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.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under