Thanks for this intervention, Lucas. You capture neatly what I was
trying to say. My initial response was to David (Murakami Wood) when he
questioned Torin's 'colorful example of counter-surveillance' in the
anti-speed camera groups in the UK. David pointed out (I'm
paraphrasing) that while it might be colourful, the concept of
'counter-surveillance' should be problematized (and I'm sure Torin,
who's doing good work on this, would agree, as Kirstie did with her
comments on Hawthorne, not to mention Colin, on the New York Players).
I concurred and suggested that 'counter-surveillance' is not
necessarily praiseworthy or desirable even though it may also be good
and necessary in some contexts.
But I tried to push the question back to surveillance which, I
asserted, also has to be problematized -- it is never 'sinister as
such.' Counter-surveillance' (or 'resistance') can only be understood
in relation to 'surveillance' on which it is predicated. Enter Roger --
with whom I have stood shoulder-to-shoulder at more than one
'anti-surveillance' meeting! -- with his friend Winston Smith. The
confusion arose, as Lucas points out, with Roger's second contribution,
when the word 'neutral' appeared for the first time. No one had even
hinted at that before.
Now, without denying for a moment that some of the most pressing and
perplexing issues with C21st surveillance have to do with its character
as algorithmic, automated social sorting that relies on data-mining
using searchable databases (etc), as Lucas observes, surveillance
always depends upon and is imbricated with social and thus human
elements. Indeed, I'd go further and say that surveillance also occurs
in direct (though not unmediated -- we all use cultural filters) human
ways without a computer or a camera in sight.
When it comes to counter-surveillance, then, it seems to me that the
discussion has to take account not only a dependent problematizing of
'surveillance' but also one that does not assume that digital
technologies are always involved (even when they are, the practices and
interests of which Lucas speaks still play a prominent role). The
subsuming of technologically mediated surveillance practices into
larger IT infrastructures is exactly the reason for much research in
surveillance studies today. But those practices are always present. So
the normative statements and value judgments of which Kevin speaks are
vital to this enterprise. Neutrality? Not in 'technologies'. Not in
research.
David
On 1-Nov-06, at 4:06 AM, Lucas Introna wrote:
> Roger,
>
> I don’t think David (and others) are invoking the ‘technology
> (surveillance) is neutral’ argument as I don’t think you are invoking
> the argument that ‘surveillance technology is inherently bad’ (which
> would be a sort of technological determinist position). I think
> David’s point is that what really matters is the way in which these
> technologies become embedded in social practices and how they become
> seized upon by different actors (intentionally, unintentionally or
> opportunistically) for the realisation of their interests.
> Surveillance, as a technologically mediated social practice, becomes
> realised through complex socio-technical networks. I don’t think it
> is appropriate (in such networks) to give too much agency to the
> technology OR to the humans (ala Latour)—it is how these agencies
> become configured in actual technologically mediated surveillance
> practices (actor networks if you want) that is significant. For me
> personally it is also about the way these technologies become subsumed
> into larger IT infrastructures in ways where they are no longer open
> to scrutiny (even to experts). I think this is a particular danger
> with IT mediated networks of surveillance (and why we need to study
> it)
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Lucas
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Lucas D. Introna
> Professor of Organisation, Technology and Ethics
> Department of Organisation, Work and Technology.
> Lancaster University Management School
> Lancaster, LA1 4YX, UK
> ----------contact details --------------------------------
> Phone: +44 (0) 1524 594045
> Fax: +44 (0) 1524 844885
> Dept Admin: +44 (0) 1524 594054
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Home page: http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/owt/profiles/119/
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
>
> From: Research and teaching on surveillance
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Roger Clarke
> Sent: 01 November 2006 01:15
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: NY TIMES: Speed Cameras in UK
>
>
> At 2:53 PM +0000 31/10/06, D F J Wood wrote:
> >But the other thing is that these people are not Winston Smith's ...
>
> Agreed. As a sometime cyclist, and a sometime motor-cycle rider, I
> understand the far greater immediacy of the environment, and the
> risks involved in coming into contact at unnatural speed with various
> hard objects.
>
> But that's not what I was concerned about. (If it had been, I'd have
> invoked a variant of the old aphorism 'a conservative is a liberal
> whose kid's bike has just been stolen').
>
> I'm concerned about the ease with which originally two and
> subsequently several further members of the list were prepared to
> treat surveillance as 'just another technology', and to invoke that
> daft old fallback of 'technology is neutral; it depends what you do
> with it'.
> _____
>
> Re the less significant part of the discussion:
>
> As for the suggested effectiveness, during recent visits to the UK, I
> was appalled at the utter dysfunctionality of the speed-camera policy
> there. All of the visible cameras I came across, in their scores in
> the south-east, were in stable-speed / low-accident-risk locations.
> They were designed purely as revenue-collectors.
>
> I'm also highly sceptical about a 2.2mph reduction in average speed
> being (a) statistically significant, (b) worth having, and (c) worth
> measuring by itself. The risk of acccident in the vicinity of
> speed-cameras is greatly increased by vehicle-wander and sudden
> braking, as driver attention is diverted to things extraneous to the
> driving task, viz. scanning the environment for boxes that may
> contain cameras, and adjusting the focus and pupil-size to be able to
> see the speedo.
>
> --
> Roger Clarke
> http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/
>
> Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611
> AUSTRALIA
> Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> http://www.xamax.com.au/
>
> Visiting Professor in Info Science & Eng Australian National
> University
> Visiting Professor in the eCommerce Program University of Hong
> Kong
> Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre Uni of
> NSW
>
> ****************************************************
> This is a message from the SURVEILLANCE listserv
> for research and teaching in surveillance studies.
>
> To unsubscribe, please send the following message to
> <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> UNSUBSCRIBE SURVEILLANCE
>
> For further help, please visit:
>
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help
> ****************************************************
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.5/366 - Release Date:
> 26/06/2006
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>
>
> **************************************************** This is a
> message from the SURVEILLANCE listserv for research and teaching in
> surveillance studies. To unsubscribe, please send the following
> message to : UNSUBSCRIBE SURVEILLANCE For further help, please visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help
> ****************************************************
****************************************************
This is a message from the SURVEILLANCE listserv
for research and teaching in surveillance studies.
To unsubscribe, please send the following message to
<[log in to unmask]>:
UNSUBSCRIBE SURVEILLANCE
For further help, please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help
****************************************************
|