Are we over-reacting to the Google Car? To anyone travelling to a strange country or part of town, it is reassuring to be able to find the destination on the map, get the direction on how to get there, and have a preliminary glimpse of what the neighbourhood looks like. We all benefit from this free service (or shall we call it survice?) We all want more information, more detailed information, and more up-to-date information. Is it any wonder that Google Map is alive and well, in spite of the occasional protests and resistance?
As Benoit Dupont points out in his chapter 'Hacking the Panopticon' in Matheieu Deflem's book Surveillance and Governance: Crime Controal and Beyond, the Internet has democratized surveillance and allowed 'marginalized groups to deploy sophisticated surveillance technologies against the state and large corporations'. He cited Amnesty International's campaign 'Eyes on Darfur' as an example where violence and genocide can be monitored and exposed by this 'global neighbourhood watch'.
Dupont also highlights the resistance strategies that Internet users have adopted to block and mask their activities. He refers to the paper by Gary Marx, 'A Tack in the Shoe: Neutralizing and Resisting the New Surveillance' which outlines eleven such moves:
The 11 prominent types of response to privacy-invading surveillance are: 1) discovery moves, 2) avoidance moves, 3) piggy-backing moves, 4) switching moves, 5) distorting moves, 6) blocking moves, 7) masking (identification) moves, 8) breaking moves, 9) refusal moves, 10) cooperative moves, and 11) counter-surveillance moves.
One move not mentioned by Marx is the work of artists who make surveillance the subject of their research and creative work. There is a growing list of such artists, see Ctrl [Space] Rhetorics of Surveillance: From Bentham to Big Brother, and many others.
0 comments:
Post a Comment