This is still part of the discussion of the first two chapters of iSpy. Our class discussion yesterday brought an interesting point from Andrejevic on how interactivity actually doesn’t mean democratization because we are still stuck with the whole notion and promise that technology will address all the basic human needs (pg 9). Interactivity becomes part of a new type of a digital capitalism that leads to free labor. Why is free labor necessary for the new type of capitalism? Well, competition is still a big deal; however, the system of competition will shift from individualism to more to the mass. The mass or the consumers are the ones that can shape the future of a company. This has always being the case, but now the consumer has the chance to participate more in shaping the marketing system.
Why interaction is not democratization? The false belief of technology being the hope of the future is bogus to some extent; however, the reason for this is because what controls us is not only what technology has become, but who is controlling it: marketers and state institutions. Today, our privacy is being used for profit by some marketers. If a person logs in to a webpage and wants to know the information about a certain individual, a company might have all the results from where you live to all the things that you like. I put myself in such line as well, but as one of the almost two billion users who have internet access, we are the ones creating this new age. The interaction between us (users) and computers is that we are invited to participate in such a digital world where it leads many (without realizing) to be exploited or in other terms as described in class, we are creating our own jails while enjoying it at the same time.
I don’t have anything to hide; therefore, I have nothing to fear if everything is known about me. But, there’s always that “but,” we need to create a line between our “real” life and our “digital” life. According to Andrejevic, our embracement to our digital form of life continues to expand. I guess it should be time for many of us to embrace it as well, including myself. As Americans, our short-term oriented society is only focused on how the past actions will affect our present decisions. Technology has come to the moment where it has changed our economy and our government.
In terms of government surveillance, I’m not afraid of the government to extend their power in order to maintain this nation safe. Nevertheless, Benjamin Franklin once said that those who are willing to give up their liberty for security deserve neither and will be able to lose both. It is not that our digital era doesn’t give us freedom, but every century, the meaning of the word freedom should be interpreted differently. The freedom of speech? It has well change during the last two decades. Over the last few months, we have seen how the webpage Wikileaks is actually trying to do with such freedom. This has caused the government to react to the point where we start thinking that the threat can come from within the own government. The Patriot Act is a perfect example on the necessary actions the government is taking for “national security.”
The author points out how there needs to be a line between the state and marketing. Such line has being crossed by the government several times for national security reasons. If someone decides to buy a bunch of unknown powder from some unknown store, the government takes action thinking that such person will use it to create bombs. Marketers have our information and begin to share it with the government in order to look for suspects. Even though I wrote about having nothing to hide, the U.S Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protects American citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. Over the last decade, this line has being crossed many times. Is it time to begin interpreting or change the Supreme Law of the land?
well, I guess once again my total impatience means that one of my lengthy comments have vanished into the ether...
ReplyDeleteso, good post, interesting points. Here's one I disagree with, which puts me in a minority, I think, insofar as a bunch of folks in the class agree with you--you guys all say that you don't have anything to hide. I find this outrageous. No one wants everyone they know to know everything about them.
The problem happens when folks use this supposition of innocence as a jumping off point for actually identifying with the government/state--others are those with something to hide.
This is the point you are illustrating in the example in your last paragraph where you mention someone buying powder and the government taking action. How is it that the government knows that the person bought powder--how was that information gathered, sold, and distributed? As you point out, from marketers, who 'share' (either sell or are forced to reveal it).
Interesting factoid--the majority of the law enforcement requests for information from ISPs in the last few years had nothing to do with terrorism--they were part of the so-called war on drugs. So, the requests weren't national, they were state and local. They were also broad, in that they asked for general calling/sms patterns, not specific names and not any call/sms content. But from the numbers, times, and frequencies, they could discern patterns that they identified with drug dealers and then use that general information to request more access (that is, their requests for access/information would now be 'warranted' and they would be able to search and seize).
Related factoid: the phone usage patterns of drug dealers look a lot like those of radical political activists.
(I heard a great presentation on this in a workshop on internet privacy this fall).