| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Surveillance v. Surveillance: Civilians' Tit-for-Tat and Its Problems | >
> | Surveillance Capitalism and the Erosion of Personal Autonomy | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | Police brutality has historically been a social issue for the United States and is one of the most controversial, polarizing, and contentious American issues. This is largely due to the widespread emergence of news and media footage that depicts police officers shooting and killing unarmed people of color. Civilians increasingly use their smartphones to record interactions with law enforcement to surveil officers and combat police misconduct against the most vulnerable. Contrarily, the government is often criticized for overexercising its ability to surveil citizens, which has raised concerns about privacy and misuse of power. Therefore, the practice of civilians surveilling law enforcement is perceived as both a safety measure and a check on government overreach and power. | >
> | Personal autonomy—the ability to make decisions independently and govern one’s own life—is a cornerstone of democratic society. The advent of surveillance capitalism, however, poses an increasing threat to this basic right. Surveillance capitalism, a term coined by Shoshana Zuboff, refers to an economic system predicated upon the collection and commodification of personal data for profit (Zuboff, 8). Tech giants like Google, Facebook (Meta), and Amazon track users' digital behaviors, analyze them, and monetize this data not only by predicting future behavior, but also by influencing it. While this business model has proved enormously lucrative, it continues to compromise our autonomy. The present paper examines how surveillance capitalism undermines autonomy by manipulating behavior and eroding privacy, and briefly suggests potential solutions. | | | | |
<
< | Surveillance itself, however, has several unintended consequences and threatens privacy. While retaliatory civilian surveillance is meant to enhance safety, it only contributes to a broader culture of mistrust and overuse of surveillance. The best solution to address this challenge is to limit both excessive police and retaliatory civilian surveillance. Proper boundaries must be set where surveillance is not seen as the solution, because without boundaries, these practices risk perpetuating a vicious cycle of invasive oversight that compromises privacy and the very safety that they intend to promote. | >
> | Data Harvesting and Consent | | | | |
<
< | The Rise of Civilian Surveillance | >
> | Surveillance capitalism thrives on the constant harvesting of personal data, often with users only vaguely aware at best of the extent to which their actions–search queries, location data, device usage—are tracked and monetized. This constant surveillance undermines autonomy by depriving people of control over their own data and digital life. While theoretically users may agree to such surveillance by accepting terms of service, such consent is illusory. Privacy policies are typically dense, legalistic documents that the average user lacks time or expertise to fully understand. This information asymmetry precludes the average user from making informed choices, thereby eroding their autonomy. | | | | |
<
< | Smartphones provide ordinary citizens with the power to be vigilantes who are capable of documenting instances of police brutality and misconduct in real time. In the last decade, this has becoming increasingly popular with viral videos, such as the killings of Eric Garner in 2014 and George Floyd in 2020, which led to public outrage and demands for accountability by law enforcement. For example, a New York Times article entitled “Black Lives Upended by Policing: The Raw Videos Sparking Outrage” provides readers with 34 cellphone and dashboard camera videos that display police brutality. One of the videos features cellphone footage of yet another unarmed black man, Alton Sterling, being tackled, held to the ground, and eventually shot by two white officers. Excessive force is a growing problem as police in the United States are said to use force against 300,000 people each year, according to a report by The Guardian. Ultimately, as more and more individuals feel defenseless in their encounters with police, civilian surveillance provides folks with a sense of empowerment. With retaliative surveillance and the ability to capture and share evidence of brutality, individuals can challenge official narratives, garner public support, and fight for justice. | >
> | Behavioral Prediction and Manipulation | | | | |
<
< | Social media platforms, such as Instagram and X, add to the impact of these videos as isolated incidents can transform into broader conversations and national controversies. For example, on X, hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter and #NoJusticeNoPeace have become a battle cry for movements seeking systemic change. According to a PBS NewsHour? Report, the instancy and convenience of social media allows users to share raw, emotionally charged content, which helps to foster solidarity and drive action amongst its viewers. | >
> | Surveillance capitalists not only collect data but also use it to predict and influence behavior. By collecting vast amounts of personal data, companies build detailed behavior profiles to predict future actions and preferences. Predictive algorithms are designed to anticipate what a user might search for or buy and they push certain actions such as clicking on advertisements, purchasing products, or engaging with content, often without our awareness. Such predictions are then traded among companies and advertising agencies in the behavioral futures market (Zuboff, 2). This limits autonomy by steering individuals toward decisions they might not otherwise make. | | | | |
<
< | The Comfort and Consequences of Surveillance | >
> | The mobile augmented-reality game Pokémon Go, developed by Google subsidiary Niantic Labs, aptly exemplifies commercial behavioral modification. The game covertly employs location tracking to drive foot traffic to specific real-world businesses, with sponsors paying to have their locations featured. John Hanke, the game’s creator, revealed that sponsored locations were always part of the plan (Zuboff, 295). Companies pay to have Pokémons appear at their locations, thereby attracting players. These sponsors are charged on a “cost-per-visit” basis, akin to Google Ads’ “cost-per-click” bidding model (Zuboff, 298). This highlights how surveillance capitalism can turn seemingly innocuous activities into revenue streams, further eroding user autonomy by shaping behavior in the service of commercial interests. | | | | |
<
< | Civilian and government surveillance can enhance safety and offer accountability, but it also poses risks of overreach and can lead to unintended consequences. Surveillance’s primary intent, to deter misconduct and offer safety, backfires when it is perceived as an intrusive weapon that threatens privacy rather than offers accountability. Filming police interactions provides folks with a sense of security and empowerment. Many believe that dashcam/bodycam footage is often manipulated and altered to produce a particular narrative that aligns with law enforcement. Therefore, civilian documentation or recording potential misconduct can deter officers from brutalizing others. This visibility forms somewhat of a protective shield and civilian surveillance can be seen as a form of resistance and retaliation. Government surveillance, however, is often motivated by national security concerns, crime prevention, and an effort to maintain “law and order.” | >
> | Addiction by Design | | | | |
<
< | Surveillance comes at a cost though as it contributes to a culture of invasive monitoring that infringes individual rights, affects decision-making, and threatens privacy. (Tonghan Zhang et al., A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks, arXiv:2212.) For civilians, overuse of surveillance causes individuals to censor their speech and lose autonomy, principles that are foundational to the United States’ “democracy.” (Christopher Slobogin & Sarah Brayne, Surveillance Technologies and Constitutional Law, 6 Ann. Rev. Criminol. 219 (2023)) Rather than provide civilians with a sense of security, the increased surveillance fuels folks’ mistrust of law enforcement, Alternatively, for law enforcement, constant surveillance can make officers hesitant to act during critical moments, which compromises their ability to make proper judgment calls and perform their duties (Randy K. Lippert & Bryce Clayton Newell, Debate Introduction: The Privacy and Surveillance Implications of Police Body Cameras, Vol.14 No.1 (2016)). Retaliative surveillance makes officers fearful of public backlash for any action they take, even those made in good faith. Therefore, it risks exacerbating police inaction, since some officers may prioritize themselves and their well-being over community engagement and public safety. These dynamics have bred a very tense relationship between officers and the civilians they’re expected to “protect.” As a result, community trust has been lost and the potential for a collaborative relationship has nearly diminished. | >
> | Many tech platforms are designed to be addictive, using features like endless scrolling, personalized recommendations, and constant notifications to maximize engagement. Such strategies lead individuals to engage more reactively and less consciously in response to behavioral nudges aimed at profit maximization rather than users’ well-being. Algorithms take advantage of psychologically exploitative tactics such as instant gratification and social validation. The addictive nature of these platforms limits users’ capacity for independent decision-making, further undermining personal autonomy. | | | | |
<
< | Solutions & Conclusion | | | | |
<
< | There needs to be a balance between accountability and privacy. While excessive surveillance may be some form of deterrence, its misuse feeds the public’s mistrust of law enforcement. To address retaliatory surveillance, policies should govern police officers’ use of body cameras so that it is transparent, respects the privacy rights of officers, and prevents manipulation or alteration when wrongdoing arises. For civilians, governments should explore alternative ways to maintain national security and prevent crime without infringing on citizens’ inherent rights. To improve the relationship between law enforcement and civilians, states should explore community outreach programs and opportunities that aid an understanding between law enforcement and the public with a shared goal of safety. Ultimately, surveillance is a powerful tool that often contributes to an invasion of privacy and manipulation, so it’s paramount that we seek out balanced solutions that limit it and protect privacy and prioritize trust. | >
> | Surveillance Capitalism and Privacy
Privacy forms an integral part of personal autonomy, allowing individuals to develop their identity and make decisions free from external pressure. Surveillance capitalism, however, systematically invades this private space, turning personal information into a commodity. Behaviors, preferences, and even facial expressions are harvested for profit, leaving individuals less control over their private lives. The resulting power asymmetry grants corporations disproportionate influence over how personal data is monitored and profited from. The knowledge that one's actions are being constantly monitored can lead to self-censorship and restricted freedom. Individuals may modify their behavior out of fear of judgment, scrutiny, or repercussions, even when their actions are legal or benign. By blurring the distinction between public and private life, surveillance capitalism limits the range of choices individuals feel free to make, thereby constraining thought and expression.
A Way Forward
Addressing the harms of surveillance capitalism requires stronger data protection laws. Existing regulations, such as the GDPR in the European Union, provide a framework for protecting individual data rights, but more needs to be done globally. Companies must provide clear, concise, and accessible explanations of data collection practices. Users should have the right to data privacy without losing access to essential digital services; they should also have greater ownership over their data, including the right to access, edit, delete, and transfer it. Affording users greater control over their data is a critical step in restoring digital autonomy.
Access to social, professional, and even governmental services frequently requires engagement with technologies that collect and monetize personal data. Although it may seem that access to digital life must come at the expense of personal freedom and that opting out of social media and similar platforms increasingly means social exclusion—as modern life and work are entwined with these technologies—this need not be the case. In many ways, these platforms harm our well-being by creating addiction and overwhelming us with trivial and often manipulative information.
Moreover, not all technology is designed to erode privacy and autonomy. Free and open-source software, for instance, provides transparency by allowing users and developers to examine their underlying code, thereby ensuring data privacy. Encrypted messaging platforms, such as Signal, secure users' private communications from third parties, including the platforms themselves. By prioritizing user control and privacy over corporate interests, these technologies offer society a pathway to resist the encroachments of surveillance capitalism.
The algorithms used by tech companies to predict and influence behavior are often black boxes—opaque and unaccountable systems that shape our choices with limited transparency. Greater transparency and accountability are needed to protect autonomy. Algorithms should be redesigned to minimize their impact on users' autonomy, even if this reduces engagement.
Conclusion
Surveillance capitalism poses a profound threat to personal autonomy by commodifying everyday actions, manipulating behavior, and eroding privacy. While stronger regulations are necessary, they will be insufficient without collective political and social will. A grassroots, bottom-up movement—demanding respect for personal autonomy from corporations and policymakers alike—is necessary to effectively combat surveillance capitalism. | | | Sources: | |
<
< | Christopher Slobogin & Sarah Brayne, Surveillance Technologies and Constitutional Law, 6 Ann. Rev. Criminol. 219 (2023)
Dan Barry, Video Evidence, and a Question of Race, The New York Times (Aug. 19, 2017)
Randy K. Lippert & Bryce Clayton Newell, Debate Introduction: The Privacy and Surveillance Implications of Police Body Cameras, Vol.14 No.1 (2016)
Sam Levins, Police Use of Force Data Reveals Violent Trends, Analysis Finds, The Guardian (Aug. 28, 2024)
Tonghan Zhang et al., A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks, arXiv:2212. | >
> | Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs? (2020) |
|