 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Eye on You
Wednesday, March 15, at 1 p.m., U.S. Eastern time
Since the passage of the USA Patriot Act, revelations of warrantless domestic spying and "data mining" by federal agencies have made the public more aware of phenomena that scholars have been warning of for years. But the rapid increase in forms of surveillance is engaging a growing number of scholars from many disciplines. They caution that a public-private merger of government and commercial interests has created an expanding and ever-more-encompassing net of surveillance that threatens to become total.
Do surveillance measures, as proponents argue, really reduce crime and increase security? How do they alter the nature of modern citizenship? What does the explosion of surveillance mean for long-cherished notions and hard-won rights of privacy, expression, association, movement, and assembly? And does the demographic sorting of citizens include them in some realms of citizenship -- for example, providing them with certain government services -- and exclude them from others -- if, say, they are identified as security risks?
» Watching the Watchers (3/17/2006)
David Lyon is director of the Surveillance Project at Queen's University, in Ontario, and is North American editor of the online journal Surveillance and Society.
Peter Monaghan (Moderator):
Welcome to Colloquy. I’m Peter Monaghan, a correspondent to The Chronicle. I’d like to welcome David Lyon, who is here to answer questions about the emergence of surveillance studies. Thanks for joining us today, Professor Lyon. OK. By now the watchers should have had time to turn on their keystroke-detection programs, so let’s get started.
Question from Peter Monaghan:
You’ve written about surveillance as a form of social engineering that sorts populations into groups accessible for purposes of security, marketing, and so forth. What is wrong with that? Isn’t surveillance, then, just a more efficient means of doing what is already being done?
David Lyon:
The criterion of 'efficiency' is of course one of the chief reasons why the sorts of surveillance (and the surveillance of sorts) that I research and write about is so acceptable to many. Efficiency, which is really a low-level, mechanical kind of feature, has been culturally elevated to a high position so that it is almost equivalent to a virtue. And, yes, surveillance may be seen as a more efficient way of doing things that already occur but that does not make those things any more acceptable. Indeed, because they are now often done -- the social sorting that is -- in ways that are opaque to those most affected by them, they may become even less acceptable from an ethical or a political viewpoint. At worst, in both fields you mention -- marketing and security -- certain groups may be vulnerable to what Oscar Gandy discusses as 'cumulative disadvantage'. That is, those discriminated against in the labour market following, say, a genetic test, don't just experience stereotyping or stigma. Because the records are stored and retrievable, and because they're added to, they compile more and more 'evidence' and become less and less forgiving. We discriminate all the time in everyday life, and organizations are obliged to do the same. It's not the mere fact of discrimination so much as the information and assumptions on which those discriminations are based that matter. And these are all too often hidden behind a veil of secrecy (security) or silence (marketing) such that we cannot know why we have been categorized in particular ways, or with what effects.
Question from G.T. Marx, MIT, Bainbridge Island, and Scottsdale Bike & Kayak Club:
In North America, great value is in principle placed on transparency and openness in government and in private organizations. Our freedom of information laws and disclosure requirements serve as models for much of the world. In contrast, with respect to individuals, we appear to emphasize the opposite in the protections offered for individual privacy. If visibility is believed to help bring accountability to organizations, why doesn’t the same logic apply to individuals? Is there a contradiction here? If so, can it be resolved? G.T. Marx
David Lyon:
It would seem from my response to the previous question that I would argue for greater transparency in organizations and this is exactly right. I would. Indeed, I believe that too much energy is spent is trying to indicate how people might 'protect themselves' from unwanted surveillance, in relation to how little energy is spent trying to find ways of making the organizations more accountable that collect and process our personal data. But does the same argument apply to individuals? A case can certainly be made for requiring greater personal openness in some circumstances, including the classic case of the 'private' domestic sphere which may be misused as a site for abuse. Visibility may well be a means of bringing accountability. But many other questions are raised by visibility. One is the question of consent -- do we know there's a CCTV camera present or are we aware of how the supermarket loyalty card is used to create a consumer profile of us? Another question, of course, is the extent to which the visibility-enhancing device in question is an appropriate one in the context where it is placed? Or whether its use has been extended from some other legitimate purpose to one of which we are unaware. There's a current proposal in the UK to use roadside cameras that record registration plates on cars for further purposes of obtaining compliance to seat-belt regulations and cell-phone use while driving. This is greater visibility, and could produce greater accountability, but is it appropriate? The trend is towards the use of more and more devices to permit or deny entry, access, or entitlement, and less and less on the background rightness or wrongness, in moral terms, of the behaviours and actions in view. The larger picture, it seems to me, is also one to be borne in mind as decisions are made about 'increasing visibility' of ordinary citizens, consumers,travelers and workers.
Question from Lillie Coney, Electronic Privacy information Center (EPIC.org):
Cyberspace and physical space are very different. Walking down a sidewalk on a busy afternoon, stopping to glance in shop windows and moving along at your own pace may not be anonymous. However, doing the same thing online is anything, but anonymous--every selection is recorded, and every search is captured leaving most consumers unaware that they are not alone when at the keyboard. As more and more of our lives moves online who will draw the distinction between what is private, public, and proprietary?
David Lyon:
Thanks for this question, Lillie. Already in the question there are some assumptions that it's worth opening up a bit. Your initial comments are on 'anonymity' in public shopping places and online, then you switch to the language of 'privacy.' The latter term has a wealth of other connotations as well as anonymity, of course! Both on the street and online, too, we may be unaware that we're monitored, though in quite different (visual and data-oriented) ways. Let me say that I think some forms of anonymity and privacy are significant contributions to satisfying and fulfilling human life. They are worth preserving, though we do have to make clear what we mean by each. At the same time, I think that we are now in a surveillance climate where lots of other challenges as well as those to privacy exist. Unfortunately, we tend to remain within the discourses of privacy even when we're discussing things such as unjust discrimination and the 'cumulative disadvantage' that I commented on in an earlier answer. Who will draw the distinctions? Well, privacy and related responses to surveillance are all contested -- and contestable -- concepts. They're historically and culturally relative and evolve over time and place. They're not absolute, then, and therefore have to be constantly redefined and refined to suit the situation. Our discursive tools must be shaped by other commitments, to care for the other, to democratic participation in processes that may have negative effects on our life-chances and so on. The issues are not just 'individual' but social and political, relating to justice as well as to personal flourishing.
Question from Mary Ann Caton, University of Pittsburgh:
Is anyone studying the changes in behavior, however subtle, that may occur while people are engaged in everyday sorts of activities, such as shopping? If so, what are they finding out?
David Lyon:
Various studies of consumer behaviour (Canadian spelling, sorry!) are carried out especially within business and management schools. I'm not an expert in this area but there are empirical projects on what influences purchases, from the location of goods in the supermarket to the use of electronic steering mechanisms to 'help' people find what they 'want' (as revealed by their profiles).
Question from Eric Dutcher, Attorney:
Does anyone have any reliable statistics or polls that show how Americans feel on the issue of invasion of privacy? If so, what do these show?
David Lyon:
Thank you. This is a very general question and assumes, for example, that there is such as thing as a 'reliable' poll or survey! It is also general with regard to the kind of 'privacy' you mention. However, there are many such studies, of varying degrees of quality, that tend to show that worries about 'loss of privacy' depend on the context. If you discover that a traffic control camera can also note details of your living room, you're likely to be bothered about it -- more so than many who will cheerfully engage in online purchasing without first checking that some security system is in place to protect their personal data. The question asks specifically about Americans (and I suspect that there are more such studies in the USA than anywhere else) which raises a good point. Perceptions do differ from place to place. We're currently working on a major international survey of surveillance and privacy (within our current project on the 'Globalization of Personal Data' at Queen's University in Canada) that tries to get beyond standard questions about 'privacy' to discover what people think if they know they're being profiled by marketers or immigration control at the airport. We're also looking at different countries, using the same instrument, in order to find out, in an era of cross-national standardization of security and surveillance techniques, how far people's perceptions can be thought to be similar.
Question from Karen Schwalm, Glendale Community College AZ:
I am concerned that those who are economically disadvantaged people will have to trade privacy for lower prices. Or -- the other way around -- that the wealthy can afford to protect their privacy by withholding information about themselves. Do you see this as a serious problem?
David Lyon:
Thanks, Karen -- there are lots of 'trade-offs' in this field though I think that one reason why surveillance issues have become more prominent over the past decade or so is that those who did not previously think of themselves as vulnerable to extensive profiling -- middle to upper class, relatively well-off people -- are finding that there's much interest from corporations in their personal data. The range of negotiations around how personal data are handled grows constantly, such that we can't really generalize. The one thing that is becoming clear is that many of the systems that use data-mining and related techniques tend to have the effect of reinforcing already-existing social divisions. That, it seems to me, is a matter of concern, especially in countries that affirm publicly their commitment to lofty aims such as reducing gross socio-economic disadvantage or promoting multi-culturalism.
Comment from Elia Zureik, Queen's University, Kingston Ontario:
In response to Eric's query, yes, there is plenty of information on American perceptions of privacy as revealed in polls. These fluctuate depending on the nature of the "big bang" during the time of interview, as for example, 9/11. Overall, however, Americans are supportive of individually based privacy, but are willing to sacrifice it for the sake of national security. Here is the thing: The government uses various intrusive measures to dilute privacy protection in the name of national security. From a research angle, it is important to find out how average people define security, and the extent to which they are willing to accept government definition of national security. Here the media plays an important role in this regard, by framing the issues.
PS I am the one responsible for the International Survey on privacy that David Lyon referred to.
Question from Anonymous, Canada:
Private (ie. non-state) surveillance is being used around the world in various forms, both in countries with data-protection laws and those without. A common response offered to critics of private surveillance in places where data-protection legislation exists is that the surveillance complies with the data-protection law. Principally, the response is that individuals have consented to the surveillance. Does consent make any difference to the effects and consequences (many of which you have identified in your work) of surveillance? It certainly isn't a whole answer but how far, if anywhere, does consent take surveillance?
David Lyon:
This is a good, though complex question. Let me put a few things on the table as I try to come to an answer. One is that I see surveillance as any kind of systematic, routine attention to personal details, technically mediated or not, with the purpose of managing, influencing, controlling, providing entitlement (etc.) to the persons concerned. So it has broader 'governance' aspects that frame it. Two, data protection and privacy laws differ considerably from country to country, although they tend to have a common denominator in 'Fair Information Principles.' If these were adhered to, much grief -- and injustice -- would be avoided. But in the USA, the court is the final arbiter, and in many European countries, some kind of registration is required. In Canada and elsewhere there are commissioners who act like ombudspersons, receiving complaints and offering advice or, if necessary, proposing that legal action may be in order. Even if the breach or the transgression is known about, it is still incumbent on those violated or invaded (or whatever) to find out what to do, make the complaint, or bring the charge. In other words, the onus is on the individual to respond to whatever may have been done. In many cases, as you hint, the negative discrimination (or other) can occur within the bounds of the law. Certain data security measures were in place, apparent consent was given (opt-in or opt-out) -- and the action that affects negatively the life-chances of the person concerned still occurs. Where does this take us? Consent is certainly important (and achieving that would be a start in many case!) but it isn't the whole story. A wider politics of information must be engaged, that sees the increasingly central role of personal data in determining opportunities, risks, life-chances and so on, and integrates these into forms of meaningful and constructive action.
Question from Lillie Coney, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC.org):
This generation is growing up in a fully networked digital communication existence. How might they address issues raised by communications sent during their youth should they reemerge during critical career opportunities or heightened public stature? Should society begin now to set limits on the use of digital information that is retained on young people?
David Lyon:
So many fine questions are flowing in and I can see the clock ticking... I believe that one of the key issues raised by the embeddedness of digital technologies in everyday life (that affects the rising generation more and more) is the relative lack of forgiveness built-in to the system. Jean-Francois Lyotard once said that the answer is to open the databanks to public scrutiny but again, the problem here is the sheer volume of information and the slim likelihood that we'd know what we were looking for without some blatant breach. On the other hand, one could place limits (voluntary or legislated) on the length of time data are stored that would permit people to start over and not be constantly haunted by their (digitally available) past. This rightly puts the onus back on organizations that process personal data, but it is something that should also be accompanied by more meaningful education for everyone about electronic records. They are a crucial part of our lives and should be subject to democratic procedures.
Comment from Richard Braley, Texas A&M University at Kingsville:
I think Elia is right in that we need to find out how citizens define privacy and security. Some time ago I discovered that well educated people in computer science, engineering and business fields did not know what "security" meant or how it was implemented. It seems to me that we need research more toward discovering why security, the breadth and depth of the topic, is not taught as much as one would think necessary. Not even in disciplines where graduates must work with security issues every day. The general public, it seems to me, are having "security" and "privacy" defined for them by cycles of events in the news rather than receiving concepts and practises in the same way we teach anything else. I am in education and I have yet to meet the entering freshman who knows anything at all about the Bill of Rights where privacy is precious. For that matter, in the research I performed in information security, I consistently met well-educated adults in higher education who did not have a grasp of our fundamental right to privacy. Shouldn't we hope for such a basic level of understanding of privacy v security in a high school graduate?
Question from Simone Browne, Ontario Instiute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto:
The culture of surveillance, or surveillance culture, is about bringing things and people into visibility. A big part of popular culture right now relies on people’s knowledge of, mediation with, and recognition of surveillance technologies, such as through television shows that invite the viewer to solve along with the forensic ‘experts’. This idea of making surveillance ‘fun’ is also part of the culture of surveillance. While we must be informed about surveillance at the ideological and practical levels, particularly around how such technologies are often used to mete out punishments (such as the case of Brandon Mayfield), is there subversive or liberatory potential here, when much of surveillance culture is being taken up as everyday, ‘fun’ and unquestioned by the general public?
David Lyon:
Another great question, Simone! A few years ago Thomas Mathiesen made the excellent point that although Michel Foucault (who gave the greatest theoretical stimulus to surveillance studies since Orwell) lived in an era of TV and other mass media he never wrote about them. So his studies of surveillance, especially in the infamous panopticon prison design, were all of the few watching the many -- not, as with TV, the many watching the few. Mathiesen said we should look at this 'synopticon' and see how it works alongside the panopticon. You can see it, for example, in the 9/11 footage which was 'screened' over and over again (this was the many watching the few) but that had the effect of encouraging more and more 'screening' in another sense, especially at airports, which was the few watching the many again. (I discuss this in Surveillance After September 11.) More broadly, the rise of Reality TV (and the domestication of Big Brother) points up not only the connections with consumer surveillance (as Mark Andrejevic argues) but the general enjoyment of being watched in what might be called 'celeb culture.' Today surveillance studies has to concern itself with both these phenomena (and others such as many watching many) if we're to understand better the subtle complexities of visibility. I think that there may be liberatory aspects, too, though there's no time to explore these right now...
Question from Pasha Peroff, Anzen Consulting Inc.:
We hear a lot about peaceful protests (anti-war, anti-administration, and anti-trade) and their participants in the U.S. being watched by U.S. authorities in an attempt to gain useful intelligence for the anti-terrorism campaign. To what extent has this become an accepted practice that makes up the identity of the North America we now live in? Is this practice truly accepted in the U.S. by the masses?
David Lyon:
If surveillance has to do with anything significant beyond real or imagined invasions of privacy, Pasha, it's categorization. And the catch-all category of 'terrorist' is one of the most tragic outcomes of the post-9/11 era. To suppose that peaceful protesters can be classified in the same way as terrorists is either to trivialize the enormity of terrorism or to grossly misrepresent those who engage in so-called anti-globalization or anti-war protests. Unfortunately in some countries the state of media-amplified fear of terrorism has made possible the extension of 'states of emergency' such that the 'exceptional' becomes normal (as Agamben might say). Thus I read in the NYT last week that the PATRIOT Act, which started life with a 'sunset clause' because of its 'exceptional' character, has now had sunset deferred indefinitely for most of its provisions.
Question from Peter Monaghan:
Some observers have argued that privacy came in with urbanization during the Industrial Revolution, and is now sliding away. Do you buy that? And if so, does that suggest we are getting too hung up on the issue of privacy?
David Lyon:
Is privacy sliding away? Hard to say (but time is; I now have a student waiting for me so I'll have to come to a close). Scott McNealy says we should 'get over' the 'end of privacy' but I think that's all-too-easy a 'solution.' We need to reconsider what we mean by privacy and what aspects of it are worth holding onto. But we should also consider the broader terrain of surveillance (as I defined it earlier) to see if there are other kinds of commitments or 'values' that we believe are important to maintain in the face of contemporary expansions of surveillance. In this sense, we may well be too 'hung up' on privacy. The processes of surveillance are themselves ambiguous, though. It's unhelpful to view them only negatively, because in many cases they're simply the obverse of certain democratic liberties that many of us hold dear. They ensure proper entitlement or access to benefits and services; they ensure that the right account is open for us at the bank and so on. But today they are also processes that are so intertwined with living everyday life that they demand systematic study, because their potential and actual consequences for ordinary people -- and especially those who suffer some disadvantage already -- are enormous. Indeed, the very disciplines from which surveillance studies scholars come from -- sociology, political science, geography in particular -- are having to be rethought in some respects under the pressure from surveillance studies. In addition, the post-9/11 world, in which the pressures are heavy to introduce more and more surveillance mechanisms under the banner of 'security' and 'safety', is one in which measures are often taken with insufficient evidence as to their effectiveness for the purposes stated, or knowledge of their potential negative side-effects. Surveillance Studies is both an intellectually exciting field and one that has urgent policy implications!
Peter Monaghan (Moderator):
That’s all the time we have. Thanks, Professor Lyon, for taking part in our colloquy today, and to everyone else who participated. I’m sorry we weren’t able to get to all the questions. A transcript of this discussion will appear on the Chronicle website in a few minutes. And if, later today, you notice an unmarked, late-model American car lingering outside your place, with a gruff-looking fellow inside, smoking, and with a broad-brimmed hat pulled low over his bushy-browed eyes, take it as a sign that you asked too sensitive a question.