Being somewhere between disturbed and fascinated, I have often wondered about the pervasive nature of interaction which the internet has facilitated between individuals and institutions. When I say this, I’m not talking about the indelibility of the content one chooses to publish (I’ll save that one for another post), but the slippery slope between discourse and surveillance which could be considered the bi-product of hypertext getting ahead of itself.
Such a notion seems to have piqued many people’s interest, however, being ambiguous by it’s very nature, it becomes somewhat difficult to effectively describe, I’ll try to use an example … Last night I watched an episode of ‘Four Corners’ called in ‘Google we Trust,’ there was nothing particularly groundbreaking about it, it was one of many pieces which explore what the individual might divulge, voluntarily or otherwise, throughout the course of their internet activity.
The program tracked the activity of an Australian family, hoping to retrieve as much personal information as possible based on their use of various electronic devices. It was discovered that a number of Westfield shopping centres now have the capacity to track the model and position of smartphones with the intention of profiling shoppers and identifying high traffic areas. In a similar manner, transactional information(attained using programs such as FlyBuys) is moved through major supermarket chains into servers in the US in order to create personalised email advertising for customers.
(It is here that such developments might be compared to hypertext, while hypertext responds to requests by the user, new technologies such as these move further, preempting and fulfilling requests which are yet to be made.)
The program expresses concerns regarding information passing through the United States, describing routine government surveillance to which content might be subject. Indeed, the portrait which is painted is on the whole pretty sinister, without truly explaining why such developments ought to be viewed warily.
I’ll admit that the idea of non-consentual surveillance does not necessarily sit well with me, surely however, the information that one might now be sharing is really no more worrying than that which is recorded through more traditional means. Customer movement is tracked endlessly on CCTV, buyer habits in store records … personal information is divulged in any transaction from renting a DVD to ordering a pizza. I certainly don’t see how supermarket promotions would be of any interest to the US government.
With no immediate cause for concern that I can see, developments might perhaps be viewed in one of two ways, being seen either as the natural progression of technology in order to tailor the most convenient experience possible for the individual consumer, or a disturbing capacity being granted to governments and consumer giants which will over time only prove to be abused.
WATCH EPISODE HERE: