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.