[Reader-list] Surveillance after "Big Brother"

[diviya -]

This might be a stripped and simple version..but i think the concept of the 
'Big Brother' is more or less internalised by all. There needn't be a 
surveillance camera monitoring one's walk down a shopping mall or an almost 
idyllically unemployed person to go through each google search one 
makes...but just a grain of there being such a possibility is - to sound 
corny- the biggest brother to have. And as pointed out, such possibilities 
are. And, disconcertingly less disguised.

The construct of the Big Brother, and the caution\paranoia generated 
therefrom, is an effective politics to ensure self discipline. Most of us 
are instinctively aware of a gaze and, more often than not, adapt to its 
milieu. This is certainly not impossible and futuristic. It is more 
characteristic of people and the ways in which discipline manifests itself.
Any 'conspiracy theories' that are scoffed upon as paranoid, are really not 
all that baseless.


>From: Menso Heus <menso at r4k.net>
>To: reader-list at sarai.net
>Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Surveillance after "Big Brother"
>Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 04:55:01 +0100
>
>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
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>_________________________________________
>reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>Critiques & Collaborations
>To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe 
>in the subject header.
>List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

_________________________________________________________________
All the news that matters. All the gossip from home. 
http://www.msn.co.in/NRI/ Specially for NRIs!