Some radical friends didn't share the enthusiastic reception for Lives of Others, the haunting recent film about life under the Stasi, the East German secret police.
It wasn't the acting or even the Big-Brother plot of hidden manipulation and control that they objected to -- what got up their noses was the complacent implicit assumption that the West wasn't an equally enthusiastic user of similar surveillance techniques, even if mostly (so far as we know) for commercial rather than political ends.
They have a point.
"We live in a surveillance society," was the bald assessment of a report for the UK's information commissioner last year that catalogued in detail the technologies and processes by which Britons are logged, profiled and digitized daily at work and at play through credit, loyalty, travel and swipe cards, mobile phones, congestion charges, work log-ins and activity monitors, interactions with public and private-sector call centers, not to mention the ubiquitous CCTV cameras.
One striking measure of the burgeoning of surveillance is the growth of the industry that provides it -- in the three years to last year the top 100 US surveillance companies had doubled in value to US$400 billion. Surveillance is big business.
Even individual surveillance uses are hard to track and regulate, as technology runs ahead of the ability to foresee its implications. But in combination with "function creep" -- where a mechanism set up for one purpose, like a public transport swipe card, is then used for another, such as tracking movement -- increasingly complex networks of information-sharing across private and public sectors, from credit-rating to benefits agencies and hospitals, make it almost impossible for people to assert their right to know the information held about them.
It's like a "first life" version of the virtual-reality Web site SecondLife.com -- whether we like it or not we all have shadowy "avatars," digital doubles of ourselves, assembled by computer from dozens of different database components and logged and managed in ways of which we are only dimly aware.
Although untethered from the office by mobiles and laptops, some remote workers find their digital selves more controlled and monitored than before. For consumers and citizens, racial and postcode profiling and credit rating are just the beginning. When you contact some call centers you are categorized by level of spending and served accordingly -- Amazon.com can price goods differently for different customers.
Not all surveillance is bad -- accurate records can protect the innocent as well as identify wrongdoers -- and some of it, as the information commissioner said, is an inescapable part of modern life.
The technology itself is neutral, as Lives of Others demonstrates, but the use that authorities make of it is the problem.
The report warns that it is naive and dangerous to sleepwalk into a world where gathering, processing and sorting personal data is no longer just an overlay, like CCTV cameras, but a part of life's basic infrastructure, without debate or understanding what it means.
Part of the danger is cock-up rather than conspiracy -- at a very basic level so much of the information gathered is just wrong. One study found that 22 percent of a sample of entries into a UK police computer contained errors, even when double-checked. Names are misspelled and addresses wrongly coded. The impact of such errors is compounded by sharing. What's more, the errors are not remedied by the enthusiastic addition of more technology -- a managerialist solution that often makes the original problem still harder to unravel, as well as locking us in to technology and expertise beyond democratic control.
At the same time, to a computer your digital identity is more real than the physical one; indeed, if you don't have a computer identity, you don't exist at all. Hence the phenomenon of the invisible consumer and the unreachable company, separated by the impenetrable barrier of the computer.
When, as is the way of technological advance, the monitoring of information is taken away from humans in the name of rationality and given over to algorithms, the wrongness can become surreal. If computers decide who gets passports or is employed, we really are rattling the bars of sociologist Max Weber's bureaucratic "iron cage."
Surveillance is a substitute for trust. At work or as citizens, some people break trust, so surveillance is necessary. The dilemma is that by fostering suspicion and making people feel mistrusted, it increases the chances that they act in ways that seem to justify the surveillance. Lives of Others plays on this tension, before ending on a note of wry individual redemption, a small victory for humanity.
Yet in real life, the nightmare prospect of surveillance managing us rather than the opposite is apparent, and it will take more than fiction to reverse it.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing