[Reader-list] Surveillance after "Big Brother"

[Menso Heus]

On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 08:28:05AM -0800, Rana Dasgupta wrote:

<cut>

Ok, this turned out to be a rather lengthy reply, so I hope you can 
bare with me....

> The fact is that the model of surveillance we have to engage with bears few 
> resemblances to Orwell's vision.  Even in this era of paranoid states, the infrastructure 
> devoted to collecting, analysing and acting on data about an individual is highly 
> distributed, spread across a myriad of institutions who all have very different motives 
> for what they do.  Employers capture employees' personal communications in order to 
> optimise productivity and minimise security leaks.  Telemarketers try to build up a 
> detailed picture of an individual's buying habits so that they can target their selling 
> more effectively.  Mobile phone companies may aim to pinpoint people's locations more 
> precisely so they can match advertisements to places.  Et cetera.
> 
> It is certainly the case that all this information is occasionally brought together by 
> intelligence agencies or lawyers in order to attest to an individual's interiority, his 
> private idiosyncrasies, his scandalous fascinations.  But these moments of absolute 
> transparency are not the norm. 

It is always a bit hard to join in a discussion about topics such as privacy and 
surveillance. As already pointed out, if you've got nothing to hide, what are you
worried about? With the danger of being seen as a conspiracy theorist, I shall 
endeavour nonetheless. 

Orwell wrote 1984 back in 1948, a time when modern surveillance techniques seemed a 
far and distant dream and the setup of information gathering as it is done today was 
still in it's infancy. 
The thought whether the current distributed platform of surveillance in use is due
to the reason that Orwell wrote 1984 back then has crossed my mind several times. 

I figure now that the main reason is that the 1984 scenario is just really impractical. 

Our current distributed 'Big Brother' system is far more efficient. Instead of having
to do all the work yourself, you let others do it for you and make laws that state 
that the intelligence agencies should at all times have access to any data they require,
no questions asked. Another bonus is that companies among themselves can decide to share
the data they keep with whomever they want, as per mobile phone example given by Rana. 

Another great plus is that all those yelling '1984!' from the barricades can easily be put
down by the fact that there *is* no central system. Governments can claim that they are 
in no such way trying to establish a system that tracks and records everything because
they're not. They're using systems in place ran by companies that exploit those systems.

One could compare it somewhat to a peer-to-peer network: eventhough there is no 'central 
system' or 'central agency' there's still a huge, functional network where any data shared 
is available. Unlike with peer-to-peer networks though, the sharing is mandatory, as 
required by law. 

Thus, the statement that we are far away from Orwellian scenarios due to the fact that 
there is no central logging being done is one I doubt, based on the explanation given 
above. It's there, but it's more practical, more efficient and well masqueraded. 
It's a bit like saying there's no such thing as a hamburger because there's only ground
beef, lettuce, ketchup and buns and the manufacturer of the buns has no interest in the
manufacturer of ketchup. The interests of the manufacturers is of course completely 
irrelevant: If you stack up all the ingredients correctly, you end up with a burger 
nonetheless. 

> The more usual experience is one simply of latent 
> paranoia, born of complete uncertainty as to what information has been collected and 
> how far it has travelled.  We are not in the 1984 situation, where the private domain has 
> disappeared and there is total, certain observation by a centralised power whose 
> objective is our absolute control.  We are instead in a position where there is constant 
> doubt as to exactly when, and where, our thoughts and actions may be completely 
> unobserved.  We are careful, therefore; anxious, perhaps, that our actions, should they 
> ever be scrutinised, would not appear quite pure or productive enough.   

The doubt seems to come from the fact that people don't seem to realize that
information can, will and is being tied together, gathered from various sources. 
In previous postings to the Sarai list I've given various examples of how one 
is being monitored in a modern city, to summarize: you are being recorded on tape, if 
you've got a mobile phone your location is known and each time you use a bank or 
creditcard for a transaction one can tell what you bought, when you bought it and where 
you bought it. You think you can surf the web anonymously? Heh.. think again.

There is for some unknown reason the idea that if you share some information with 
one party, that information will not be shared with others, which, unless a clear
privacy policy describes this is the case, is basically just completely false. 
And even privacy policies will not prevent government officials from getting whatever
information they want. 

> This anxiety is something more intangible than sweeping "Big Brother" allusions can 
> ever capture.  And yet it is only by finding a language to express the nature of such 
> subtle changes to our interiority that it will be possible to offer anything that can place 
> in perspective bureaucratic calls for more control.  We need, in short, to find new 
> images for life under 21st-century surveillance that can bury blithe references to "Big 
> Brother" for ever and help us to understand where, imaginatively speaking, we are 
> going.                                                               


I believe the main reason for this anxiety is the fact that freedom, while said
being more secured, is in fact cut down bit by bit. This anxiety can either be
caused by having a faint notion of what is going on on subconcious level or by 
having a clear picture of it and the knowledge that you will not be able to stop it.

When speaking of 'privacy' people seem to think you're a paranoid freak concerned that
'they' are tapping your phone, which is not the kernel of the issue. The issue is 
freedom being stripped away, which doesn't affect just the criminal and paranoid, but
every layer of society.

Where there used to be the idea of moving around freely, speaking freely and thinking 
freely, there is now a little voice that tells us we can't any more. Surely, this is
not because of some new anti-privacy laws, cause I've got nothing to hide... but...

Will criticizing the US mean that when I want to enter it, there will be a little flag
saying "subversive" when they check my passport? 

Will ordering a book on a controversial sexual topic at Amazon come back to haunt me
later in my career?

Will the bar where I get drunk every weekend ever sell copies of my bill to my insurance
company or employer in order to make an extra buck?


Human rights being violated used to be something that happened in far away 
countries ruled by ruthless dictators, now it's happening by countries referring to 
themselves as 'the home of the free', justified by promising more security.
I believe part of the anxiety is caused by the fact that what used to be a distant 
reality is coming awfully close to home. 


I was reminded of how very little 'having a right' actually ment in practice recently
when a friend told me what happened when he wanted to take a cab ride. 
In the Netherlands there's been a law in place now for a while which states that any 
customer is allowed to take whatever cab they want. 

At popular places in Amsterdam, the cabs wait in long rows and the drivers have agreements
amongst each other that basically force their customers to take the cab in front of the row.

My friend wanted one that was at the back and the driver didn't want to take him. He told the 
driver "but according to the law I have the right take whatever cab I want!" 
The driver simply responded by saying "yes, and according to the law I have the right to 
refuse any customer I want." 


What value can one attach to freedom of speech, thought and movement when, at any 
point, without any reason, these rights can be stripped away from you without anyone
being able to do anything about it? 



Menso

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
		"You want rights? Ask 'em, they'll read them."
				- Michael Franti
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------