Mobile Technologies
I have to admit: the majority of this post focuses on Mann, Nolan, & Wellman's article. Wrote about it first, then realized I had about a thousand words on it by itself: impressive for me.
I have a few thoughts on Mann, Nolan, & Wellman's (2003) discussion of sousveillance. In class discussions, we've touched on the theme of privacy quite a bit. I think David and possibly others have noted that under the constitution we really aren't granted privacy, outside of a sort of related right against "unreasonable" search and seizure. If the authorities have probable cause to expect we're up to no good, they can step in with a warrant (or without one, with the Patriot Act). Mann et al. avoid discussion of the constitution altogether, though, and insist that privacy is a human right, not just from unreasonable search and seizues: "Privacy
is a psychological as well as a social and political requirement. For instance, people
seek control over the degree of anonymity they possess in their relationships
by choosing
what personal information to reveal to another person based upon their relationship
(Ingram 1978). Yet, the asymmetrical nature of surveillance is characteristic
of an unbalanced power relationship" (p. 334).
But why is this true? While obviously Mann et al. are not aiming to get into a philosophical discussion of the right to privacy--their writing more about a particular study they did related to the topic--many others would argue here. What is the argument for why privacy is required? They claim it is a psychological requirement. Is it? Just showing that people would prefer anonymity, as perhaps Ingram shows, does not mean that it is a necessity. It seems like they're conflating "needs" and "wants." Would all people suffer psychological meltdowns if their every move was under surveillance? Orson Welles obviously was concerned about surveillance society; however, most of the characters in his novel, if I remember correctly, were sane, though they were also very clueless about what the manipulation they suffered at the hands of the government. Are Mann et al. forgetting to factor in habituation here: that, as people become used to surveillance, they may forget it is even happening and stop caring about it? This doesn't sound right, as they do discuss how people have just come to accept surveillance as a normal aspect of life, not even questioning the power imbalance involved. Or do they just mean that people perceive the need for privacy? That is, do they become troubled by surveilance just because of the thought of someone watching them. I mean, privacy gets violated all the time in our lives, and people are still surviving. I guess the biggest problem I have is with the word "requirement."
Obviously people would prefer to have privacy, and we could argue, as the authors also suggest, that it is a social and politcal requirement, but there's something problematic to me about calling privacy a psychological requirement. And I agree that privacy is a right to a certain extent. I've mentioned this topic of privacy in previous blog posts. You do need to have some control over how information about yourself is used, obviously. Specifically, the issue of privacy is not so much about the information about yourself merely being available: to me, the concern is with how others can use it against you. You never know how something you do or say could be taken out of context and used to make you look foolish; then, this foolish act can be replayed over and over on youtube or something like that. Or, on a related note, someone could take a particular detail about your beliefs or personality that isn't representative of you and emphasize it, giving it a "presence" over other details that are more representative and more favorable. I'm not quite sure how to define the line between private info and info that should be available to the public, but I'm interested in this concept of privacy as a social and a political right.
A thought related to Mann et al.: there's a pretty recent example of sousveillance worth mentioning (I will be putting a link to the video on the Wiki). My guess is the authors would enjoy this one. There's a guy in St. Louis named Brent Darrow who actually has a mounted digital camera in the back of his car: he claims he installed it after he was assaulted by a police officer a year before the incident I'm bringing up. Last fall, the kid parked in a commuter lot at 2:30 in the morning. He was followed into the lot by a police officer, who then put on his flashers and approached the car, asking the kid to explain himself and asking for his ID and insurance. When the kid insists that he has a legal right to park there and shouldn't be questioned, the cop goes on a Farva-esque power trip; he starts threatening him, even saying he'll arrest the guy and make up charges! The cop also makes up some reasons why he could stop the guy in first place, claiming the man didn't use a turn signal when pulling into the lot--the video, on the other hand, suggests otherwise. This video and story made the news last year, and the cop was first suspended and then fired. While I get the impression Mr. Darrow was trying to instigate a conflict, nevertheless his story at least suggests citizens may need the right to record those in power, especially considering their ability to abuse such power.
I'm not sure I have a lot to say about Farley's (2005) article on the
history of cell phones. It was informative for me though, as I had no
idea how long we've had this technology or something resembling it
around. I'm trying to think of the first time I knew of someone that
had a cell phone and not having a lot of success...
Dourish & Bell (2007) looks at the relationship between virtual and physical space, arguing that as computer technology has become mobile we have become more aware of that the line between virtual and physical is not so clear: similar to Hayles, who explained how we cannot separate materiality and information, D & B discuss how, for instance, the placement of WiFi routers brings mobile internet users together. Dr. Silva's (2006) article also discusses the interaction between virtual and physical space. She explores hybrid spaces as constructed by mobile communication technologies such as PDAs or cell phones. We've touched on related topics already this semester, discussing where the line between the virtual and the "real" or physical world becomes blurred. We can come back to Silva's discussion of the Matrix. In the film, the physical and virtual worlds interact with one another, although mobility in the virtual world requires being stationary in the physical world, like how, at least with desktop computer, we must remain stationary when going online (p. 268):