Surveillance, Sousveillance, and Submission
After watching Citizenfour, I had an incredibly difficult time trying to figure out how to place myself in today’s ever-present technological society. Technology has permeated the globe, so how could I really escape it? Citizenfour helped me come to realize that I never really had say in the matter. When the documentary ended, it was as if time stood still. I was watching the film on my computer with my phone in hand, and I immediately wanted to disconnect from everything. Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, you name it. Then I realized that the list of things I would want to be deleting was only growing larger. Gmail, Safari, even Verison…. Eliminating all of these networks from my life would only make me have to work that much harder to connect with others. My hands were tied up with paranoia and fear, because I did and still do not want people surveilling me. Some people may say “well if you have nothing to hid you will be fine,” but whether or not I have something to hide is completely beside the point. The point is about having a discussion on the importance of privacy and surveillance.
So why does privacy really matter?
Glenn Greenwald spoke at TED conference on this very topic, and he started off mentioning that humans are inherently social, but they also need a space where they can escape judgment from the public eye. Just think about it. If people did not need privacy would they really need password-protected emails, phones, or locks on their doors? I think all of those things are very important. Greenwald also mentions that when someone knows they might be under watch, their behavior becomes more conformative. He stated, “mass surveillance creates a prison in the mind” and it is much more effective than brute force. Greenwald continued to say that a society in which everyone can be watched at all times creates a society that is conformative, obedient, and submissive. I completely agree with Greenwald’s statements and would argue that these methods of communication can be dangerous for a democratic society, or any society for that matter. Being in this type of environment creates a culture in which people feel forced to live up to the expectations of others.
A small example of how this notion of watchfulness impacts obedience can be seen in my experiences at work. The office can be very slow in the afternoon, and if I have nothing to do I occasionally go on my phone or look at Facebook. When my boss comes by I immediately get back on track, because I know someone may be watching and there could be implications if I am not working. In reality, my boss is very relaxed and would not mind if she saw me on my phone for a quick second, but the point is that I change my behavior in situations when people are watching me, whether or not they mind if I am on Facebook.
Another piece of aspect of thought to process when discussing this topic comes from Michael Krona, a researcher on media activism and propaganda. In 2013, he was working on research covering Syria and the role of citizen-journalism and online-video broadcasting through mobile communications and posed the question of whether or not he should incorporate a discussion on surveillance vs. sousveillance and its attempt to gain social control by both governments and citizens in his work. He discusses that the balance between sur- and sousveillance technology, and how it is no longer a utopian vision but an implemented reality. There seem to be negatives and positives to these practices, but the long-term implications
The implications of social control in accordance with surveillance and sousveillance are worrisome and impose a threat to a democratic society. Is sousveillance really an effective way at trying to balance society? I do not think it is, and I also do not think it should have to be. Creating a culture of fear in a society through surveillance and sousveillance is far from democratic. Many governments use surveillance as a proposed tool for “safety” and “security” but those words can mask true intentions to resume control or former domination within a society. Rhetoric plays a large role in how communities react to these issues. By masking surveillance as a form or protection from the “other” communities are susceptible harm. Unifying a group of people, in spite of a different group of people, for the good the country perpetuate the binary of “us” versus “them.” This divides and defeats movements towards change.
