Lyon, David. The Electronic Eye: The Rise of the Surveillance Society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994, 57-80.
Word Count: 772
Lyon starts off his chapter referencing the famous Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell. By doing so, I can make a direct link with the title and perhaps what he may be getting into- surveillance. He starts off by questioning if we are indeed arriving at this point of complete surveillance that Orwell refers to bluntly in his novel as “Big Brother”. Our current identities online are being more and more watched- not only in a sense of statistics and gather information for disciplines such as advertising or even politics, but also by other users. He states that today “surveillance is both a globalizing phenomenon and one that has a much to do with consumers as with citizens”, which I interpret as the ability to be ‘surveilled’ no longer solely as a being in a given city or bordered atmosphere, but in an online domain where exchange is key. And I keep thinking back to the fact that Lyon wrote this chapter in 1994- just into the beginning of the life of the Internet, and I firmly stand by the fact that this case of surveillance if eve more relevant then he can possibly express in 1994 in today’s online world.
He then jumps into the description of the two relevant models that could possible relate to this online phenomenon of constant watching: Orwell’s Dystopia, and from Bentham’s Panopticon to Foucault. Within these segments, he outlines the basic factors that depict these models.
Orwell’s dysopia underlines the role of the media in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, as the prime tool for “manipulating the masses” was indeed electronic media- regardless of what Orwell really knew about it when the novel was written in 1948. He points out the factors in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four that represent the idea generally of electronic surveillance; including the rise of the power of the nation state, and the growing centrality of information in the nation state, as well as the electronic trail that continues to becoming increasingly unnoticeable- as Lyon emphasizes through the representation of the Panopticon model. I would agree with this statement because in today’s mentality of online users, accounts are not weird- almost in a sense as we know are being watched but do not really take much offense to it anymore. We realize our rights online, and realize that we can even be another identity online, but somehow it has been engraved into our daily thoughts as we communicate via wires and networks ceaselessly.
Perhaps the “privacy” we “have” through our online accounts is private enough for the modern global citizen- as now even banking is done online. One thing that fascinates me and reminds me of the expontential development of the online world is that as more “private” things are put online (banking, bills, paychecks, employment resumés, etc…) more programs are developed to more or less secure the safety (as cards do when you order online, they link you to a page in which you must enter a code that is sent to your mobile phone via SMS, for example). So with this plethora of information of a being that is available online- more safety programs come to play- like they come together as a pair. Our current conception of privacy is a set of numbers and letters with one capital and one symbol that no one else knows- but in the IT world, all of this can be solved through even more extreme coding practices. So why do we think these passwords are enough to ensure our privacy? The first thing I though of while reading the article was the number of e-mail accounts I have for different purposes, with different passwords, with many facets of information in each with different levels of privacy. Are these things actually surveilled or just able to be surveilled if needed?
Continuing off of this idea, in the section Lyon titles as “The Panapticon from Bentham to Foucault” he mentions the question of where the “centered self” is located today if indeed our personal information is floating through various remote databases.
And as Lyon concludes, “No single metaphor or model is adequate to the task of summing up what is central to contemporary surveillance, but important clues are available in Nineteen Eighty-Four and in Bentham's Panopticon”, it is accurate: things are changing at a fast pace, faster than anyone could have expected in models. One thing leads to another, and surveillance is a part of that exponential development.
I feel that Lyon makes valid points, and at times seems to carry on, but in the end his final point is that these are indeed examples, nut no model is descriptive enough to describe the surveillance that has been developed up until today, and even our sense of privacy has changed. Even though it was written in 1994, I feel as though he leaves his argument open for discussion and development- as the future provided that change.
I think you have written a very insightful response to chapter four of Lyon's 'The Electronic Eye: The Rise of the Surveillance Society'. Your critique of the chapter expresses how well you understood the text. I found it very articulate, conveying your comprehensive perspective of the arguments Lyon made, regarding surveillance. Your initial summary of the chapter presents the essential aspects of Lyon's claims made throughout his paper. I think it's interesting how much you take the year published (1994) into account when evaluating Lyon's text. Though I knew he wrote it in the '90s while reading it, it never had much of an impact on my perspective of what he wrote. Thinking back on it, a lot of what he writes is surprisingly accurate, especially given that so few technological advancements (compared to today's rapid growth) had been made in the computer industry at the time.
RépondreSupprimerYour reaction to Lyon's explanation of 1984 and the Panopticon is really similar to how I responded to what he said. You mention how users are almost accepting of electronic surveillance because of how often they access digital and online services, like social networking sites and e-mail accounts. The immense presence of Internet and computer technology in daily life has led people to feel comfortable and secure online, even though they are, for the most part, very aware of the surveillance that is conducted by institutions and individuals. I agree with your opinion on this matter. And to answer your question, "Are these things actually surveilled or just able to be surveilled if needed?", I think it is more a case of our accounts being able to surveilled if needed. Yes, there is electronic tracking, which records people's paths on the Internet. However this data is mostly used for marketing purposes, rather then against the individual user. Such a massive amount of the world population uses the Internet everyday. This fact is what consoles us and allows us to feel so "safe" on the Internet. We feel as though there are so many people that constantly use the Internet that the surveillance is happening to everyone and therefore, is more acceptable. Although, I'm not sure how long this sentiment will last. If electronic surveillance increases greatly, people will begin to view it as a true threat, rather than just as an unavoidable consequence of Internet use.