(Pulled from Swarming Media:)

Surveillance as a Service, as Interaction, as Threat: ”

Perhaps I’m a bit negligent in not writing about pieces in the recent release of the social network focused issue of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, but tonight a different text caught my eye: the abstract for a January 26, 2007 panel, designed by Michael Zimmer entitled ‘Critical Perspectives on Web 2.0: Surveillance, Discipline, Labor’. In a broad view, these are some of the most pertinent aspects to consider in our increasingly networked culture. Surveillance as interaction, the shift from a disciplinary society to a control society, and the changing positions and definitions of labor.

Though only an abstract is made available for each panelist, I particularly enjoyed that of Anders Albrechtslund, called ‘Surveillance as social play’. He writes:

‘Traditionally, students of surveillance have been occupied with the negative and worrying aspects of monitoring practices in society, and concepts such as Big Brother and Panopticon have dominated the literature as the metaphorical framework. … However, as surveillance studies has grown to be a broader field of research, the positive and caring aspects has come into consideration as well … Furthermore, it has been suggested that surveillance studies should embrace the contexts of entertainment, play and leisure, and in this way, surveillance is studied as a social practice.’

This is one point that we as a networked society grapple with on a near daily basis. Should we trust Google with all of our information if it leads to better service? Will the RIAA sue me if I use a peer-to-peer network in a manner that is not to their liking? Are teens being to liberal with their personal information on social networks? These are questions that arise with some frequency and all point to our simultaneous unease and growing dependence on surveillance - as a service, as social interaction, and as a threat.

Surveillance is a service for Google. We let them look at our e-mail, web site traffic, feeds, and soon phone activity in return for more relevant, unobtrusive ads and powerful, free applications. What’s important to note here is that this kind of surveillance is, for the most part, voluntary. We willingly hand over our data - though possibly without realizing its inherent value.

Surveillance is social interaction on social networking sites. The Facebook news feed is an excellent distillation of this concept. We alter our performed, online identity with the knowledge that this addition of data will be seen by our friends. We want to be the subject of surveillance - that is they essential point of a social networking profile. At the same time, we want to be the on the other end of that relationship at the same time when looking at other people’s data. A good way to describe surveillance as interaction would be distributed surveillance, which then leads to distributed control and modulation.

Surveillance as a threat hardly needs to be explained. It is the way we have always perceived surveillance - at least as long as we are its subject. The UK’s CCTV ubiquity is an example of the unidirectional surveillance that partially defines a network culture.

It’s clear then that surveillance isn’t just Big Brother anymore.

Or, at least we are all Big Brothers in our own little ways nowadays.

“