I’m Looking At You, Looking At Me

 Abstract: This blogpost will challenge arguments made by Christian Fuchs, about how the state sphere uses surveillance to exercise complete control over the private sphere, threatening the development of a liberated Web 2.0, in contemporary American society. 

         Christian Fuchs claims that the state sphere is finding more ways in which to invade the privacy of its citizens within society’s private sphere.  However, the development of Web 2.0 has allowed for the private sphere to infringe on the state sphere’s privacy as well, showing that Fuchs’s argument is one-sided and provincial. 

         According to Fuchs, the idea of surveillance carries with it negative connotations.  He states, “surveillance [is] a form of systematic information gathering that is connected to domination, coercion, the threat of using violence or the actual use of violence in order to attain certain goals and accumulate power, in many cases against the will of those who are under surveillance” (Fuchs, 135).  This meaning is troubling because in contemporary American society, surveillance is not used to coerce or to dominate, but to simply monitor society, making sure that everyone abides by the rules and regulations.  For example, in many cities cameras have been placed next to traffic lights and in intersections to ensure that the system of transportation is running smoothly.  Should someone choose to neglect the basic traffic laws and run a red light, their picture will be taken, along with their license plate number and they will be required to face the consequences.  If no actions are taken against people who run red lights, then it becomes “ok” to run them all the time.  As a result, everyone on the road would be put in danger. 

         Another example are how video cameras are placed in places of business, like in grocery stores, banks, restaurants, non-profit organizations, etc.  The right to privacy is granted to everyone, but how would the state sphere look if they did not catch employees stealing from registers or failed to notice when caseworkers are sexually abusing their clients? Humanity is not a terrible race and society does not consist of only bad people, but individuals do use means of manipulation to get what they want out of life, having no regard for other people.  The state sphere uses surveillance merely to make sure citizens continue to make good choices. At the end of the day, the common good of society is preserved. 

         Fuchs also discusses how the surveillance allows the state sphere to interfere with Web 2.0.  One of his concerns focuses on the lack of knowledge individuals have with the concept of Internet commercialization.  He claims that social networking sites, such as Facebook, refuse to pay for the creativity among users, reduce democratic rights, coerce advertising, manipulate our needs through market concentration and purposefully increase the complexity of the terms of use and privacy policies (Fuchs, 142).  These accusations against the state are not fair.  Specifically, when individuals log onto a social networking site, they should already be aware of the fact that they are choosing to relinquish a piece of their privacy.  Normally, it is uncommon for individuals to create online profiles for the purpose of getting to know themselves.  The intention is to share certain aspects of their private (now public) lives with others, creating an open network with everyone, including the government.  The government is not just this THING that collects taxes and makes rules.  It is made up of individuals who exist in the private sphere as well. 

         Fuchs also talks a lot about how state sphere surveillance increases the complexity of the terms of use and privacy policies.  What is interesting is that when Internet users click the “Agree” button on Privacy Policies, nine times out of ten they have not read the privacy policy and this is their choice.  If individuals are that concerned by their privacy then they should take the time to read the policy and conditions. 

         In addition, individuals oftentimes only consider their privacy violated when money is involved.  Never mind about how the phenomenon of cyber-bullying has almost completely taken over social networking sites, or that users pick and choose what tragedies to pay attention to in third world countries.  When it comes to money, individuals choose to neglect the issues circulating in their own social networks to complain about this so-called “governmental interference.” 

         In an article written by Bin and Goertzel, the idea of sousveillance is introduced and takes on the opposite meaning of surveillance.  It allows “everyone to see everyone else.” So how come the government cannot monitor society if individuals feel as though they have the same right to infringe on the privacy of the state sphere? In the case of sousveillance, citizens in the private sphere are doing the same thing that state officials are doing in all the spheres and that is “watching” to make sure everyone stays within his or her boundary in society. 

         In closing, Fuchs argument about the balance of power being uneven between the state and private spheres is lacking other perspectives.  Where he claims that the state sphere has the most influence over surveillance, the private sphere actually has the same amount of influence and the ability to monitor the state sphere.  This is why Web 2.0 is so great; it can balance out the power between the two spheres.   Eventually, surveillance techniques from the state sphere and sousveillance techniques from the private sphere will create a world in which nothing is private.  Everything, information, personal thoughts, news articles and even obituaries, will exist in the public realm of society for everyone to see. 

Brin, David, and Ben Goertzel. "David Brin on the Path to Positive Sousveillance." Humanity+. 23 May 2011. Web. 21 Oct. 2011. <http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/05/23/david-brin-on-the-path-to-positive-sousveillance/>.

Fuchs, Christian. "New Media, Web 2.0 and Surveillance." Sociology Compass (2011): 134-47. Print.

Paid in Full

            Individual action, dedication and compassion are needed in everyday life to help maintain stability in society, but at the end of the day, what can be done to stabilize an individual’s personal life?  Privacy is a special aspect of society and culture that truly indentifies what is personal and is something that is internal and specific to the person who wants it.  According to an online article by Zizi Papacharissi, privacy is the human right “to be left alone.”

            The private sphere talks about privacy in a way that is relative to the structure of society.  It is one of the four spheres needed to make society function and without it the state, market and public spheres can not carry out their proper duties.  The privacy of individuals is needed so that the other spheres have a place to influence and infiltrate in order to make their spheres seem stronger and/or more superior.   Specifically, the state sphere is strong because it affects how individuals in the private sphere live their lives: either as part of the state or in a separate but civil manner, from the state.  

This contrast between what privacy means to different social groups is seen centuries ago, during the time of the ancient Romans.  Privacy was more of a stratified system between social classes.  Those who could afford privacy purchased it without a problem.  These individuals were wealthier and higher up in hierarchy than most citizens.  With their access to privacy, they had the ability to separate their social and personal lives.  They were able to go to work each day outside of their homes and converse with the outside world away from their personal space.  This ability to come in and out of the different spheres of life, leaving their personal lives in the private sphere, defined what advantages came from living a wealthier lifestyle.  However, to the other citizens, who were mostly poor and worked for the individuals in the upper class, privacy was too expensive of a commodity to obtain.   

According to Mats G. Hansson, the public, state and market spheres all interfered with lives of individuals in the private sphere, because social, work and personal life were constantly being combined.  Businesses were being run out of people’s homes, causing an invasion of family life and personal space by the public.  Back then, if individuals or families were not constantly interacting with citizens in the public and market spheres, then they did not get paid.  Part of maintaining a family-owned business was finding ways in which to integrate the wants and needs of society with one’s own goals. 

Fast forward to 2011, this idea of “privacy as a commodity” is a little less common.  The private sphere is now so easily accessible to everyone because of the development of new technologies, such as Web 2.0, all around the world.  Now, something that was once available to only the upper class can now be shared by society as a whole.  For instance, now the state sphere and private sphere can act alone.  Yes, individuals still have to follow rules and regulations, but they can do so from a distance. Nowadays, the key to operating within the private sphere is knowing what and what not to share with others.  Social groups now have more control of their private lives and are able to control what they expose to society. Thankfully, the Internet is not a socially stratified environment and individuals are able to regulate what people know about them and what information they want others to know, regardless of social class.  For instance, social media sites like Facebook and MySpace are perfect examples of this.  A person who follows someone or becomes someone’s “friend” is only exposed to the information of the individual that they are following or “friending.”  In the past, this would not have been possible because privacy was not available to everyone. 

Web 2.0 not only allows the private sphere to be independent of the state, market and public spheres, but individuals can now watch these spheres more closely without interfering with these spheres’ daily routines.  The improvement of the Internet has made public records, communication, news and entertainment media available to all citizens in society.  Citizens of lower social statuses know just as much about what is happening in society, as do citizens in the upper classes.

On a more social level, Web 2.0 has greatly influenced how individuals interact with each other.  As mentioned before, the Internet knows no social class and brings everyone in the private sphere together.  One would think that they are now part of the public sphere because everyone shares and interacts with one another, but they are still in the private sphere because the things that they want to share about themselves are being controlled and managed. 

To define privacy as the “right to be left alone,” is a bit limiting because of the transformation of privacy over time.   In the past, those who were not provided with the same benefits of the private sphere as were others, longed for their own personal space and their right to separate private life from social and business life.  However, with the developments and technological advancements of Web 2.O, the private sphere has taken on a whole new position in society.  The modern definition of privacy has become: the right to control what the world knows and thinks about an individual.   Privacy is no longer something to be wished for, because everyone has it.  Now the issue becomes how to maintain and regulate it against social, political and public pressures. 

Hansson, Mats G. "The Private Sphere from a Historical and Cultural Perspective." The Private Sphere: An Emotional Territory and Its Agent. Springer. 1-19. Print.

Papacharissi, Zizi. "Privacy as a Luxury Commodity." First Monday 15.8 (2010). First Monday. 2 Aug. 2010. Web. 6 Oct. 2011. <http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3075/2581>.