 |
 |
Also brings to mind debates about the nature of privacy: that it is perhaps more about personal boundary location and integrity, or group/community boundary location and integrity than a proprietory interest which can be bought, sold or exchanged (which is the dominant view, particularly in policymaking circles)... -----Original Message----- From: Research and teaching on surveillance [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of D F J Wood Sent: 05 May 2006 03:42 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: online vigilantes.... Good discussion! The topic wonderfully drips with the irony, complexity and intellectual and ethical challenges that keep us in business as we move from the nonconsensual video vigilantes, upskirt voyeurs, recorders of police and other abuses and various classical shaming efforts involving those arrested and prisoners (e.g., in Maricopa county Arizona) to the postings of consensual commercial pornographers and exhibtionists, and on to those of traffic enforcers, transportation centers, malls, bars and restaurants and more restricted webcams transmissions such as those for day care centers, homes for the elderly and even pet drop off centers. Perspectivalism lives on in a double sense with visual technologies. The recently revised and expanded "true fiction" article below on the case of one Tom I. Voire considers these and related issues, as Voire is the agent or subject of more than 100 new surveillance techniques. Critical comments are always welcomed. http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/voirerevised.html#note1 http://www.garymarx.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Welton" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:04 AM Subject: Re: online vigilantes.... The whole area of surveillance/privacy invasive technologies appears contextually rich in all of the more human issues arising from their uses. As I interpret part of what you state surveillance technologies can equally be used to the detriment of individuals as they may be by persons attempting to protect others. The purpose(s) the data collected by the technology is used for may then be seen as a determinant of the good from any perspective, which can rather seem to deny any real privacy as everything requires recording in some way to achieve those ends and hence makes larger collections of more detailed data potentially available for misuse as well as leading to increasing access demands to the various data collections for differing but possibly allied purposes. Flexibility itself can then be seen to be as much of a problem as an inflexible unchanging point which allows no future developments. A result of adopting the viewpoint outlined here is that the invisible vulnerabilities of all are increased by an amount correlated to the amount of data collected and the people who have access. Misuses of data for things like harassment and stalking may then become simpler and far less traceable. As you state harassment does, sometimes, end in murder, just as to the police, every missing person is a potential murder victim. Part of a privacy paradox is seemingly illustrated there. The flattening of hierarchical controls which technology and surveillance can engender as well as enabling individual participation has a very high potential to create more autocratic control structures. Those types of issues appear in a great many areas where the individual is empowered by technology, not merely surveillance/privacy invasion. Ian W -----Original Message----- From: Research and teaching on surveillance [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ann Rudinow Sætnan Sent: 02 May 2006 17:35 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: FW: online vigilantes.... ________________________________ From: Ann Rudinow Sætnan Sent: Tue 5/2/2006 6:34 PM To: Ian Welton Subject: RE: online vigilantes.... One interesting thing about the sexual harrassment ones is the question of who's invading whose privacy, who's watching whom in unacceptable ways. That becomes a bit more philosophically challenging than the speed trap case, although that one too has some in-built ethical contradictions. Remember -- both speeding and sexual harrassment are very real problems with serious consequences. Harrassment does, sometimes, end in murder. Another point of difference between the two cases: speed cams usually have a clear cut-off point, a speed below which you will not be recorded, whereas the sexual harrassment text indicates a problematic flexibility -- what's just fun for one may be a mild irritation for the next and totally unacceptable for the third, and whoever finds something unacceptable gets to post it and "out" the harrasser. Personally, I'd prefer calling the police in cases of sexual harrassment, a lesson learned after _not_ calling them when I was kidnapped and attempted raped back in college. Escaping on my own was one thing, but I should have gone to the police as part of dealing with the aftermath. Well, both cases are worth thinking about, but I have to do other work now. I'll watch for others' thoughts. Ann R. Saetnan ________________________________ From: Research and teaching on surveillance on behalf of Ian Welton Sent: Tue 5/2/2006 5:57 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: online vigilantes.... A link circulated by CPSR contains a story along similar lines. http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/editorial/14454513.htm CCTV and radar speed traps can sometimes be used in comparable ways. There are many analogous similarities. Ian W > -----Original Message----- > From: Research and teaching on surveillance > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Nils Zurawski > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 1:19 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: online vigilantes.... > > > this definitely falls under "people watching > people"... the consequences of this are probably > enourmous, if yet to be seen... as a surveillance > issue this is highly interesting... and provides > a lot of material for discussion on data > protection, privacy rights, and social sorting... > > > "Mobile vigilantes snap sex pests in action... " > Observer from 30th April 2006 > http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1764585,00.html > > best nilz > -- > Dr. Nils Zurawski > Universität Hamburg > Inst. für kriminologische Sozialforschung > Allende-Platz 1 > 20146 Hamburg > Germany > tel. +49 (0) 40 42838 6185 > fax. +49 (0) 40 42838 2328 > > Projekt zu Videoüberwachung: http://www.surveillance-studies.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.2/329 - Release Date: 5/2/06