Self-surveillance: through the digital looking glass.

Reflection:

My video titled ‘Self-Surveillance’ focused on the shift in surveillance that has occurred with the rise of the Internet and social media sites (Baruh & Soysal 2010, p. 394), whereby users disclose information online. This involved considering the parameters of self-surveillance, and the consequences that the extension of surveillance has on users. I drew attention to some specific examples of self-surveillance technologies, including popular social media sites, computer programs and applications. My decision to refer to popular examples was intended to highlight the pervasiveness and ‘domestication’ of self-surveillance (Trottier 2012, p. 329), as well as to ensure that the video was relevant to a wide target audience.

I also branched into a more general discussion of the reasons why users engage in self-surveillance, including the umbrella motivations of sharing and convenience. This vagueness was important to recognise the flexibility of the Internet and social media and the fact that each user has their own motives for participating in the digital culture. Thus, I encouraged viewers to consider their own motives for disclosing information on the Internet. I also kept my analysis fairly broad so that I could demonstrate the nebulous nature of self-surveillance. The research I conducted reinforced the fact that self-surveillance, which can also be viewed as new or digital surveillance, is not conducive to any single definition or explanation. Rather, self-surveillance is a layered area of study, because the power contained in Focault’s solitary panopticon has been dispersed throughout a network.

In my discussion of the potential problems self-surveillance poses for users and society, I referred to the fact that self-surveillance has become entrenched in the digital culture. This means that although users control what specific information they disclose when they participate in digital culture, the voluntariness of their decision to participate in the first place is doubtful. This is where socio-cultural (and perhaps even economic) interests intersect with surveillance because non-participation in the digital culture can have significant negative consequences for individuals (Staples 2014, p. 168). The attractiveness of participation is reinforced by the convenience that digital participation presents. Thus, there is a trade-off between control and convenience, made all the more concerning given the opaqueness of the connections between digital providers and their transferring of user data (Taddicken 2012, p. 267).  This issue of data control and the increase in government and corporate led ‘dataveillance’ (Baruh & Soysal 2010, p. 402), also relates to the debate surrounding metadata. This draws on Newell’s idea of the ‘participatory panopticon’ (2014, p. 482), in which the watch-tower

In composing my video I used a contemporary expository style using graphics to convey the gravity of the issue of surveillance, whilst maintaining audience interest. This involved creating a ‘Prezi’ slideshow that juxtaposed Creative Commons images, and the preset Prezi symbols and text. I also recorded myself narrating the presentation, which I added to the images along with Creative Commons sourced audio tracks. I chose this method because it allowed me to present a significant amount of information within the time limit, and also provided the ability to reinforce concepts and ideas by creating tailored graphics. This presentation style also gave the video drama by creating visual and audio diversity to engage viewers. As I was unfamiliar with Prezi the slide show creation stage presented some challenges, which I overcame through research, likewise editing the audio was quite challenging because it was time-consuming and required a great deal of patience.

Overall, this assignment forced me to re-familiarize with the video making process and explore new ways of creating video content, in the form of the Prezi slideshow. The presentational style of the assignment also meant that I had to keep the target audience at the forefront of my mind when scripting, creating and editing the video. 

Reference List:

‘Anti-Surveillance’ by Caneles available at https://www.flickr.com/photos/94446676@N00/5148243980/under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

Baruh, L and Soysal, L 2010, ‘Public intimacy and the new face (book) of surveillance: the role of social media in shaping contemporary dataveillance’, in T Dumova & R Fiordo (eds), Handbook of Research on Social Interaction Technologies and Collaboration Software: Concepts and Trends, Information Science Reference, Pennsylvania, pp. 392-403.

Best, K 2010, ‘Living in the control society: Surveillance, users and digital technologies’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 5-24.

‘Facebook: The Panopticon of Modern Age’ by joelle L available at https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilifeinicity/13048344414/ under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

‘Failed Cat Cam’ by Hugo Cardoso available at https://www.flickr.com/photos/hugojcardoso/2941385851/ under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

‘Footprints’ by andy_5322 available at https://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_5322/104324029/ under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

Glance, D 2013, ‘Your social networks and the secret story of metadata’, The Conversation, 18 July, retrieved 2 September 2014, <http://theconversation.com/your-social-networks-and-the-secret-story-of-metadata-16119>.

Humphreys, L 2011, ‘Who’s Watching Whom? A Study of Interactive Technology and Surveillance’, Journal of Communication, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 575-595.

‘iCloud’ by AJ Cann available at https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajc1/5807619643/ under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

‘iHealth sur iPhone et iPad’ by Geekmedical available at https://www.flickr.com/photos/geekmedical/5388712564/ under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

iTunes 2014, Genius Recommendations, computer program, Apple Australia.

‘La tecnología de big data revolucionará la seguridad de la información’ by infocux Technologies available at https://www.flickr.com/photos/infocux/8450190120/ under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

Lyon, D 2001, Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life, Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.

Marwick, AE 2012, ‘The Public Domain: Surveillance in Everyday Life’, Surveillance & Society, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 378-393.

MIT 2014, Immersion: a people-centric view of your email life, MIT Media Lab, retrieved 3 September 2014, <https://immersion.media.mit.edu>.

‘MobileMe FIND MY IPHONE screenshots’ by Steel Wool available at https://www.flickr.com/photos/wynnie/5236972501/ under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

Newell, BC 2014, ‘The Massive Metadata Machine: Liberty, Power, and Secret Mass Surveillance in the U.S. and Europe’, I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 481-522. 

‘Portugal.theman – Purple Yellow Red and Blue (MusiqueAlchemyRemix)’ by MusiqueAlchemy available at https://soundcloud.com/musiquealchemy/portugal-the-man-purple-yellow-red-and-bluemusiquealchemyremix under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

‘Radiohead – Codex (Party Ben Remix)’ by Party Ben available at https://soundcloud.com/partyben/radiohead-codex-party-ben under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

Staples, WG 2014, Everyday surveillance: vigilance and visibility in postmodern life, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham.

‘Surveillance’ by Jonathan McIntosh available at https://www.flickr.com/photos/jonathanmcintosh/3744953433/ under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

 ‘Surveillance camera’ by Corey Burger available at https://www.flickr.com/photos/coreyburger/4802830104/ under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

Taddicken, M 2012, ‘Privacy, Surveillance, and Self-Disclosure in the Social Web: Exploring the User’s Perspective via Focus Groups’, in C Fuchs, K Boersma, A Albrechtslund & M Sandoval (eds), Internet and Surveillance, Routledge, New York, pp. 255-273.

Trottier, D 2012, ‘Interpersonal Surveillance on Social Media’, Canadian Journal of Communication, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 319-332.

Edit Profile – The Construction of Identity on Social Media

The uptake of social media in civil societies around the world has been unprecedented in terms of rapidity and saturation. According to van Dijck in ‘December 2011, 1.2 billion users worldwide’ interacted through social media (2013, p.4). The ability to construct identity is the foundation of online social media, which offer users unprecedented levels of control over how they present themselves online. This control, which can be used for anonymity, has been integral to the utilization of social media platforms for generating social, political and cultural change. Throughout this discussion I will critically analyse the identity construction function of social media by analysing my own online personae.

Create Infographics

According to Papacharissi social networking sites are primarily platforms for ‘self presentation and identity negotiation’ (2010, p. 304), that enable users to construct a virtual or ‘networked’ self (2010, p. 304). Smith and Watson have also suggested that online identities are co-constructed, because they are influenced by many different factors, which are beyond the control of individual social media users (2014, p. 71). These factors include contextual factors, such as the type of platform being used and the purpose for which the platform is being used, as well as social factors, such as the influence of peers, other users and cultural expectations (Wilkinson & Thelwall 1010, p. 2313).

Wilkinson and Thelwall explored the signficance of contextual factors to identity construction in their analysis of the 2008 global ‘eclipse’ of Myspace and Facebook, in which Facebook displaced Myspace as the most used social media network in the world (2010, p. 2313). Those authors identified differences in how users constructed identity on Facebook and Myspace, suggesting that Myspace promoted artistic expression by allowing users to customise their profiles using graphics and music (2010, p. 2312), whereas Facebook emphasised utility, information sharing and using friends as ‘identity marker[s]’ (2010, p. 2313). Therefore, Facebook’s displacement of Myspace appears to support the idea that online identity is co-constructed, and that users define their online (and perhaps their offline) ‘self’ not just by their personal expressive choices, but also by their social interactions. This focus on social interaction is evident from my own experience of Facebook, which actively promotes the public expression of familiarity through 'tagging', 'friending' and 'liking'.

Create Infographics

Just like the old adage, identity is ‘not what you know, but who you know’ (Kiisel 2012). This idea is evidenced by the phenomenon of the ‘profile image’, the cornerstone of online identity, because many users, myself included, set ‘profile images’ depicting themselves with other people. The reasoning behind my decision, which may be indicative of the logic of other social media users, is two-fold. Firstly, the group ‘profile image’ connotes that a user has an active offline social life or is ‘popular’, which in this era of celebrity culture is a socially desirable characteristic (Marshall 2010, p. 41). Secondly, the ‘profile image’ represents the most exposed part of the online identity, being visible to those outside of the users’ chosen social media community. As such, selecting a ‘profile image’ that depicts multiple people provides some anonymity and protection to the user. Further, the ‘profile image’ demonstrates not only the co-constructive nature of online identity, but also the potential for the collectivization of online identity and the integration of online and offline ‘selves’.

The control social media users have over how much or how little they reveal of their offline ‘self’ also relates to the debate regarding whether online identities can be authentic. This reference to ‘identities’ plural is important because although users may maintain cross-platform coherence, each platform gives rise to an identity that is essentially unique. It has been found that ‘users are well aware of both their own self-representation and their audience expectations’ when constructing identity on social media (Matic 2011, p. 20). However, it could also be said that social media has merely highlighted or extended the performative nature of identity by bringing different social contexts into the one metaphorical location (Orenstein 2010). The ‘self’ I present in my University class is different to the ‘self’ I present professionally, or in social situations. It seems that social media has created a convergence (or perhaps collision) of these traditionally separate private and public spheres (Marshall 2010, p. 40; Fuchs & Trottier 2013, p. 9).

GLOBAL DIGITAL STATISTICS 2014 from we20

(We Are Social Singapore 2014, slide 9-11)

Users have responded to this convergence in two key ways. Some have separated their spheres by confining each to certain social media platforms. For example I confine my public sphere to Twitter. This specialization of social media platforms appears to be a feedback process, in which users and creators shape the purpose for which platforms are used (Papacharissi 2009, p. 207). Another way in which users negotiate the issues brought about by convergence of social spheres is through the utilization of privacy settings. The refinement of privacy settings on social media platforms has enabled users to create multiple variations of their identity within a single platform, by providing increased control over information (Papacharissi 2009, p. 207). On my Facebook I am a member of multiple disparate communities (‘groups’), in which I am able to present a different version of my ‘self’. The importance of control over information highlights the importance of non-disclosure in relation to online identity, because in informational terms discretion is just as significant as disclosure.

Overall, identity construction is the foundation of social media, as it forms the basis of all online interaction. In my analysis of my own social media use, it is clear that I have constructed a different identity for each platform, and even variations of that identity within each platform. Additionally, each identity has been co-constructed within a social and cultural context that has drawn in aspects of both my online and offline selves (Smith & Watson 2014, p. 71). Although these identities may be incomplete and unauthentic, each identity serves the fundamental purpose of enabling online interaction, which ultimately is what social media is for.

Word Count - 986

Reference List:

Alexa 2014, ‘The top 500 sites on the web’, retrieved 28 July 2014, <http://www.alexa.com/topsites>.

Fuchs, C and Trottier, D, ‘Social Media, Surveillance & Society’, The Privacy & Security Research Paper Series, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 1-25, <http://www.projectpact.eu/privacy-security-research-paper-series/privacy-security-research-paper-series/%238_Privacy_and_Security_Research_Paper_Series.pdf>.

Kiisel, T 2012, ‘It’s Not What You Know, It’s Who You Know?’, Forbes, 2 May, retrieved 28 July 2012, <http://www.forbes.com/sites/tykiisel/2012/05/02/have-you-got-klout/>.

Marshall, PD 2010, ‘The promotion and presentation of the self: celebrity as marker of presentational media’, Celebrity Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 35-48.

Matic, I 2011, ‘The Social Construction of Mediated Experience and Self Identity in Social Networking’, The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 13-21.

Orestein, P 2010, ‘I Tweet, Therefore I Am’, The New York Times, 30 July, retrieved 28 July 2014, <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/magazine/01wwln-lede-t.html?_r=0>.
Papacharissi, Z 2009, ‘The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld’, New Media Society, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 199-220, retrieved 6 August 2014, Sage Journals.

Papacharissi, Z 2010, A networked self: identity, community and culture on social network sites, Routledge, New York.

Smith, S and Watson, J 2014, ‘Virtually Me: A Toolbox about Online Self-Presentation’, in Poletti, A and Rak, J, Identity Technologies: Constructing the Self Online, The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp. 70-95.

Van Dijk, J 2013, The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media, Oxford University Press, New York.

We Are Social Singapore 2014, ‘Global Digital Statistics 2014’, retrieved 30 July 2014, <http://www.slideshare.net/we20/global-digital-statistics-2014-32564492?related=2&utm_campaign=related&utm_medium=1&utm_source=8>.

Wilkinson, D and Thelwall, M 2010, ‘Social Network Site Changes Over Time: The Case of Myspace’, Journal for the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 2311-2323, retrieved 27 July 2014, Wiley Online Library.