|
Richard Spinks INLS187 02/27/2002 |
| Citation: "The Surveillance Society" appeared in the December 2001 issue of Wired magazine (pp. 157-160). |
As Adam Penenberg notes in his article "The Surveillance Society," the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 changed the way a lot of people thought about security and privacy. "What was considered Orwellian one week seemed perfectly reasonable--even necessary--the next." With the creation of such governmental entities as the Office of Homeland Security, the technologies of security assumed a higher profile than ever before, and it became commonplace to hear about retinal scans, face recognition software, and high-tech wiretaps.
But Penenberg is quick to point out that while the profile may be higher after September 11, "the US was embracing the Surveillance Society well before September." Cameras watch us at traffic lights, in casinos, in convenience stores, at the ATM machine. Then there's the massive amount of personal data in various online information stores -- bank accounts, medical records, credit card account, mortgages, and more. And still there are other ways of monitoring us, including commuter cards, cell phones, or built-in GPS systems in cars (such as GM's OnStar system). Penenberg goes on to cite several instances where various technologies enabled law enforcement agencies to catch criminals who might otherwise have gotten away and discusses Britain's more enthusiastic deployment of cameras and the subsequent downward trend in crime statistics.
Taken together, a substantial portion of our personal lives resides in a database somewhere, albeit in bits and pieces, and a real threat exists should someone (or some agency) manage to bring these pieces together. While law enforcement can take advantage of these information resources, Penenberg seems to imply that individual privacy remains more or less secure by virtue of the fact that the information is dispersed. The effort it would take to centralize these resources is considerable, though he notes that the direction of new technology leads towards more centralization, or at least facilitates it. However, Penenberg finds hope in the view that no one group will monopolize surveillance technology and that citizens can use these tools to keep government accountable. He cites the Rodney King case and others where cameras and other tools have been used to demonstrate police misconduct. For Penenberg, "the Constitution itself...stands in the way of Big Brother. OK, privacy is eroding. But liberty, and the safeguards inherent in due process, remain strong."
About a year and half before Penenberg's article appeared, The Economist ran a similarly titled article in its May 1999 issue: "The End of Privacy: The Surveillance Society." [Note: While this article can be found on the Economist Web site, it is considered premium content. Therefore I am including a link to one of the numerous copies of this article available from other sites.] Like Penenberg's article, this article identifies the ongoing tension between information technology and what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called "the right to be left alone." The advances in computing have made it easier not only to collect more and more data but also to store and manipulate that data, particularly with a growing number of everyday transactions. The plethora of daily information that Penenberg described is also covered in detail here, with examples of how the different types of surveillance technology are being applied, whether it's a national DNA database of convicted criminals or software that enables employers to monitor the keystrokes and e-mail of their employees.
The article also describes conflicts between privacy advocates and organizations who are trying to collect more and more information, such as product problems experienced by Intel and Microsoft or a US firm that was building a database of driver's license photographs (three states were prepared to sell their 22 million driver photographs, but negative reaction caused them to reconsider). In the face of decreasing cost and almost frightening sophistication of evolving surveillance technology, the article discusses several potential fronts on which to address privacy concerns:
It was interesting to read these two articles side-by-side, given that they were separated by a good eighteen months. Not much had really changed as far as the trends and main concerns on the privacy landscape, although Penenberg rightly points out the sense of urgency felt in the US after September 11. But in thinking about the Penenberg article, I want to consider two aspects in particular: his (for lack of a better word) optimistic bias and choice of certain sources.
Penenberg clearly feels that the expansion of surveillance technology should not be something that induces paranoia or a knee-jerk reaction of fear: "Worrying is a waste of time. Surveillance is here. It was inevitable. But the surveillance state is not." However, the bulk of the article is devoted to cataloguing the numerous ways our lives are recorded and tracked and the degree to which technology can insinuate itself in society. Likewise Penenberg postulates a not-too-far-off future where surveillance technology is even more prevalent that it is today. He doesn't provide much reassurance:
The government can collect megabytes of information about us, but where and when they do and how that information is used is still subject to the laws designed to keep the state from abusing its power.
Without more information in his article, I can only feel uneasy about the legal protections afforded the citizen, particularly in areas that are new and challenging for the legal system to interpret. Indeed, one of Penenberg's few previous references to legal protections remarks that they are "eroding." The Economist article took more pains to discuss how legal issues were being included in the larger privacy discussion. The subtitle of Penenberg's article is catchy but ultimately not fully borne out: "We routinely sacrifice privacy for convenience and security. So stop worrying. And get ready for your close-up."
When it comes to sources, sometimes it's the little things that get your attention. For example, when Penenberg remarks that Americans don't seem bothered by privacy intrusions, he implies that he's basing this on the comments of the owner of a failed dotcom that offered anonymous Web browsing: "That's why there are no profitable privacy companies." Even if I happen to agree that many of us are blasé about privacy, this seems like a weak foundation upon which to make such a claim. The Economist article in fact drew the opposite conclusion: "A survey by America's Federal Trade Commission found that 80% of Americans are worried about what happens to information collected about them." You can argue the relative merits of surveys and sources, but the public's perception of the threat to privacy is a core element in any discussion of surveillance technology and society. By glossing over the importance of the issue with poorly supported or elaborated statements only detracts from the effectiveness of the article.
While Penenberg's article provides a good overview of how surveillance technology is currently used, I'd like to see him go further to support his premise that we don't need to be worried. The implied expectation, particularly among those who subscribe to the benefits of transparency, is that it is the ordinary citizen who will ensure that privacy is protected. Unfortunately, Penenberg doesn't give us enough information as citizens to know if we are being threatened or not, other than to refer in passing to legal protections that are not sufficiently detailed.
Similarly Penenberg could provide a more balanced article by spending more time explaining how citizens have reacted and why, particularly in light of September 11. As the Economist article did, he could discuss those moments when people did object to the way a company or organization was using their information and how policies were changed. It's just not enough to assert that Americans aren't "spooked."
All in all, while Penenberg's article is thought-provoking on several levels, the further development of these aspects would make it informative and potentially authoritative.