[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Privacy Won't Help Us (Fight Surveillance)

[Felix Stalder <felix@openflows.org>]

>The first answer today will be state control. And this is painfully the
>case. Snooping through Echelon, Carnivore, Visionics and related systems
>is real (even if one must remember that ballooning data-collection
>capacities don't necessarily imply effective data-analysis).

State control and other forms of surveillance can be quite overlapping. Big
brother can bootstrap itself out of a rhizomatic control society, so to
speak. The Sept. 11 investigation into the last days of the terrorists is a
good example for that. Cameras on ATMs, in Pizza Huts, records from car
rental agencies and hotels -- pieces of information all collected
individually and decentrally -- were correlated into a centralized vision
of an all seeing big brother (on demand).

>But equally important to the development of the surveillance society are
>issues of risk management (i.e. insurance contracts, which are always
>accompanied by demands for personal data) and targeted advertising
>(loyalty cards, direct mail, etc.). And both these issues focus on and
>reinforce the predominance of the individual, not just in his or her
>privacy, but above all in his or her isolated fear and desire.

Hm, reinforcement of the predominance of the individual, I'm very uncertain
about this. Perhaps it might be worth trying to distinguish a structural
analysis and the individual perception which this structure creates.

On a structural level, institutions do not want to deal with individuals.
The notion that everyone is truly unique is the antithesis of the insurance
business. Institutions want to deal with groups and categories that allow
to predict the behaviour of the single person, hence de-individualize them.
This is an optimization problem. On the one hand, they want to keep it
simple (i.e. keep the number of groups small) on the other hand, they want
it accurate (ie having a close fit between the group and the single case).
Computerization, obviously, changed the dimensions of the problem, but not
its nature.

The problem with "simulational surveillance" is that these institutions
have the ability to impose their categories onto people, ie make them fit
their "data image," in the same way that dominant groups have the ability
to impose cliches and stereotypes on minorities. All of this erodes true
individuality.

On the other  hand, the perception that is being created is the  opposite.
The same institutions that hate individuality in their practice, celebrate
it in on the surface. The (not so) new slogan of the US Army is "Army of
one." A bank calls its customers by their personal names, but it speaks to
them according a standardized script based on the group to which each
individual has been assigned.

I think isolation and individuality should not be confused. I think what
surveillance does is isolates you AND presses you  into a group at the same
time, but on different levels.

Or so it seems. Felix



--------------------++-----
Les faits sont faits.
http://felix.openflows.org


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold