Гипернадзор в США: как технологии и расовая предвзятость создают культуру тотального контроля

Oftentimes, I feel like I am living the chorus on Rockwell and Michael Jackson’s song “Somebody’s Watching Me” because in fact, I always feel like somebody is watching me.  From culture’s obsession with recording, photographing and posting every interaction, a spike in government oversight and the way technology is aiding in hyper-surveillance – a culture of mass surveillance, judgment and policing is in the midst of establishing itself for good. There needs to be more pushback against it. Hyper-surveillance is nothing new in the United States. There is an extensive and ongoing history of government surveillance of Black people, and particularly Black revolutionaries which established over policing in Black neighborhoods and the formation of the Counter Intelligence Program.  Before tackling the larger powers at play when it comes to surveillance, understanding the culture and social norms people are abiding by, which makes hyper-surveillance easier, is imperative. Discussion around privacy on social media platforms, the “digital panopticon” and the moral policing which takes place on social media have revealed themselves to be people’s first stop for normalizing and championing hyper-surveillance. With social media, privacy becomes scarce and surveillance is the norm. A panopticon is a circular prison with a central watchtower where guards can watch inmates, but inmates cannot see the guards.  Social media users build their own sense of a panopticon, normalizing the documentation of not just their interactions, but others’ as well. The internet — but particularly, Generation Z’s investment in “cancel culture” online, by recording others without consent for the sake of content — feeds into the idea that relinquishing privacy to uphold “morality” is necessary. For example, TikToker Rachel Lissan highlights a video where a creator records a couple on a bench kissing, allegedly cheating spouses, and posts the video to shame and reprimand them. Despite the fact these people were recorded and posted without consent, they engaged in perceived “immoral” conduct. Therefore, their privacy for the sake of upholding morality is justified. It rings eerily similar to the sentiments of Flock Safety Founder and CEO Garret Langley. In a Fox News interview addressing Flock camera backlash, Langley asserts he understands the importance of privacy as well as safety.  Therefore, the public needs to find a compromise between privacy and safety; the implied compromise being Flock cameras. Flock cameras have been used by law enforcement to track down women who had abortions and repeatedly search data related to “ICE” and “immigration.” They have also been used to stalk ex-girlfriends of law enforcement, target protestors and were accused of biased policing.  Some may argue, “if you’re not doing anything wrong, why does hyper-surveillance matter?” But that calls into question what “wrong” means. Today, the work of Martin Luther King Jr., The Black Panthers and Malcolm X is celebrated, but decades ago hyper-surveillance, oversight and policing determined these people were threats. Only less than four years ago was having an abortion legal, and therefore “right.” Consider all the times someone was dissected and picked apart online for ultimately inconsequential behavior. Legality and morality are subjective and determined by who is in power. Therefore, government oversight plays a part in what is enforced as wrong and right. The artificial intelligence-driven targeting of student protestors or the mandatory posting of syllabi are examples when oversight creates its own rules of morality and subsequently legality, to justify punitive action.  This is not to say encouraging safety and public good is negative, but the way in which we promote it matters. According to a study by neuroscientists Kiley Seymour and senior research associate Roger Koenig-Robert, the increase in surveillance leads to heightened anxiety and paranoia. Nobody should have to deal with constant anxiety to upkeep the public good. According to the same study, even people who do not feel unbothered by constant surveillance subconsciously process it. “Many participants reported feeling relatively unconcerned about being monitored, even though their brains clearly registered the surveillance …. we rarely register the presence of cameras,” the study, published by Oxford Academic, stated. “Yet our brains are constantly adapting to their presence and subtly shaping our perceptions.” An increase in surveillance does not necessarily guarantee a decrease in crime. In many cases, crime statistics actually elevate. Historically, despite hyper-surveillance being disproportionately implemented into Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, crime actually inflates. This creates a feedback loop of justification for surveillance instead of getting to the root of the issue. Artificial Intelligence-powered techno-surveillance companies such as Palantir Technologies, who helped the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, stated in their own manifesto sentiments, “some cultures have produced ‘wonders’ while others are regressive and harmful.” When you consider this, the reality of hyper-surveillance and the powers manning it are terrifying.  The rapid speed at which a surveillance state and culture is being established is anxiety-inducing, counterproductive and will prove itself to be a major privacy concern. Dawnelle Blake is a sophomore studying journalism at Ohio University. Please note the opinions expressed in this column do not represent those of The Post. Want to talk to Dawnelle about their column? Email them at [email protected].