Dear fellow inmate:
(I hope you've done your reading from last time, so you know why I'll address you today as "fellow inmate"!)
I've been thinking a lot lately about these kind of websites ... like this one, Blogger/Blogspot. It performs many functions private and public. For many it's like that secret diary you had when you were a giggly little kid. You hid the key and tucked it under your mattress ... a private confessional to yourself, or to your better self you wish you were, to somebody else. And when your mom poked around in it you were angry and perhaps a bit embarrassed. But you had only yourself to blame ... if you wanted to keep something private you wouldn't have written it down, right?
Anyway ... Facebook, MySpace, YouTube ... they all represent a very strange newish compulsion, namely to coyly confess a mixture of your "true" self, your True Self, and some fantasy version of yourself to the electronic ether, both as if no one will ever see it and also in a self-conscious way, that presumes someone is watching. Only the most naive of us think this stuff is private in any way, and we should expect that there could be consequences to our revelations. While we sit comfortably at home, basking in its privacy, we are broadcasting and revealing, sometimes more than we realize, when we participate to these sites. To blur the lines even further, consider the real life-turned soap opera story of "lonelygirl15" (before she was "outed") - a real person, who is an actor (well ... barely an actor), playing a "real" girl who fantasizes both about being well-known (perhaps as an actor), and about who might be watching her. Even her outing turned into a drama that confuses the lines between viewer, actor, drama, person and persona.
Poking around these sites is like being the guy who takes his telescope and peeks into every window just to see if something ...anything ... is going on. And posting to them is like the really hot divorced lady two blocks over who vacuums in the nude with the drapes open ... "Oh ... you're looking at me ... shame on you ..." I call this new phenomena "webcoyness" ... no ... I like "e-coyness" better. Well ... it's still not great, but I'll keep thinking about it ... this psychological phenomena deserves a better name.
As Andy Warhol noted, everyone will get their fifteen minutes of fame (and more than 25 years ago he very presciently recognized the newly developing compulsion in western culture with fame for fame's sake, achieved by any means necessary), and the generation of those 30 and younger have shifted this to a higher gear than ever before, using the cheap tools at hand ... all you need is a computer, a video camera (or even just a video cell phone) and an Internet connection ... and voila, you are a broadcaster, entering the "I can be famous" sweepstakes.
Consider this, however, and roll it around a bit in your mind. All of these web-sharing/diary/confessional websites are examples of our voluntary incarceration in the New Panopticon ... one person's free communication is another's loss of privacy. The more information we supply to the Internet, the more we become visible to anyone who wants to watch, like a flash of movement in the open window. And all that activity will provoke more and more people to watch. The web brings out the voyeur in all of us, and more and more people are walking around out there, in their "e-bungalows", without their clothes on and with their drapes open, so to speak. Don't be surprised if someone is watching, maybe someone you'd just as soon not be. And if you post to these websites don't pretend that at least some small part of you is not seeking your fifteen minutes; don't pretend you don't like the idea that someone might be watching!
J.A.I.
NEXT TIME
What rights (to privacy and otherwise) should we allocate to self-publishing bloggers? Has everyone become a de facto or perhaps even a de jure member of the fourth estate in the new panopticon?
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
The Old Panopticon
For those of you who might be wondering ... The Panopticon is a real thing. At the very least it's a real idea.
I did not invent the word. Jeremy Bentham did way back in the early nineteenth century He was in his day a "philosophical radical" who sought in his mostly unfinished works on legal philosophy to remove the moral and legal chaos of English law (which Bentham thought relied far too heavily on "intuitionism", a belief that the law should rest on common sense principles of morality and ethics - you could say that Bentham was one of the first to believe that " 'common sense ' " is neither.) Bentham is known as an early and major proponent of utilitarian philosophy, even inventing a "hedonic calculus" for determining the justness of one course of action or decision versus another, based on maximizing the pleasure and happiness within a whole community.
Although he achieved far greater fame and a more prominent place in the history of philosophy (not to mention a line in Monty Python's famous "Bruces' Philosophers Beer Drinking Song), John Stuart Mill owed a large intellectual debt to Bentham. To a great extent, the western world is still very much the world of Bentham and Mill. That's not to say it's the "right" or most "just" way to live, but it's the one the english speaking world still functions in to a very great extent.
So ... my invention is to call the modern communication networks, particularly the Internet (plus a few cameras and other pieces of hardware and software here and there), The New Panopticon , and Our New Panopticon. But I think it's a pretty good invention, and I'm going to keep using it. If you want to, go read Bentham and then J.S. Mill in the original (like I had to) and don't forget who sent you there ... have fun, and if you use the metaphor, don't forget to footnote me (or link to my blog) ... and also don't forget ... it's a panopticon ... so I'll be watching!
J.A.I.
I did not invent the word. Jeremy Bentham did way back in the early nineteenth century He was in his day a "philosophical radical" who sought in his mostly unfinished works on legal philosophy to remove the moral and legal chaos of English law (which Bentham thought relied far too heavily on "intuitionism", a belief that the law should rest on common sense principles of morality and ethics - you could say that Bentham was one of the first to believe that " 'common sense ' " is neither.) Bentham is known as an early and major proponent of utilitarian philosophy, even inventing a "hedonic calculus" for determining the justness of one course of action or decision versus another, based on maximizing the pleasure and happiness within a whole community.
Although he achieved far greater fame and a more prominent place in the history of philosophy (not to mention a line in Monty Python's famous "Bruces' Philosophers Beer Drinking Song), John Stuart Mill owed a large intellectual debt to Bentham. To a great extent, the western world is still very much the world of Bentham and Mill. That's not to say it's the "right" or most "just" way to live, but it's the one the english speaking world still functions in to a very great extent.
So ... my invention is to call the modern communication networks, particularly the Internet (plus a few cameras and other pieces of hardware and software here and there), The New Panopticon , and Our New Panopticon. But I think it's a pretty good invention, and I'm going to keep using it. If you want to, go read Bentham and then J.S. Mill in the original (like I had to) and don't forget who sent you there ... have fun, and if you use the metaphor, don't forget to footnote me (or link to my blog) ... and also don't forget ... it's a panopticon ... so I'll be watching!
J.A.I.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Public Privacy, Public Safety and Public Surveillance
We have all come to expect to be captured on video during our daily lives.
In fact, many of us voluntarily reveal a great deal about ourselves to the whole world by posting videos to websites like YouTube, FaceBook, and MySpace. In fact, as several friends of mine commented about the recent Virginia Tech murders, many of the victims' friends and fellow students, when interviewed, seemed very camera conscious, displaying eery smiles in spite of the violent acts, grizzly scenes, and sorrowful emotions they were describing. The camera is everywhere, and this generation seems to like it, and crave it.
While we are indoors during the course of our daily lives, especially while we are in places likes banks, transportation centres like airports, public transit systems, it is common practice and has been for years to keep surveillance video of as much of what goes on in these places as possible. It is done in most cases to protect the interests of the institutions the video cameras "protect". However in many cases the rationale is that this is being done to protect us from harm and keep us safe.
A recent case in Toronto has made clear how quickly this video can act as prosecutor, judge, and jury with respect to "suspects" captured on video. This case makes clear that there are many legal, ethical, and philosophical issues that surround the publication of this video in an effort to apprehend the "suspect". Usually because of the power of the picture in our minds, and the multiple exposures we get to them from the media in such cases, "suspect" quickly morphs in most people's minds to "convicted perpetrator" even before anyone has been apprehended or questioned.
Another criminal case, also in Toronto, that occurred about two years ago, is about to go to trial. I remember at the time the influence the video surveillance images published had over the public's mind in this case about race, violence, and the people in the video being tried in the public mind on the basis of the video and the pronouncements of news reporters and analysts. As you can see from the link, in the real legal world, more than two years removed from the events, a judge is rightly examining the case to see if there is anything like sufficient evidence to pursue a case.
Also in Toronto, in an area called the "Entertainment District" a new system of overlapping cameras has been put in place, ostensibly with the intention to keep the public safe. I have worked and lived in this area and at that time it was among the safest areas to live and work. The majority of crime in the area was limited to parked cars being broken into, and assault charges directly related to the over-abundance of licenced bars, clubs, and restaurants in the area. Most of the time both parties involved were charged with assault, so these were by and large bar-fights. No domestic violence, little robbery, and until 2001 or so, only a few guns.
This has changed since 2001 the authorities argue. The Entertainment District is apparently a hot bed of gun related violence, and it is believed that on the order of a couple hundred to a perhaps a couple of thousand hand guns pass through this area every weekend. Guns make me nervous. Guns should make YOU nervous. Hand guns are only good for one thing ... shooting things (usually people) at close range.
However, these cameras make me nervous too. Many people live and work in this area, and carry on completely law-abiding lives. And these surveillance cameras will no doubt be watching and recording them too, even during the day, or on weeknights, or a quiet Sunday morning, all times that the area has not transformed into several large masses of club and restaurant goers. Similar cameras have been deployed in London, hooked up to pattern recognition software, and the video is used to search for particular people in the images of crowds.
There is no reason to think the same thing is not going on anywhere where these cameras have been deployed. The problem is, every face is scanned and characterized, and no doubt a record kept. If you work in an area you will appear many times to these cameras, and files about your comings and goings might easily be kept. The argument can be made that keeping these files will help "rule you out" quickly from video in which you appear that might contain the face of a wanted criminal, or "terrorist" (everyone seems to be a "terrorist" these days ... there a far fewer enemy soldiers and criminals around ... they are now called "terrorists" to inspire fear and justify stripping the suspect or captured foreign combatant of any rights they might otherwise have, civil or military).
My questions to ponder are these: expectation of privacy is a key legal concept. It applies to your activities in your home, and your dealings with certain kind of people, such as doctors, lawyers, and members of the clergy. We used to have an understood expectation of privacy even while we were in public places without walls (streets, parks, etc.). As long as we were not breaking the law, most people understood that no public officials, police, Homeland Security ... whatever ... no one who worked for a government agency had the right to watch you in a systematic fashion unless they had "probable cause" (or, more recently, the less stringent, "reasonable cause" ) to believe you were committing, about to commit, or had committed, a crime.
Were we wrong to expect privacy all along? Do we have rights that these new technologies and their sponsoring government agencies are treading upon? Does the alleged interest of public safety outweigh the rights of the law-abiding to be left alone and not be watched, recorded, characterized, and stored for later review. How is what is going on any different than being finger-printed and having a "mug-shot" taken by the authorities without your having been charged with any crime?
I have truly ambivalent and complex feelings, thoughts, and arguments on this matter. I'd like to hear some of yours.
In fact, many of us voluntarily reveal a great deal about ourselves to the whole world by posting videos to websites like YouTube, FaceBook, and MySpace. In fact, as several friends of mine commented about the recent Virginia Tech murders, many of the victims' friends and fellow students, when interviewed, seemed very camera conscious, displaying eery smiles in spite of the violent acts, grizzly scenes, and sorrowful emotions they were describing. The camera is everywhere, and this generation seems to like it, and crave it.
While we are indoors during the course of our daily lives, especially while we are in places likes banks, transportation centres like airports, public transit systems, it is common practice and has been for years to keep surveillance video of as much of what goes on in these places as possible. It is done in most cases to protect the interests of the institutions the video cameras "protect". However in many cases the rationale is that this is being done to protect us from harm and keep us safe.
A recent case in Toronto has made clear how quickly this video can act as prosecutor, judge, and jury with respect to "suspects" captured on video. This case makes clear that there are many legal, ethical, and philosophical issues that surround the publication of this video in an effort to apprehend the "suspect". Usually because of the power of the picture in our minds, and the multiple exposures we get to them from the media in such cases, "suspect" quickly morphs in most people's minds to "convicted perpetrator" even before anyone has been apprehended or questioned.
Another criminal case, also in Toronto, that occurred about two years ago, is about to go to trial. I remember at the time the influence the video surveillance images published had over the public's mind in this case about race, violence, and the people in the video being tried in the public mind on the basis of the video and the pronouncements of news reporters and analysts. As you can see from the link, in the real legal world, more than two years removed from the events, a judge is rightly examining the case to see if there is anything like sufficient evidence to pursue a case.
Also in Toronto, in an area called the "Entertainment District" a new system of overlapping cameras has been put in place, ostensibly with the intention to keep the public safe. I have worked and lived in this area and at that time it was among the safest areas to live and work. The majority of crime in the area was limited to parked cars being broken into, and assault charges directly related to the over-abundance of licenced bars, clubs, and restaurants in the area. Most of the time both parties involved were charged with assault, so these were by and large bar-fights. No domestic violence, little robbery, and until 2001 or so, only a few guns.
This has changed since 2001 the authorities argue. The Entertainment District is apparently a hot bed of gun related violence, and it is believed that on the order of a couple hundred to a perhaps a couple of thousand hand guns pass through this area every weekend. Guns make me nervous. Guns should make YOU nervous. Hand guns are only good for one thing ... shooting things (usually people) at close range.
However, these cameras make me nervous too. Many people live and work in this area, and carry on completely law-abiding lives. And these surveillance cameras will no doubt be watching and recording them too, even during the day, or on weeknights, or a quiet Sunday morning, all times that the area has not transformed into several large masses of club and restaurant goers. Similar cameras have been deployed in London, hooked up to pattern recognition software, and the video is used to search for particular people in the images of crowds.
There is no reason to think the same thing is not going on anywhere where these cameras have been deployed. The problem is, every face is scanned and characterized, and no doubt a record kept. If you work in an area you will appear many times to these cameras, and files about your comings and goings might easily be kept. The argument can be made that keeping these files will help "rule you out" quickly from video in which you appear that might contain the face of a wanted criminal, or "terrorist" (everyone seems to be a "terrorist" these days ... there a far fewer enemy soldiers and criminals around ... they are now called "terrorists" to inspire fear and justify stripping the suspect or captured foreign combatant of any rights they might otherwise have, civil or military).
My questions to ponder are these: expectation of privacy is a key legal concept. It applies to your activities in your home, and your dealings with certain kind of people, such as doctors, lawyers, and members of the clergy. We used to have an understood expectation of privacy even while we were in public places without walls (streets, parks, etc.). As long as we were not breaking the law, most people understood that no public officials, police, Homeland Security ... whatever ... no one who worked for a government agency had the right to watch you in a systematic fashion unless they had "probable cause" (or, more recently, the less stringent, "reasonable cause" ) to believe you were committing, about to commit, or had committed, a crime.
Were we wrong to expect privacy all along? Do we have rights that these new technologies and their sponsoring government agencies are treading upon? Does the alleged interest of public safety outweigh the rights of the law-abiding to be left alone and not be watched, recorded, characterized, and stored for later review. How is what is going on any different than being finger-printed and having a "mug-shot" taken by the authorities without your having been charged with any crime?
I have truly ambivalent and complex feelings, thoughts, and arguments on this matter. I'd like to hear some of yours.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Welcome To The New Panopticon
Welcome to this new blog; a home for my discussion of science, technology, privacy, and the politics and ethics of the creeping surveillance and technological gaze that is infecting all aspects of our lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
