonetheless, digital surveillance is much more invasive than panoptical
surveillance. Traditionally, any data collected from surveillance was for the government
but nowadays, it is also distributed to corporations that capitalize and
exploit it. For example, I was browsing for winter boots online and when I
logged onto Facebook, I saw advertisements for them as I was scrolling through
my news feed.
Really interesting post!! I always compare the panopticon to modes of digital surveillance today as well. Although there are some differences which, in my opinion, make digital surveillance more intrusive, they have the sam eprimary aspects. With the concept of the Panopticon, there was to be a human in a tower with the threat to watch you at any given time as he had the ability - but you never actually knew when he was looking or if the guard was even there. With digital surveillance, there are algorithms and programs to collect data at an alarming rate no matter what you do, click or say. Everything is being recorded and the scary part is that we do not actually know what is happening with this recorded information. The other tricky part is that because people knew that a punishment was looming in their future if they were to behave in the concept of the panopticon, they acted accordingly. On the internet, the threat is not apparent so people act in all sorts of ways - pictures and words that are not normally deemed appropriate in a social setting. Lots to think about here!
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some great observations particularly that digital surveillance is similar to panoptic surveillance but the former is much more invasive and pervasive. Also, I think that the phenomenon by which we forget/do not know that data is being collected on us relates to Baym's concept of domestification— but also Langdon Winner's concept of technological somnambulism. The idea that we 'sleepwalk' through our mediations with technology (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_somnambulism). Quite frightening when paired with the reality that technology continues to drive the economy and at the same time helps the government's surveillance efforts to classify, organize, and produce data on its citizens. Surely this is a very fragile 'loop' that can easily be exploited— efficiency and technological progress disguised as surveillance for knowledge/power.
ReplyDeleteHi!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog post this week and I thought it was great that you mentioned the concept of the panopticon. Thinking back to a course I took in second year, CS251, I remember learning about the panopticon and the idea of an inspecting gaze. I thought it was so interesting that we participate in practices of self-regulation in response to systems of surveillance, whether they are in place or simply assumed to be in place. This is also shocking to learn because I feel that this concept only applies in the case of inmates being watched in a jail. The concept of a panopticon therefore doesn't really apply to how we act when being surveilled online, and I think that this is a problem. We as a society are aware that companies and organizations are watching our every move online but we still continue to ignore this and continue to freely publish our private information online.
This brings me to ask the question, do you believe that Internet users should recognize the idea of an inspecting gaze therefore limit their online usage or be more mindful to what they are posting online?
Overall, great post!
Surveillance capitalism is a scary thing and I think people aren't giving it enough attention. I thing there are a lot of people who has had similar experiences just like your winter boot example but ultimately can't do anything about it since we have no power. A new thing people found is that our conversations are being listened to and used to market ads to us. I was talking to my friend on the phone about buying a pool table and when I went on Amazon all I had were pool tables being suggested to me. Our privacy is ultimately disappearing without us even having a say and social media is only helping the process go faster.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your discussion post this week! Your topic of discussion and article of choice was ironic to me because I just read that same article last week for another course. It is interesting how the idea of the panopticon has transferred into today's surveillance state whether we acknowledge it or not. Our surveillance state is made up of security cameras, human policing, internet surveillance, etc. Internet surveillance is the most invisible to us because we cannot see or know if others are obtaining or monitoring our actions, search histories, personal information, credit card information, etc. It can be extremely dangerous especially for younger internet users who are unaware of the dangers of sharing personal information, fake ads, etc.
ReplyDelete