In his analysis of surveillance, The Electronic Eye, David Lyon begins by noting that computer scientists back in the 1970’s were already beginning to imagine how plausible Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four might be. An equal amount of time has passed since Lyon’s analysis, and time would seem to further confirm his suspicion that increasing computing capability is birthing an entirely new surveillance paradigm.
Lyon eludes to his thesis that a panoptic framework, derived practically from Foucault but originally from Bentham, goes further in articulating the modern multivalence of surveillance than an Orweillian one by noting that, “the old dichotomy between decentralization and centralization is itself now questionable”. On face, such an observation might soothe an Orwell, who feared the emergence of a massive state surveillance apparatus, but pulling the string of decentralization further unravels an arguably more terrifying ball of yarn.
Rather than being dominated by a carefully controlled and maintained surveillance state, society today is impelled “forward” (if we grant teleology to technology) by a hairy amalgam of economically coordinated actors that realize gains through strategic information gleaned from the firehose of data that humanity is pumping out. Google, FaceBook, and many others large and small thrive off of a business model that positions users as products for advertisers to consume. Indeed the state is more capable of surveilling, but so are its citizens. One shudders to think how well Orwell described the Microsoft Kinect, which in its second iteration is now capable of determining a user’s heart rate and mood by looking at their skin alone.
The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.
Most tellingly of the prescience of the panopticon, the state doesn’t have to force citizens to have one of these boxes in their homes. Rather, in 2015, people willingly go out and spend $500 to set up surveillance boxes themselves.
Lyon, David. “From Big Brother to the Electronic Panopticon.” The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota, 1994. 57-79. Print.
alcuster
One question you implicitly raise is, how “coordinated” are all these surveillance efforts, really? Are all the various surveillors in league with each other, or are they all symptoms of a broader—but uncoordinated—shift to what one critic calls “societies of control.”Reference
This is an excellent point. The question of “voluntary” participation in data collection has been thrown around a good deal in class discussions, and for good reason. It’s not always easy to determine the level of autonomy we possess and exercise as consumers. As you pointed out, no one outright requires us to a buy an Xbox/Kinect/24-hour in-home surveillance cam. But this doesn’t mean that we are not pushed (rather forcefully, I’d argue) towards making these and similar purchases. After all, it’s not like Microsoft brands the Kinect for what *they* can do with it – no, it’s all about what benefits *you*, the consumer, receive. Most Kinect ads I’ve seen feature a happy family crowded around the living room TV, gracefully gesturing through Netflix menus or making fools of themselves in Just Dance. The overall message is that the Kinect is a benevolent and convenient device with no real drawbacks or harmful effects. The same message is touted by just about every digital technology and website. When I signed up for Facebook, the thought on my mind wasn’t how much privacy I was losing in the process, but how much more connected I’d be to friends, how convenient it would be, etc. Basically, it’s hard to protect our privacy when giving it up looks so tantalizing.Reference