Living in the control society

Abstract

A B S T R A C T G Despite growing political and academic interest in increasesin surveillance brought about by digital technology, users of these technologies themselves appear to remain relatively unconcerned with surveillance, accepting the trade-off of greater usability for decreased control. This article interrogates the contradiction between people's professed opinions and their actual behaviours, and the contradiction between public and academic discourse and people's everyday disregard. It does so by comparing a theoretical model currently in common use for analysing surveillance, focused around a Deleuzian conception of 'control society', with users' own perceptions about the relative harm of surveillance, using data drawn from a qualitative study. In this enterprise, the study seeks to advance David Lyon's call to understand whether and how users actually consent to surveillance in their everyday lives. The study finds two main points of difference and one point of commonality between control society analyses of surveillance and users' own perceptions and experiences of being surveilled. Whereas a control society analysis points to the increasingly simulated quality of much of the data being generated about 'dividuals', users themselves hold onto notions about the truth and reliability of that information. Whereas a control society analysis conceptualizes surveillance in terms of postmodern forms of control which are dispersed, slippery and leak into everyday practice, users profess an ability to target surveillance attempts within specific spaces and attached to particular information domains. Control society analyses and user experiences of surveillance do converge, however, around the third tenet emerging from this scholarship: the notion of participatory surveillance, and how consent is currently operationalized. G

Interplay of Support, Comparison, and Surveillance in Social Media Weight Management Interventions: Qualitative Study

“…In contrast, punishments included displaying unsatisfactory weight outcomes and bearing the feelings of shame and guilt. Also aligned with past studies was the finding that power appeared in both surveillants' gaze and observees' responses to surveillance [29,47]. Although surveillance exerted a binding force on self-monitoring, participants could choose to stay in or exit from the virtual panopticon.…”

The Internet of Things: Social dimensions

“…Researchers interested in human rights and social justice issues argue that the IoT is implicated in a number of "data harms" (Redden & Brand, 2019), including punitive or exploitative uses of "dataveillance": the watching of people using data generated about them (Best, 2010;Sadowski, 2019;Sadowski & Pasquale, 2015). These harms include becoming the subject of hidden surveillance, identity theft, and denial of opportunities such as access to credit, social services, credit, and insurance (Maras & Wandt, 2019;van Zoonen, 2016).…”

The Impact of Images and Videos on Social Media Platforms on Surveillance

“…With the rapid development of digital technology and the Internet, the recording, storage, and retrieval of information in society have reached an unprecedented high level (Best, 2010). Furthermore, the information provided by digital technology is gradually expanding and developing the surveillance capabilities of companies and countries.…”

“…Furthermore, the information provided by digital technology is gradually expanding and developing the surveillance capabilities of companies and countries. Best (2010) pointed out that websites now require users to fill in their personal information before using the website, which helps the website collect various demographic information and record users' activities while browsing the website. When Albrechtslund (2008) researched participatory surveillance, it was found that online networks are online and tend to integrate online and offline activities.…”