Media Narcissism

Ursula Frohne’s reading for this week “Screen Tests: Media Narcissism, Theatricality, and the Internalized Observer” outlined the societal shift in the spectacle and viewing habits. Initiated largely by Warhol’s screen tests, the typical audience viewer is transformed into the dominant actor. This coincides with the evolving infatuation amongst society with reality television. A modern desire throughout the population is to be filmed, and projected to an audience in order to be established and known.

In the reading Frohne notes the significant reversal in society regarding privacy and anonymity. Before the near obsession with voyeurism in today’s society, many powerful people desired publicity in order to express their ideologies to the majority. Today, however, privacy is a desired commodity. The most powerful people desire privacy, while “nobodies” will do whatever they can to expose themselves to the public to achieve the 15 minutes of fame.

I will elaborate on this reading and these concepts in my presentation this week.

Elaboration on RFID Technology

November 25, 2010

After this week’s discussions on Radio Frequency Identification Technologies I have chosen to abandon my initial creative project idea and focus on a new topic. During her presentation, Patrice touched on highway 407 and the use of RFIDs and transponders to monitor the driving habits and geographical coverage of the highway’s users.

This past summer my job required me to use the 407 twice a day, Monday to Friday. My work paid for my use, but this allowed them to see the bill. The bill showed a record of every time I accessed / used the highway, including the time of day, how long I was on the highway, what on-ramp I used, and where I exited. Not only could my work monitor my driving habits during the week, but they could also see when / where I was driving on the weekend. This has provoked some serious thinking, and I will likely pursue creating a theoretical manifesto or culture jam to “get back” at the powers that be – the almighty 407 corporation.

RFID Technology

November 22, 2010

Nancy Nisbet’s reading for this week discussed Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology. From my understanding, RFID’s are tiny microchips that can be placed on items (or people) to track their whereabouts. For example, stores utilize this technology to decrease shoplifting (by tracking the whereabouts of their merchandise or items), monitor store movements, and analyze purchasing patterns for shoppers.

Initially while reading the article I thought of how freaky it is that we can be monitored with complete ignorance. Often CCTV’s and security cameras can be seen. We are also often aware of other “hidden” measures we are subjected to (i.e. cell phone records, internet history, email monitoring). RFIDs, however, are typically undetectable to the human eye and often exist without our knowledge. Up until last year, I was completely unaware that our Western Student Cards embodied RFID technology to store and monitor our every move across campus.

Looking on the bright side, though, I also considered how beneficial RFID technology could be in a practical sense. What immediately came to my mind was whether or not it was possible to create and RFID-home. I am constantly losing my car keys, my wallet, TV remotes, laptop charger, xbox controllers etc. Wouldn’t it be great (and convenient) to be able to constantly monitor the whereabouts of these items? All I would have to do to find one of these items is view a centralized RFID reader and I will save myself the time and hassle of tearing my room and house apart looking for these items on an almost daily basis.

The following video visualizes / explains what I am talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMjukYHibzM

So, the question we must consider, then, is whether or not the negative capabilities outweigh the positive possibilities of RFID technology?

Defensive Surveillance

November 15, 2010

The Institute for Applied Autonomy’s article “Defensive Surveillance” discusses the tactical methods employed by anarchists and activists during protests and other interruptive activities.

As the article states, “activists counter police tactics with increasingly sophisticated tools and strategies.” With today’s current state of technology, it is somewhat possible for anarchists and activists to monitor those meant to be monitoring (if that makes sense?). Activists are able to utilize communications devices (cell phones, internet, radio, etc) to disseminate information throughout their group. Lookouts can inform other activists about police presence, barricades, unmonitored areas, and can also exploit any signs of weakness.

This type of sophisticated defensive surveillance was embodied by the Black Bloc style of protests during the G20 summit in Toronto. The Black Bloc protestors utilized a style of “swarming” which is defined in the reading as “the dispersion of command among many small, autonomous units that are able to collective attack an enemy from all directions.”

These protestors placed themselves in plainclothes amongst the crowd. Almost instantly, however, a well orchestrated attack occurred from all angles. The black bloc members were able to seize a centralized protest from al angles, confounding police efforts to control violent protestors.

The following video shows the well orchestrated (and instantaneous) seizure of a prominent protest by black bloc activists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKK0x3EdT3g&feature=related

A Snoop's Dream

November 8, 2010

Anders Albrechtslund’s article entitled “Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance” contains a subsection called “A Snoop’s Dream.” The title of this section alone is representative of the unconventional and downright creepy capabilities used by individuals on online social networks. One important statement made by Albrechtslund is “mediated publics are obviously not private.” The content on the Internet is hardly ever “erased” and with a little bit of direction and persistence, it can often be uncovered. Most people do not realize that more often than not their online activities are never as “safe” or “anonymous” as they may think.

For the last two summers I have worked for a Web Hosting company doing primarily marketing work. Part of my job also consisted of performing competitive intelligence online in order to further direct the company’s sales and marketing strategies. More often than not I was able to find pertinent information regarding the downfalls of our competitors by simply browsing industry-related forums. In one instance, I found a blog post made by a game-site administrator complaining about the lack of uptime provided by their current host… Within a week this game site became our newest client.

The amount of information that I was able to find was borderline scary. I used RSS feeds, blogs, forums, Twitter and others to monitor the “virtual movements” of all competitors and even important clients who may have interacted online with other competitors, be it recently or far in the past. Any unknown/new information may have been useful so it was important that nothing was overlooked. In a sense, I was a “snoop.” I lurked in the shadows of the Internet and exploited any information I could find that may have benefitted my company. While I do not feel that my actions were unconventional or “creepy,” there were times where I questioned the morality of my actions.

This experience has made me wonder why people’s filters seem to be eliminated online. Why is so much important information posted all over the web? Is it ignorance? Or is it the false sense of anonymity and safety that the Internet provides its users?

The Synopticon

November 1, 2010

After hearing so much about Bentham’s Panopticon over the last few years in MIT classes I had often wondered if a contrasting theory existed. In “The Viewer Society” Thomas Mathiesen introduces the term “synopticon” as a direct counterpart to the panopticon. Instead of “the few seeing many” (panopticism) technology and the mass media have now enabled an environment where “the many see the few” (synopticism). The article specifically references radio and television as the most useful mechanisms used to achieve a synoptic state. Today, websites and social networking online promotes instantaneous viewing of “a few” by literally anyone in the world with an internet connection.

The power of the synopticon has evolved in unison with society’s naturally voyeuristic nature. People have always been infatuated with the lives of others. No example is more obvious than the role celebrities play in global culture. Websites like TMZ, Perez Hilton etc. and television shows like Entertainment Tonight expose the lives of few individuals on a daily basis for entertainment purposes. During the summer I couldn’t help but realize that it was much easier to find pertinent information regarding Lindsay Lohan’s pending jail time than it was to find updates on the BP Oil Spill tragedy. This is just one example of how celebrities (few) are seen by many via technology and mass media creating a synoptic environment.

Aside from television, the internet (specifically YouTube)  has created an online database of few individuals who can potentially be seen by endless individuals. What separates the Internet from reality is that these few individuals can be viewed over and over again without the footage disappearing. While some virally-successful individuals have embraced their online popularity and used it to their advantage (i.e. Antoine Dodson), I imagine that many are embarrassed of their actions and would prefer the videos to be taken down (i.e. people videotaped while extremely drunk or high on drugs; Double Rainbow guy, etc).  It is important to recognize that even though we may often enjoy being on the viewing side (part of the ‘many’), we are always in a constant state of vulnerability (to become part of the ‘few’). Smartphones with cameras, cctv, and other technologies can be used to capture us at our worst, and we may even be exploited online for the enjoyment of others. We must always be accountable for our actions. You never know when you might trip over a curb and later find yourself on a “failblog” video with 4 million views.

One final thought I would like to consider concerns the third parallel expressed by Mathiesen: “panopticism and synopticism have developed in intimate interaction, even fusion, with each other.” While modern technologies have promoted a growing synoptic culture, does this also mean that the panoptic methods of surveillance will continue to become more widespread and sophisticated?

“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” – Rousseau

October 25, 2010

The above quotation (I assume) was directed towards the general populous and ignored those individuals in positions of power or dominance. Today, however, the act of surveillance has disempowered elite individuals while empowering the masses – to an extent, of course.

According to Haggerty and Ericson: “we are witnessing a rhizomatic leveling of the hierarchy of surveillance, such that groups which were previously exempt from routine surveillance are now increasingly being monitored.” The rhizome metaphor suggests that surveillance has grown exponentially through its uses, and has also created a leveling effect on hierarchies of surveillance. In the past, the dominant or empowered individuals in society used surveillance techniques to monitor the masses. This applies to Bentham’s conception of the Panopticon. Today, however, surveillance technologies are so readily available that anyone can monitor anyone, regardless of social standing.

Individuals in today’s society, equipped with smartphones, cameras, and other devices can be considered the modern-day “Flaneur.” People can possess supremacy through anonymity, observation, and the modern capabilities of mass dissemination and communication. As a result, everyday citizens have exposed people in positions of power and authority. The readings mentioned the capture of police brutality on camera as an example. This immediately reminded me of the “Officer Bubbles” phenomenon that occurred during this summer’s G20 riots.

Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMTm3QRwEc
News Article: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/836982--toronto-s-officer-bubbles-gains-web-notoriety

The Officer Bubbles example shows an obvious role reversal in the standard surveillance procedures. Here, a police officer arguably abused his power and was exposed via the Internet. As a result, all involved have experienced a myriad of administrative, political, and legal headaches. If it weren’t for the rhizomatic growth of such mechanisms for surveillance, something like this would likely never have escalated to such an important story. Referring back to the Rousseau quote I used in my title, this viewpoint is now applicable to everyone in society. We are all susceptible to the “chains” placed on our freedom by various hierarchically-equal methods of surveillance.