Data Bodies: The Gray Area of Surveillance
The term ‘data body’ is pretty literal. It’s a body made out of data. Data that was gathered out of your participation. Out of your own digital breadcrumbs, choices you made both online and in the real world that were in some way tracked and recorded. The practice itself is called ‘performativity in surveillance’ and is primarily concerned with the notion of perceiving people as objects of data through invasive looking. We are also inclined to search for patterns in that data hoping to discover what makes us the way we are. This inclination is called ‘apophenia’. A good example of apophenia is seeing Vladimir Putin’s face in a flock of birds over New York:
It’s really no wonder we tend to misinterpret what data tells us about individual people. The conclusions we can draw from observing people as objects of data are often flawed. This is the grey area of surveillance which mostly consists out of an unregulated pile of conclusions only the most untalented of storytellers could come up with. And this is essential to defining individual privacy. Because “privacy is not only the right to keep a secret. Privacy is the right to construct your own identity”[1] and have ownership of it.
To truly have ownership of your data body, you would have to become a very private person indeed. Obviously, you would need to disconnect from the system. Maybe download your data body to a USB, run for the hills and hide, that type of thing. In other words, it’s impossible to avoid being the victim of this data sucking adventure we are all participating in, mostly willingly because we really have no other choice.
What data interpreters do is create stories out of data. In example, based on Mr. Rogers’ google search, he is most likely a threat to his wife because he googled ‘how to kill your partner’. The fact is that Mr. Rogers is a fiction writer who was doing research for his book. Or Jimmy tweets that he’s going to destroy America, get’s detained at an airport, is put on the no fly list and then detained for 48 hours as a terrorism suspect. Yet, he was only going to get drunk with his friends once he landed. While you would think this is science fiction, those are both real cases.
Performativity in surveillance inherently distorts the perception of the data interpreter since looking at people like they are machines is a bit counterproductive. And those examples are built around one single event, a google search and a tweet. That’s it. Do some more digging with the assumption that the accused are indeed guilty and you will find enough data patterns to prove your point.
Power
The more developed we get, the more data we generate, thus making ourselves subject to scrutiny by the existence of our data bodies. But that’s nothing new, companies have been trading with people’s data for a while now and considering how lucrative this field of data trading has become, I don’t see it sliding on a downward spiral. I see it becoming more lucrative, more powerful in its effect and more empowering to the ones who have it. I think Michel Foucault would have a field day if he was alive today. I can already see him and Jeremy Bentham fighting on where does the power lie. I think it just lies in man.
Because man has another inclination. To thrive on power which essentially produces control. To give up power, man would lose control. And man doesn’t want to lose control over a population because then it becomes impossible to predict its actions. This is why surveillance is a major pain in the ass and I don’t see it diminishing in scope. Which is why I like to quote Shoshana Zuboff’s third law, which stems from the context of the implications of information technology:
“Every digital application that can be used for surveillance and control will be used for surveillance and control.”
It’s a very interesting law because humanity has become technology driven and data obsessed, making the law serve as a warning that will most likely be dismissed in favor of creating more data capital.
The Silver Bullet
Obviously, you can’t carry a USB with all your data on it. Or rebuild a system that was built for the army in the first place. A system that is a seemingly free medium in which data is being used as a currency. A system that acts as it’s own panopticon in which content is the prime motivator for participation and the more people are aware of the fact that they are being watched, the more self policing their behavior becomes essentially making the idea support itself. Internet in itself is a bait and click scheme. Content being the bait and data sucking being the click.
Another suggestion to gain ownership over our data bodies would be to provide people with the option to opt out of tracking and instead pay for online services and content. But then you discriminate the poor and make data and privacy even more luxurious. Then there’s obfuscation, which I don’t believe is a long term solution either since data can be re-identified even after it has been de-identified. The important thing is that we already started building a culture that is making people very aware of what is being done with their data and to what end which is why the following research shows:
The solution doesn’t revolve just around creating awareness, because that term has already been bleached out of existence and doesn’t really mean anything. The solution is not only to truly educate people but also allow them to have access to their own data in real time, from medical charts to online behavior, police records, etc. Having immediate access to your very own data body would allow you to have ownership of it. Essentially, the more your data body is dispersed throughout the Internet, the less control you have over it and the more power it has over you. Because when power becomes decentralized, it inherently becomes omnipotent.
[1] Carroll, David. “Adblock Is a Boycott.” 2015 UXIES. Theresa Lang Community Center at The New School, New York. 16 Nov. 2015. Lecture.
