THE ANXIETIES OF BIG DATA — READING RESPONSE
Is Big Data the Modern Big Brother?
In 2017 more than ever before, Big Data is impossible to ignore. Not because of its widespread presence or influence in world politics (arguably on England’s Brexit and Trump’s presidential victory), but because Big Data is about people. When we think of data, numbers and complex codes may come to mind, but the fact is that Big Data concerns people and their behavior. Numbers don’t mean a lot on their own, they become relevant when representing something other, when outlining patterns of behavior we can see applied in the real world. Big Data is the same: its meaning starts when coupled with social, cultural, political, and economic aspects of our lived reality. And so does its dangers.
As outlined by Kate Crawford on her essay “The Anxieties of Big Data”, the reality of constant surveillance can’t be escaped, so the best action to take is to understand it as best as possible. Because Big Data and its use is still so full of mysteries, we struggle to respond and react to it. The natural response to doubt is anxiety, which makes the age of Big Data also the age when anxiety becomes the status quo. The anxiety of those being surveilled relates to the fear of over-exposure and lack of privacy, while the anxiety of the surveillers focuses on the fear of never knowing enough.
Privacy seems to be the big question when it comes to surveillance: not only how much privacy do we need, but how much do we actually want? When we are scared about our security, be that personal or national, aren’t we willing to give up some privacy to ensure safety? On the level of government, security is the main excuse for the breach of personal privacy. However, security cannot be guaranteed by widespread surveillance. There will always be black holes on Big Data, as proved by the Boston Marathon bombing and the disappearance of the Malaysian Airlines flight 370. There will never be enough data to ensure complete security, and it seems like the excess of information could be just as guilty in ensuring the existence of black holes.
We are taught that information and knowledge translates into power; but when it comes to Big Data, it seems that too much information can as easily turn into ignorance. Since it is not possible to know it all, the question becomes whether it’s better to see the big picture and miss important details, or focus on small data and risk missing the bigger picture. And if black holes are unavoidable, there is space for interpretation on Big Data. If those in possession of data take a “fill in the blank” approach, who knows what sort of mistakes can happen. The stakes of Big Data are extremely high because it is concerned with people, so we need to ask ourselves just how much we can trust those interpreting it.
Another problem raised by Big Data concerns its connection with consumerism. Data fuels the market by helping companies target specific consumers, increasing profits; and what we consume is largely what will define us on the Big Data spectrum. So if mass surveillance walks hand in hand with mass consumerism, and breaches in consumer privacy directly fuel the capitalist market, what does that mean for democracy? In a world where our government is collecting data that is largely being used to ignite capitalist endeavors, our personal liberties seem to be at risk. Our ability to choose freely is highly shrinked by targeted and personalized marketing, since we mostly buy what we are told. Because of this, Big Data seems to not only be invading our privacy, but limiting our freedom of choice.
However, most people are unaware of the influence Big Data has on our consumer behavior, and invasion of privacy continues to be the main source of anxiety for the surveilled. Due to the fear of standing out when Data is gathered, people are making efforts to blend into the crowd. As Crawford points out, that happens as far as choosing what to wear, but it also concerns actions online. Not standing out seems to be the best way to guarantee safety, since conforming to the norms of social behavior will ensure we “stay out of the radar”. But is it healthy to give up our authenticity for fear of raising a possible Big Data red flag? Just as it was explored on George Orwell’s 1984, the sheer knowledge that we could be watched at any moment is enough to control our behavior. The same way Winston Smith’s society stays in line due to fear of the Big Brother, our society relinquishes authenticity and strives to blend in for fear of Big Data.
There is so much anxiety surrounding Big Data because there is still a lot we don’t understand about it. On today’s society, lack of knowledge means vulnerability, and being vulnerable is scary. It is impossible to have any sort of opinion about Big Data without first understanding its multiple sides, and I believe the mystery that surrounds it is to blame for most of its rejection. This is not to say that Big Data is intrinsically good, but that something with this much power can never be any good as long as people are unaware of its influence upon them. In order to designate the proper line between what should be kept private and what should be used as public data, we first need to understand how information works, how it is gathered, and how it can be used.
