Exploring the Paradox of Surveillance in Modern Society
Written on
Understanding the Dilemma of Surveillance
Can we truly report on invasive surveillance practices without becoming part of the surveillance apparatus? This question was explored by Charlie Warzel and Stuart A. Thompson in their work at The New York Times. They opted to use a confidential data set that contained approximately 100,000 location data points from numerous smartphones, which enabled them to trace the movements of individuals near the Capitol on January 6. The data tracked around 130 devices that were present during the storming of the Capitol.
The information they utilized is typically gathered silently by smartphone applications for purposes like advertising and consumer tracking. Warzel and Thompson pointed out that most users are unaware that this data is being collected, and it is often susceptible to misuse by law enforcement or malicious entities, potentially harming innocent individuals. They firmly stated that this type of data collection should never have occurred.
However, as Chris Gilliard and Albert Fox Cahn noted in their piece for OneZero, despite the ethical concerns raised, the data was still prominently displayed on one of America's leading news platforms. Gilliard and Fox Cahn criticized the decision to utilize and showcase the data, arguing that if it is truly harmful and should not exist, then it ought to be treated accordingly. They contended that The Times cannot simultaneously criticize these practices while engaging in them.
The Implications of a Surveillance Society
One of the significant threats posed by our increasingly surveillance-driven society is the assumption that every facet of our lives, whether social or economic, necessitates surveillance to function effectively. This notion is what Warzel, Thompson, Gilliard, and Fox Cahn express concern over, emphasizing that a surveillance-based framework undermines our understanding of privacy and autonomy.
The data reveals a troubling reality: organizing a protest or any public demonstration requires surveillance-enabled platforms, making it difficult to discuss surveillance without simultaneously engaging in it. As we analyze the implications of these practices, we find ourselves caught in a paradox.
The first video, "Dalhous - Visibility Is A Trap," delves into the complexities of surveillance, questioning how visibility can both empower and ensnare individuals in a web of constant observation.
Theoretical Perspectives on Surveillance
Michel Foucault's analysis of the Panopticon sheds light on this issue. He argued that unlike traditional prisons, where darkness conceals the incarcerated, the Panopticon's design keeps inmates perpetually exposed, regardless of whether they are under direct observation.
In our contemporary world, however, the roles of observer and observed have merged. With the advent of smartphones and various applications, we find ourselves both monitoring and being monitored, creating an environment where surveillance influences our behavior and decision-making processes.
The second video, "Visibility is a Trap | Foucault and Panopticism," explores Foucault's theories further, illustrating how our awareness of being observed alters our actions and societal interactions.
The Cycle of Surveillance
Surveillance offers insights into aspects of our lives we were previously unaware of. For instance, a camera-equipped baby monitor reveals detailed sleep patterns of an infant, while a smartwatch tracks daily steps. Surveillance technology heightens our awareness of our surroundings, informing our subsequent choices.
As we increasingly depend on surveillance tools, this reliance extends beyond individual lives to communities, cities, and nations. The more we integrate surveillance into daily life, the more entrenched it becomes, leading us to a troubling conclusion: visibility is indeed a trap.