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.
