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.