The World Wide Web of Surveillance

   Through the article, ‘The World Wide Web of Surveillance: The internet and off-world power-flows’, David Lyon uses explanatory frameworks to better understand the development of surveillance that has occurred with the development of the internet and information technologies.  In the examination of this cyberspace surveillance, with regards to existing surveillance systems he examines three aspects: employment monitoring, policing and security, and marketing. 

    To understand this new surveillance one must first be able to understand the surveillance systems that currently exist.  “Watching others' activities, as a means of monitoring and supervising them, is hardly a new practice” (Lyon).  Throughout history, surveillance has expanded and intensified as society thus resulting in change.   Its purpose of surveillance in ancient times was that, of taxation and military, to that of modern times in which the recording of births, deaths, and marriages began (Lyon).  In the twentieth century, it intensified to more detailed record keeping, which was required with the development of society, and by mid-twentieth century, was constitutive of modern organization (Lyon).  Now with the advancement of technology and the computerization of society there was a need for a new kind of surveillance. The term that best describes this type of surveillance is ‘cyberspace surveillance’.  

    To understand this type of surveillance, Lyon examines three main categories, the first of which is employment situations.  With the development of the internet and information technologies it is not surprising that employers need to monitor and supervise the use of this medium by employees. Lyon mentions various real world examples to demonstrate that there are people abusing the internet and information technologies in the work environment. Software is used to record and report the activities of the employees to ensure proper use of the network.  In the area of policing, the information acquired through surveillance is private and part is public (Lyon).   As for security, users of the internet can be assured that there is a certain level privacy but government agencies would still be able to monitor and listen in to an extent.  The largest of ‘cyberspace surveillance’ is the commercial surveillance of marketers.  The use of the internet provides a vast range of data and information collected to help profile internet users.  Various techniques, Internet Profiles (I/PRO), Cookies, mapping techniques (spiders) and data mining, are describe by Lyon to help shed light on the vast array of information that can be obtained (Lyon). 

    Lyon theorizes the surveillance of the web by viewing risk management, panoptism, and Foucault’s notion of biopower.  The categories described by Lyon to assess surveillance “all engage in data gathering procedures to try to pinpoint risks (or opportunities) and to predict outcomes”.  The two main concerns of surveillance outcomes are social participation and personhood. Through his analysis he determines that “personhood is therefore realized in participation” (Lyon).  When we think of surveillance, we can see that it is providing a way to maintain social inequality and division. With surveillance, however, comes a loss of communication control. With technological development and legality, control is somewhat given back to the individual.  When he looks a panoptism, there is a ‘new slant’ on surveillance that emerges, with the idea that this new form of surveillance is focused on risk prevention (Lyon).  Individual’s importance is overtaken by statistical correlation.  The more information gathered, allows for a more accurate evaluation of strategies to acquire the desired outcomes. When we look at risk management in relation to biopower, the idea of controlling and monitoring societies by using the profiles of human populations to predict outcomes develops. The simulation of surveillance is adding to the ‘hypercontrol’ of societies that are within communication and information technology networks (Lyon).  The ability to see everything is desired in order to be able to control and anticipate outcomes.  With the advance of the internet the ability to acquire desired information is being more realizable.

    Through this Lyon has provided insight to the ever expand surveillance of societies.  With the development of the internet, the abilities of surveillance have grown and will continue to grow with the expansion of the internet and development of information technologies.  The biggest debate related to cyber surveillance is in regards of privacy issues, of what information is to be protected and which is to be available.  I think Lyon has given an understanding of the way surveillance is crucial in all aspects of society as a means of control. The internet has provided a vast array of information and abilities that is now available to anyone and everyone who are ‘connected’.  The development of the internet has required a means of control and the ability to monitor its use to prevent any risk or threat.  

    Where to draw the line of what information is available for surveillance is a question that cannot be easily answered.  Lyon has provided insight to the capacity of surveillance on society.  We see now with examples like Egypt, the power of the communication technology and its user’s (Elgan).  But will restricting access provide the desired outcomes, maybe so, but the internet is a tool that is to be utilized and allow the communication of information with certain restrictions.  To restrict the access due to the concern that it is adding the intensification of protests is not an appropriate solution as the internet has provided a means for individuals to report their social and cultural views, as can be perceived through the work of Cote and Pybus. They describe the advance of biopower in relation to the advance of social networking; to communicate ones social and cultural views with the development of information technology and communication devices (Cote and Pybus).  The protests themselves would still occur within the country; the internet has provided a means of communicating social and cultural issues on larger scale.  Even in the US, there are talks about a new security system called Einstein 2.0 which is to be used to monitor and interpret the data of malicious activity of government networks, as there has been an issue with government information being observed and government agencies being cyber attacked (Marsan).  Sure surveillance is essential with the development of the internet and it will continue to grow with the advancement of both the internet and information and communication technology.  But like Lyon mentioned, the’ happy medium’ is difficult to acquire as the social participation and personhood cannot always be viewed codependently making surveillance difficult to understand and control (Lyon). People want to access whatever information they desire but do not always want information about them to be accessed, whether this be personal or related to the information that they are viewing.  But in order to maintain order of the internet and its use there is a need for surveillance but at what level is that factor that is hard to distinguish. “Events in Egypt have demonstrated that the human race has evolved some Internet protocols of our own” (Elgan).  And through this we can learn that people will find a way in the event that control and surveillance are implemented to limit their informational and technological capacity.

    Do you think that is right to do what Egypt did and just pull the plug? Or do you think that we can just limit the access and restrict certain aspects while still maintaining this new global network at has come to be part of our contemporary society?

REFERENCES

Coté, Mark and Jennifer Pybus. 'Learning to Immaterial Labour 2.0: MySpace and Social Networks.' Ephemera. 7.1 (2007). 88-106. (online; E-Journal). 

Elgan, Micheal. ‘Why there's no such thing as an 'Internet kill switch' Egypt showed that you can't stop the Internet. Why? Because it's made out of people.’ 2011. Computer World. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/920828/Why_there_s_no_such_thing_as_an_Internet_kill_switch_?taxonomyName=Internet&taxonomyId=167

Lyon, David. ‘The World Wide Web of Surveillance: The Internet and off-world power- flows.’ Information, Communication & Society. 1.1 (Spring 1998). 91-105. (online; E- Journal). 

Marsan, Carolyn Duffy. ‘Einstein 2: U.S. government's 'enlightening' new cybersecurity weapon.’ 2011. Network World Inc. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/021110-cybersecurity-einstein-2.html

Immaterial Labour

     Through this article Coté and Pybus’s are analyzing a new form of labour viewed with the advancement of the internet. When defining immaterial labour such as Lazzarato did, there are two ways in which to do so.  The change of the ‘information content’ of the commodity which states the “changes taking place in workers’ labour processes in big companies in the industrial and tertiary sectors, where the skills involved in direct labour are increasingly skills involving cybernetics and computer control (and horizontal and vertical communication).” (Lazzarato)  But for the purposes of Coté and Pybus’s argument, the changes in ‘cultural content’ of the commodity which “involves a series of activities that are not normally recognized as ‘work’, -- in other words, the kinds of activities involved in defining and fixing cultural and artistic standards, fashions, tastes, consumer norms, and more strategically, public opinion. The idea that immaterial labour directly produces the capital relation,--something that material labour hiddenly did--changes the phenomenology of capital.” (Lazzarato).  So based on this, immaterial workers are primarily producers of subjectivity.   They do this by examining Foucault’s notions of power, how the users are learning to immaterial labour with the development of sites like MySpace for benefit or value, and they explore the political economic shifts that are occurring with the development of such sites as MySpace. 
 

    With sites like MySpace, a new labour force, producing immaterial information and knowledge in relation to cultural and social influences, has emerged.  Individuals are able to produce material in areas of interest, in relation to cultural and social trends and tastes, to attract consumers and therefore build upon new relationships and communities.  There are benefits not only to the users, but to other producers like corporations.  The vast amount of knowledge in regards to current trends and tastes of users displayed on their site, these corporations have a so call goldmine of consumer information that can then be used to develop new target markets.  Through these sites the users are creating for themselves a ‘digital body’ that displays their cultural and social trends and tastes, which they then network within the site to build a community around these specified interests.
 

    Coté and Pybus’s explored the shifts that have occurred in order to better understand this idea of immaterial labour 2.0.  By using idea of biopower/biopolitics, in relation to both Foucault’s and Hardt’s view, we see that this is a more reasonable way to evaluate and analyze this new form of labour as, the user is using their life and body or ‘digital body’ to impact, influence, and allure other online users.  But we cannot ignore the latter ideas of power, sovereign power, but more so disciplinary power, which are still part of this new online world.  They also look at how with the development of the internet, users are learning to immaterial labour with continuous use of sites like MySpace.  This is beneficial to the user as they are learning to promote themselves in a way to produce a profit or value.  Also, Coté and Pybus’s explore the political economic shifts that are occurring with the development of such sites as MySpace. 
 

    The main issue that is influential in this article is the idea of the subjectivity produced through immaterial labour.  To define subjectivity, it “refers to the subject and his or her perspective, feelings, beliefs, and desires” (Solomon).  The subjectivity created through immaterial labour as describe through this particular article is that users of social networks like MySpace can use the subjectivity produced to develop a network of relationships and communities. It is also important to look at how this capitalism is more apparent in our lives not only with the exchange of information and knowledge but more so the influential aspects created through immaterial labour of our relationships and personal identities. “Affective commodities (i.e. our social-networked subjectivities) are not destroyed by consumption but they are intensified, enlarged and diffused and constantly re-aggregated.  It is this final point—the dynamic, affective, networked relays—which necessitates the suffix 2.0” of immaterial labour” (Coté).  This helps to show in influential power of one’s subjectivity as the more these subjectivities are consumed the more substantial the effect of one’s relationships and personal identities become.  By looking at the affect, we can see that individuals are now becoming a tool of labour to produce and create wealth. A quote from Coté ‘Immaterial Labour 2.0: Fleshy, Affective, Embodied Technology’, helps to understand the idea of the individual becoming a tool of labour. “[I]f labor and the tool of labor are embodied in the brain, then the tool of labor, the brain, becomes the thing that today has the highest productive capacity to create wealth. But at the same time humans are "whole," the brain is part of the body, the tool is embodied not only in the brain but also in all the organs of sensation, in the entire set of "animal spirits" that animate the life of a person” (Coté).  So not only are the subjectivities that of a conscious relay of information and thoughts but also of one’s sensual experiences that influence these thoughts that are then articulated through an individual’s immaterial labour. 
 

    I think the article provides great insight to this new notion of immaterial labour which is not only intriguing but can also be confusing.  I personally have been intrigued by this notion and am curious to see where this immaterial labour created through social networking can go.  With our affective subjectivities only being intensified and enlarged with the expansion of network and development of social networking capabilities, you can only in vision more growth. Immaterial labour has become integral of contemporary capitalism that individuals now have more vast opportunities. The opportunities that can arise through this new form of labour are also intriguing as one can produce and market their subjectivities not only to profit culturally or emotionally, but also economically.  To think that one’s thoughts, opinions, values, etc., have much more value, that users will continue to pursue to continually expand and develop there subjectivities to maximize profits and values that they desire.  But when you think of how one creates subjectivity it is a sense the exploitation of another’s immaterial labour, you have to understand that exploitation and capitalistic control still exist. (Negri and Hardt) With the impacts of this new form of labour on society being so influential to the way individuals live their day to day lives we can only assume that in the future we will continue to harness this cultural economy and exploit its potential with the help and development of social networking and information technologies.
 

    What's wrong in saying that our subjectivity is determined by something, if we have discovered that, ultimately, this something was created by our subjectivity itself? (Negri and Hardt)

Resources

Coté, Mark , ‘Immaterial Labour 2.0: Fleshy, Affective, Embodied Technology’ http://www.slideshare.net/MarkCote/immaterial-labour-20-fleshy-affective-embodied-technology

Coté, Mark and Jennifer Pybus. 'Learning to Immaterial Labour 2.0: MySpace and Social Networks.' Ephemera. 7.1 (2007). 88-106. (online; E-Journal).

Lazzarato. http://www.generation-online.org/c/cimmateriallabour.htm

Negri and Hardt. Immaterial labour and subjectivity.  Libcom.org. (2006).  http://libcom.org/library/aufheben/aufheben-14-2006/keep-on-smiling-questions-on-immaterial-labour

Solomon, Robert C. ‘Subjectivity,’ Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 2005), p.900.