10.
Surveillance – Big Brother is Watching You
According to Tsaliki, new media has the potential to be a public sphere, a digital democracy and a new global social space that is anti-authoritarian; allows the circulation of information; and provides for full citizen participation and inclusion in communication. It is a place like the coffee saloons in the 19th century that was classed as a public sphere. In this modern public sphere information can be circulated, healthy public debates can be partaken and everyone is heard. Unlike the coffee saloons, however, the electronic democracy is seen to have the potential to include subordinate publics which were not included in the 19th century discussion, along with women. Back then it was merely white aristocratic males who were allowed to be involved. New media is viewed as holding the potential to be more than just a capitalist marketplace but a place where a sense of community flourishes and expression, emotions and meanings are welcome and are as bona fide as the person sitting behind that computer screen (yeah, I mean you) connected onto the network. Democratic activities can potentially be extended beyond a mere exchange of universal information to become a civic networking movement of active and political citizens.
In comparison, David Lyon argues that everyday surveillance in the information societies we live in refers to the daily analysis and focused attention of our personal information. Lyon argues that this systematic and customary surveillance and invisible information infrastructure is caused by “the disappearing body” which modern technology has contributed to. He believes surveillance serves to create patterns and categories of social ordering where we all fall into a classification whether it is risk or opportunity. He believes it is this classifying structure that should undertake an ethical scrutiny. The data collected on us by the mediated world we inhabit is not just used for security but also for commercialistic purposes. Lyon argues that it is not so much privacy issues that we should be concerned about, but we should focus more on technological development, information policy, regulation, resistance, citizenship and power.
These two arguments both focus on our modern society and the use of technology however that is where Tsaliki and Lyon’s arguments vastly differ. Tsaliki is focused more on the good that can come from new media whilst Lyon reveals the underside, we are aware of on some level but do not know enough and cannot do much about. With Tsaliki’s case, it is up to each individual to play an active role and contribute to the creation of the electronic public sphere; however, the technology that is used for everyday surveillance on us is out of our hands and even though it is about us, we have no idea what this trail of self-made data says about us, what it is used for (surveillance or commercialism), what category we have been placed in or even if the benefits of our activities outweigh the negatives of the data collection. For Tsaliki’s 'public sphere', modern technology has enabled us to actively make a difference in our political world; for Lyon’s 'everyday surveillance;, we are shown that surveillance goes hand in hand with the technology that is as invisible as our bodies have become when we enter this mediated world online.
References
Lyon, D. (2002). Everyday Society: Personal Data and Social Classifications. Information, communication, society 5(2): 242 – 257.
Tsaliki, L. (2000). The Internet as Public Sphere. Formations A 21st Century Media Studies Textbook. (Don Fleming. Ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.