|
DahwitBerhanuSecondEssay 3 - 07 Jan 2025 - Main.DahwitBerhanu
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Surveillance: A Fake Friend | >
> | Constant Observation: Workplace Surveillance (Final Version) | | | -- By DahwitBerhanu - 29 Nov 2024
Introduction | |
<
< | The observation that virtually everything a person does is being tracked naturally leads to some easy feelings. Undeniably, the surveillance conducted by third-parties violates individual privacy and autonomy by offering such third-parties intimate glimpses into the minds and personal lives of those being surveilled. Quite surprisingly, however, there exist those who defend such surveillance and monitoring in the name of enhanced safety and protection against foreign and domestic threats. However, in the wake of the election of Donald Trump, surveillance suggests itself to offer an unlikely benefit — protection against a fascist Presidential regime. | >
> | Learning about the varied and extensive ways in which human behavior is surveilled and collected naturally leads to some uneasy feelings. From monitoring being performed by third party platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, or TikTok? , to surveillance being conducted by the manufacturers of device hardware such as Apple, it is evident that surveillance of the individual is quite pervasive. Though such aforementioned modes of surveillance are primarily oriented towards collecting data and information on the individual, I began to wonder whether surveillance extended into the professional realm — i.e., the workplace. That is, what are the ways in which employers make use of surveillance to monitor their employees? Further, how can employees combat such surveillance and regain control and autonomy of their professional lives? As virtually everyone works a job in order to sustain their livelihood, understanding how employers are monitoring us and how to protect against it is especially important. | | | | |
<
< | An Inescapable Record | >
> | Scope of Surveillance | | | | |
<
< | Following the election of Donald Trump as President, Representative Matt Gaetz was nominated by Trump as the Attorney General. However, over the next couple of days, Matt Gaetz would quickly withdraw his candidacy. What explains the voluntary resignation of Mr. Gaetz is rather remarkable. It was the fact that the Justice Department was able to access to every single financial transaction Mr. Gaetz undertook. Through the financial records, Venmo and PayPal? transactions totalling tens of thousands of dollars paid to women were on full display for the world to see. Thereby providing credible evidence in support of the allegations circulating that Mr. Gaetz had paid a minor and an adult woman for sexual encounters, it came as no surprise that Mr. Gaetz quickly withdrew his candidacy. | >
> | Just like the constantly continuous surveillance and tracking taking place at any given moment on our beloved smartphones, the workplace is no different. In the corporate environment, programs exist which capture the keystrokes of employees, monitor emails and phone calls, and collect facial expressions and tone of voice in order to measure employees’ affect and attitude. Illustrative of this point, is a contract attorney who was terminated as a consequence of such software showing that the attorney was not as productive/focused as others when reviewing documents. Further, employers sometimes require employees to install programs on their personal devices, many of which enable continuous access to location services, monitoring device usage, and other personal device data such as website activity. Obviously, the installation of workplace surveillance onto the personal devices of employees blurs the distinction between the workplace and the home, consequently inviting employers’ surveillance mechanisms into the homes of its employees. | | | | |
<
< | Suggestibly, the fact that a record of the digital payments engaged by the Representative was able to dismantle his career in a matter of a few days offers a glimmer of hope for those fearful of a second Trump presidency. With millions of Americans and foreign nations watching, it is clear that the surveillance and tracking capabilities of third-parties (such as mobile payment applications) offers itself as a formidable weapon to combat the destructive effects of a fascist presidency. With potential nominees facing the scrutiny of their digital and online records, the surveillanced data offers itself as a record against which nominees can be held accountable. As the Gaetz example demonstrates that digital monitoring of financial transactions can expose unethical and illegal behavior, all of Trump’s nominees face the test of standing in the limelight with all of their surveilled data before the world to see — potentially protecting the American population from the appointment of reprehensible individuals. | >
> | What’s more, such surveillance and monitoring is not just limited to the corporate environment. In fact, in blue collar and warehouse environments, the surveillance practices of employers are no better. They are remarkably awful and dehumanizing. For the purposes of this, discussing the surveillance and monitoring which is being conducted by Amazon in its warehouses sheds the most light. In a piece on workplace surveillance, Data & Society followed the day of an Amazon warehouse employee. The use of badges to not only enter the building but as one goes about the facility constantly track the whereabouts of any given employee. Moreover, once at their respective workstation, a monitor informs the employee of how fast they are working, thereby providing a real-time check of whether an employee is meeting the productivity rate required. Supervisors have access to the productivity rates of employees enabling them to reprimand employees in real-time should they fall short of expectations. Any time an employee steps away from their respective workstation, even that is monitored with such information being used by supervisors to discipline or fire employees for not being productive enough. | | | | |
<
< | The Bigger Picture | | | | |
<
< | That said, it is unfortunately the case that surveillance is a double-edged sword. While the Gaetz experience shows that surveillance can perhaps be used as a means for holding elected officials accountable, relying on surveillance as a tool against a fascist regime introduces significant risks. Though surveillance greatly helped in removing an unfit and immoral Attorney General candidate, the same surveillance can easily be weaponized against millions of Americans. From revealing the intimate information of outspoken dissidents against the President to revealing the locations of undocumented immigrants, there is nothing to suggest that surveillance systems will not be used by the new regime to insulate itself and its allies from its opponents. Accordingly, it quite dangerously appears that surveillance and the data collected presents itself to be an alarming political weapon, which will unsurprisingly be used to erode democracy. | >
> | Consequences and Implications | | | | |
<
< | Clearly, the situation is quite the paradox. Though surveillance threatens to compromise personal autonomy and individual liberties, when surveillance is advantageous in protecting those fearful of a Trump presidency it appears quite rational to welcome it. However, when the uneasy reality sets in that the very surveillance which halted the candidacy of Mr. Gaetz will be weaponized and used against millions of Americans to curtail civil liberties and silence dissidents, surveillance then becomes an extremely fearful tool. | >
> | It is crucial to remark that such surveillance should not be normalized. In fact, such surveillance is reprehensible and a breach of acceptable standards of privacy. In the warehouse environment, strict adherence to productivity standards has led to numerous injuries to employees as they struggle to keep up with high efficiency rates. In the corporate office, surveillance breeds an atmosphere of insecurity, anxiety, and distrust. Clearly then, in addition to the inherent issues with surveillance, the fact that employees are encountering real life physical and psychological harm further provides the impetus to combat workplace surveillance. One such recent example of workers combating workplace surveillance is the union representing UPS workers successfully bargaining for the prohibition of firings based on data collected by surveillance monitoring systems. However, this is by no means an ‘ideal’ outcome as such concessions should not have to be bargained for in the first place. Had surveillance not entered the equation this would never have been an issue. Even more troubling than the fact that employers can and do observe the every move of their employees is the issue of the immense data profile such surveillance generates. This means that well after an employee leaves a company, their data is likely still being exploited and used by the company. Unsurprisingly then, it comes as no surprise that employers have become one of the largest collectors of personal data. | | | | |
<
< | Accordingly, the reality is that surveillance irrespective of the hands it falls in is problematic. Though the slight benefit the Gaetz example shows, the grave and irreparable harm surveillance poses in the wrong hands grossly outweighs any arguable benefits. What’s more, even if surveillance doesn’t fall into the hands of fascist world leaders, it is nevertheless wrong for several reasons. First and foremost, surveillance undermines fundamental democratic principles. Specifically, by gravely inhibiting the basic right to privacy, autonomy is severely undermined as individuals are no longer free to think, act, and communicate freely. By impeding upon individual autonomy, surveillance therefore threatens to weaken public discourse as a culture of monitoring stifles the free flow of open dialogue. Surveillance is additionally problematic for the reason that it creates asymmetries of power with governments and corporations being able to exploit and capitalize on the data collected. Further, surveillance undermines the rule of law and accountability due to the absence of checks on its power. That is, because surveillance monitors individual behavior discreetly with many not knowing it is going on, the lack of transparency prevents people from holding corporations and governments accountable. Ultimately then, surveillance poses no real benefit advocates claim of. Despite the limited and handful of instances in which surveillance has shown some benefit, the fact remains that such rare occurrences of tangible benefits come at the expense of the erosion of fundamental constitutional rights and the weakening of democratic principles. Clearly then, surveillance is harmful regardless of its user, and its continued unfettered existence threatens to jeopardize and undermine democracy. | | | | |
<
< |
The logic of this draft is a little puzzling. If I understand correctly, the lesson is that one should pay prostitutes and drug dealers with cash in order to avoid making records that might result in one's not being able to become Attorney-General when one is already a member of the US House. Yet this is not actually a good reason why everyone in the US should be under surveillance everywhere all the time, even if it occasionally results in some bad behavior disgracing bad people. | >
> | Fighting Back | | | | |
<
< | This seems right, perhaps even inarguable. I don't pay for sex and I don't use illegal drugs, and I pay for most personal expenses in cash anyway. I don't think I am thereby increasing the chances that fascist government will succeed in the US. Eliot Spitzer lost the governorship of NY and his public life by paying prostitutes with his credit card, which he had been doing since college. I don't think that affected the level of fascism in the US either way. | >
> | With methods of surveillance being pervasive in the workforce, the question then becomes how can new and existing employees protect themselves and others from insidious managerial monitoring. Naturally, many would think that laws need to be changed to better protect the rights of employees. Though this is certainly true, the problem with this approach is that such surveillance technologies often develop much faster than regulatory agencies can keep up with. Accordingly, it seems that with some caveats, unions present themselves to be a formidable tool for employees to combat workplace surveillance. The unionization in the UPS example enabled workers to prevent termination of the basis of surveillanced behavior. Moreover, in Australia, the Rail, Tram, and Bus Union successfully fought against the national proposal to mandate recording in public transport. However, the use of unions must be taken with caution as the very modes of surveillance used by employers enables them to infiltrate union conversations and discussions. In fact, workplace surveillance technologies have enabled employers to peer inside the places where such conversations are taking place — for example, social media and private email listservs. Amazon managers, for instance, were caught infiltrating a listserv where unionization discussions were taking place. Moreover, unionization and collective bargaining is not just limited to the manufacturing industry. In fact, even law firms have begun to recognize unions formed by its associates. Unionization, therefore, presents itself as a critical tool for employees seeking to curb surveillance as laws slowly catch up to protect workers’ rights. As employers are unlikely to voluntarily cease surveillance, the burden is undoubtedly on us as employees to fight for stronger workplace protections and rights. | | | | |
<
< | So perhaps the best route to improvement here is to clarify the actual subject of the essay. Determining that the occasional catching of a crook is not a good reason to nullify all our civil liberties is probably not it.
| | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
DahwitBerhanuSecondEssay 2 - 05 Jan 2025 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
Surveillance: A Fake Friend | | | Accordingly, the reality is that surveillance irrespective of the hands it falls in is problematic. Though the slight benefit the Gaetz example shows, the grave and irreparable harm surveillance poses in the wrong hands grossly outweighs any arguable benefits. What’s more, even if surveillance doesn’t fall into the hands of fascist world leaders, it is nevertheless wrong for several reasons. First and foremost, surveillance undermines fundamental democratic principles. Specifically, by gravely inhibiting the basic right to privacy, autonomy is severely undermined as individuals are no longer free to think, act, and communicate freely. By impeding upon individual autonomy, surveillance therefore threatens to weaken public discourse as a culture of monitoring stifles the free flow of open dialogue. Surveillance is additionally problematic for the reason that it creates asymmetries of power with governments and corporations being able to exploit and capitalize on the data collected. Further, surveillance undermines the rule of law and accountability due to the absence of checks on its power. That is, because surveillance monitors individual behavior discreetly with many not knowing it is going on, the lack of transparency prevents people from holding corporations and governments accountable. Ultimately then, surveillance poses no real benefit advocates claim of. Despite the limited and handful of instances in which surveillance has shown some benefit, the fact remains that such rare occurrences of tangible benefits come at the expense of the erosion of fundamental constitutional rights and the weakening of democratic principles. Clearly then, surveillance is harmful regardless of its user, and its continued unfettered existence threatens to jeopardize and undermine democracy. | |
>
> |
The logic of this draft is a little puzzling. If I understand correctly, the lesson is that one should pay prostitutes and drug dealers with cash in order to avoid making records that might result in one's not being able to become Attorney-General when one is already a member of the US House. Yet this is not actually a good reason why everyone in the US should be under surveillance everywhere all the time, even if it occasionally results in some bad behavior disgracing bad people.
This seems right, perhaps even inarguable. I don't pay for sex and I don't use illegal drugs, and I pay for most personal expenses in cash anyway. I don't think I am thereby increasing the chances that fascist government will succeed in the US. Eliot Spitzer lost the governorship of NY and his public life by paying prostitutes with his credit card, which he had been doing since college. I don't think that affected the level of fascism in the US either way.
So perhaps the best route to improvement here is to clarify the actual subject of the essay. Determining that the occasional catching of a crook is not a good reason to nullify all our civil liberties is probably not it.
| | |
|
|
|
DahwitBerhanuSecondEssay 1 - 29 Nov 2024 - Main.DahwitBerhanu
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
Surveillance: A Fake Friend
-- By DahwitBerhanu - 29 Nov 2024
Introduction
The observation that virtually everything a person does is being tracked naturally leads to some easy feelings. Undeniably, the surveillance conducted by third-parties violates individual privacy and autonomy by offering such third-parties intimate glimpses into the minds and personal lives of those being surveilled. Quite surprisingly, however, there exist those who defend such surveillance and monitoring in the name of enhanced safety and protection against foreign and domestic threats. However, in the wake of the election of Donald Trump, surveillance suggests itself to offer an unlikely benefit — protection against a fascist Presidential regime.
An Inescapable Record
Following the election of Donald Trump as President, Representative Matt Gaetz was nominated by Trump as the Attorney General. However, over the next couple of days, Matt Gaetz would quickly withdraw his candidacy. What explains the voluntary resignation of Mr. Gaetz is rather remarkable. It was the fact that the Justice Department was able to access to every single financial transaction Mr. Gaetz undertook. Through the financial records, Venmo and PayPal? transactions totalling tens of thousands of dollars paid to women were on full display for the world to see. Thereby providing credible evidence in support of the allegations circulating that Mr. Gaetz had paid a minor and an adult woman for sexual encounters, it came as no surprise that Mr. Gaetz quickly withdrew his candidacy.
Suggestibly, the fact that a record of the digital payments engaged by the Representative was able to dismantle his career in a matter of a few days offers a glimmer of hope for those fearful of a second Trump presidency. With millions of Americans and foreign nations watching, it is clear that the surveillance and tracking capabilities of third-parties (such as mobile payment applications) offers itself as a formidable weapon to combat the destructive effects of a fascist presidency. With potential nominees facing the scrutiny of their digital and online records, the surveillanced data offers itself as a record against which nominees can be held accountable. As the Gaetz example demonstrates that digital monitoring of financial transactions can expose unethical and illegal behavior, all of Trump’s nominees face the test of standing in the limelight with all of their surveilled data before the world to see — potentially protecting the American population from the appointment of reprehensible individuals.
The Bigger Picture
That said, it is unfortunately the case that surveillance is a double-edged sword. While the Gaetz experience shows that surveillance can perhaps be used as a means for holding elected officials accountable, relying on surveillance as a tool against a fascist regime introduces significant risks. Though surveillance greatly helped in removing an unfit and immoral Attorney General candidate, the same surveillance can easily be weaponized against millions of Americans. From revealing the intimate information of outspoken dissidents against the President to revealing the locations of undocumented immigrants, there is nothing to suggest that surveillance systems will not be used by the new regime to insulate itself and its allies from its opponents. Accordingly, it quite dangerously appears that surveillance and the data collected presents itself to be an alarming political weapon, which will unsurprisingly be used to erode democracy.
Clearly, the situation is quite the paradox. Though surveillance threatens to compromise personal autonomy and individual liberties, when surveillance is advantageous in protecting those fearful of a Trump presidency it appears quite rational to welcome it. However, when the uneasy reality sets in that the very surveillance which halted the candidacy of Mr. Gaetz will be weaponized and used against millions of Americans to curtail civil liberties and silence dissidents, surveillance then becomes an extremely fearful tool.
Accordingly, the reality is that surveillance irrespective of the hands it falls in is problematic. Though the slight benefit the Gaetz example shows, the grave and irreparable harm surveillance poses in the wrong hands grossly outweighs any arguable benefits. What’s more, even if surveillance doesn’t fall into the hands of fascist world leaders, it is nevertheless wrong for several reasons. First and foremost, surveillance undermines fundamental democratic principles. Specifically, by gravely inhibiting the basic right to privacy, autonomy is severely undermined as individuals are no longer free to think, act, and communicate freely. By impeding upon individual autonomy, surveillance therefore threatens to weaken public discourse as a culture of monitoring stifles the free flow of open dialogue. Surveillance is additionally problematic for the reason that it creates asymmetries of power with governments and corporations being able to exploit and capitalize on the data collected. Further, surveillance undermines the rule of law and accountability due to the absence of checks on its power. That is, because surveillance monitors individual behavior discreetly with many not knowing it is going on, the lack of transparency prevents people from holding corporations and governments accountable. Ultimately then, surveillance poses no real benefit advocates claim of. Despite the limited and handful of instances in which surveillance has shown some benefit, the fact remains that such rare occurrences of tangible benefits come at the expense of the erosion of fundamental constitutional rights and the weakening of democratic principles. Clearly then, surveillance is harmful regardless of its user, and its continued unfettered existence threatens to jeopardize and undermine democracy.
|
|
|