I Always Feel Like Somebody's Watching ME

While listening to a new, poppy-sounding, dance-able Nine Inch Nails song about surveillance (and recalling an older, poppy-sounding, dance-able song about surveillance), I thought about how the topic of privacy and surveillance recurs in the news and in people's everyday conversations. Edward Snowden might just be the beginning of more elaborate, widespread considerations of these topics. Certainly, it's something that many young people have an opinion on, and the songs made me think about the ways in which it is woven into themes of popular television, films, and music.

If the Administration is to be believed, the US government isn't actually looking at everyone's data though they possess the ability to look at anyone's data. There's a logic to this: if your goal is to find potential terrorists (or, hell, if your goal is to find juicy bits of gossip), you wouldn't waste your time looking in detail at everyone's data. You'd try to develop algorithms for identifying people of interest and then dig deeper into their data.

Most acknowledge that authorities (governments, corporations) can "watch" us in this sense. Even the authorities themselves acknowledge that it is technically possible. But who is likely to believe that the authorities are telling the truth when they say that they're not looking at them, in particular?

Certainly, the degree to which one trusts authorities plays some role in this. But I think there's something else at play, something that I've been digging into in my recent research: narcissism. To assume that one is being watched, that one is a "person of interest", is to assume that one is interesting enough to be watched. It would follow that a certain type of person who tended to have narcissistic thoughts would be more likely to think that they were being watched and would express greater concern regarding privacy and surveillance.

Those who exhibit narcissistic tendencies in the age of digital media are in a bind. They want to get more information about themselves and their thoughts out there because they believe it's worth hearing, but they might be more concerned about the nefarious use of this information if they assume this information to be valuable (not just incriminating). They're the most exposed and the most concerned, so the thinking goes.

There's some preliminary evidence suggesting that those higher in narcissism have fewer privacy restrictions on some of their social media, which is, in a way, the opposite of what I would expect. Maybe if an individual high in narcissism were primed to think about corporate data miners or government surveillance with a news story, they would be more likely to change their privacy settings than another person. Maybe not.

If nothing else, the iconography and slogans of the pro-privacy movement are telling: Big Brother isn't watching us. He's watching you.

YouTube: Public or Private?

One of the most interesting things about the case of Viacom ordering YouTube to hand over its information on users is that the act of watching videos is being referred to as a private act. Is it as private as our social security and credit card numbers? Half as private? Twice as private? Where did the idea of what you watch being private come from? Here's one answer to that last question:

"'(the right to watch videos in private) is protected by the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, 'Mr. Opsahl added. Congress passed that law in 1988 to protect video rental records, after a newspaper disclosed the rental habits of Robert H. Bork, then a Supreme Court nominee."

One might have guessed that Bork's rental history was similar to that of Clarence Thomas. Actually, Bork, who's nomination was rejected, had fairly tame tastes while Thomas, who serves on the court today, claimed to have watched some less mainstream fare.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that the act of watching a video on YouTube is similar enough to the act of watching a video cassette to qualify that act for protection under the video privacy protection act. I would argue that YouTube is not very similar to watching videos in the privacy of your own home. There are so many things about the site that make it feel public - the comments, the favorite lists open to the public, the usernames. It is precisely those attributes that set YouTube apart form existing online video sites and led to its massive success. YouTube became what it is today b/c it is not as private as watching TV. It is communal and public.

Watching a video on YouTube is NOT (and never was) a simple private act. Opsahl makes the classic mistake of thinking that just because YouTube has video, like VCR tapes, it is used in the same way and has the same relationship to publicness/privateness as its visual predecessors. He is not alone in the error of attribution. Viewers, lawyers, privacy advocates, and even users may mistake watching YouTube for a private act, but be assured, it is not.

Lifelogging: How We Forget

Just read this fascinating article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed about life-logging: recording audio (and eventually, video) every moment of your waking life. You can then search through that data the way you would search through your memory, only it would not decay the way your memory does. Would this be a good thing?

I have kept a personal journal for 11 years now. I've made an effort to record my thoughts and many events from my life, no matter how embarrassing or mundane. Now that I've got 2000 pages worth of data, I can search for a person's name or an emotion (e.g. hate, love, crush) and analyze my life, my behavior, and my consciousness in ways that my decaying memory doesn't allow me to do. So, how is this any different than lifelogging? Isn't it just a matter of degree?

When I have a conversation with someone, even an especially private one, my memory is recording their every word. I than have the option of going back to my computer and recording those words. Those words can then end up on the Internet or who knows where (though I'm obviously very careful to guard them and not put them on the net). But we've had this option of recording private events...forever, right?

So then it is a matter of degree. But that doesn't make it any less significant in the ways in which it could potentially disrupt social life. In fact, this article finally convinced me of the worth of privacy in this age of surveillance. I was a longtime holdout only b/c the crux of most privacy advocates' arguments seemed to be invoking Orwell and leaving it at that. Indeed, its an extremely hard argument to make b/c 1) the march of surveillence technology feels inexorable and 2) its hard to point to many widespread instances of abuse or make the chilling effect on behavior visible.

But that's why this lifelogging experiment that the people in the article engaged in was worth doing. By pushing it to an extreme, by making it personal rather than political, I could finally see the ways in which it would radically alter social behavior. We totally underestimate the role of forgetting and deception in our self-images and the images of others. We are designed to underestimate these things. Perhaps we each need to record our lives (or read about someone else who has done this, in my case) to understand how much we forget and how much we distort our memories.

This brought me back to a thought I had after my hard drive crashed a few weeks ago. I was watching 2001 on TMC, and considering the words of HAL, thinking about whether or not the fear of a sentient machine was still a fear of ours, 40 years after this film was made. The big mistake HAL's programmers made (and indeed a fault of most programmers) was to think that they could design an infallible computer. No matter what, a computer, like a human, can screw up. The reason why computers are inhuman (and perhaps why they strike fear in our hearts) is because they fail in different ways than us. But if we recognized this, and tried to design them to fail in ways more like the ways in which we fail (to design them to "forget" things gradually, to act erratically in certain situations, instead of aspiring to perfection), then computers and robots wouldn't be anything worth fearing. We should get to know the design of our minds, and then design computers in a similar but slightly less flawed fashion.

Really, what makes computers unlike humans is the ways in which they decay. In one of my classes, I'd claimed that digital technology did not decay. It either worked or it did not. I was proven wrong the next week when we brought in several gaming consoles, including my old (roughly 18 year old) Nintendo Entertainment System. One of my students played Mega Man 3 (I think it was 3, but I may be misremembering) and the game gradually became more "buggy," the screen increasingly clogged with glitchy graphics until finally, inevitably, it froze. So I realized that digital technology gradually decays, but it decays in a different way than our minds. And it is vulnerable in ways that we are not.

That is what defines us, or at least sets us apart from computers: the ways in which our minds and memories decay or become damaged. The ways we forget. Perhaps we shouldn't be working on computers that recall everything, but on computers that "forget" data in the same ways we do. I suppose that's the promise of meta-data: to get computers to recognize importance and meaning in the ways that our minds do.

As applied to my personal journal, I'd need some way to teach the computer that some information (my happiest memories) is more important than others (whether it was Mega Man 3 or 4 that student was playing).


http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i23/23a03001.htm