“Despite the status in the media today, very few people have a strong image of what drones actually are — a strange circumstance in an age of mass media, when we are supposed to see everything.” — James Bridle
Surveillance has developed into a computerised global phenomenon in today’s society. It has become an essential involvement of all our locations; surveillance is the focused attention to personal data for the use of management control or influence (Lyon, 2004), yet ‘global’ surveillance is a phenomenon that is defined as processes where special notes are taken of certain human behaviours (Lyon 2007, p.13). Global media is able to trace data from many government sources and army intelligence agencies, this data information can be considered highly sensitive and has the power to deny a story from being published or broadcasted as it may not be within the public’s interest. The issues of global surveillance through global media networks and preserving of public interest information by such media outlets has risen due to this transition into the information technology age where the sharing of any form of information between differing glocalities is not only expected, it is demanded.
Global media is often thought of as a platform for information access and exchange, where we can send instant messages and emails. However, global media can also be known to hide certain information from society and examine us at the same time. As we live in a global society, we have come to realise how the media plays a key role in censorship and controlling what we hear and watch (Palevic & Djordjevic 2013). This often refers to the media manipulating stories and information through the selection and release of information. James Bridle (2013) an artist who tries to publish the secrets being kept about global media and its use for surveillance, questions the mechanism of global surveillance through his installation of Drone shadow. He creates a 1:1 size outline of unmanned surveillance aircrafts (‘drones’) and presents them in busy street pavements, evident for the public. Bridle does this to provide the public with knowledge of the existence of these aircrafts that was prevented from being shown in Queensland due to government interference. The public is being blindfolded to the use the drones and as bridle states where these missions are being carried out, they’re actually being kept in the dark. This provides the public with arising questions about how a platform used to benefit them is also being used against them, and what else is the government interfering with.
The Government is an organisation that constantly hides and omits information through the global media, such as information in their policies in order to keep a high rating. However, when the governments omit information in order to protect their country or individuals, it usually involves information in relation to national security issues. Yet at the same time, the government is secretly surveying our information in emails and messages to see if we are planning any terrorist attacks or any other life threatening concerns. Government surveillance has turned out to be one of the most debated aspects of people’s lives in the media setting. On the one hand, governments comment that surveillance is essential for our people’s security and public safety and justifies it by declaring that they are protecting people, and tackling crimes and criminals (Lyon 2001; Fuchs 2012). On the other hand, it appears that the main purpose of governments goes beyond keeping citizens protected. In order to maintain power, they need to be able to control people, and to control people, governments need to collect data on those people (Lyon 2001; Lyon 2006; Lyon 2007; Andrejevic 2007). Governments arrange such data from different suppliers, including the real and cybernetic world. Social media platforms and mobile phone devices are the main locations governments use for collecting information and surveil users.
Surveillance is a global phenomenon but is certainly not a new phenomenon. The rise and awareness of terrorism activity worldwide has forced governments and internal intelligence agencies to increase their surveillance methods. While it seems surveillance technologies are a product of the 21st century, humans have been drawn to surveillance with its origins dating back 20,000 years ago (J.K Peterson 2007). It is widely utilised, engaged and accepted along with media, technology and globalisation. It is because of globalisation, which involves the diffusion of knowledge; transfer of policies across borders and dialogs of power that surveillance is so a global phenomenon (AL-Rodhan & Stoudmann 2006). There are of course different views on the subject of surveillance. To a certain extent there are those who agree with its existence and then those who disagree with it. However when considering the concept of global surveillance it is important to take into consideration its various aspects, be that optimistic or pessimistic. Surveillance can be handled as a preventative measure used to monitor and prevent criminal activity yet the use of global surveillance can also be an invasion of privacy. Metadata in which government bodies and corporations perform the ‘application of information technologies to monitor individuals’ activities by investigating the data trail they leave’ (Baruh. 2010, p. 402). It works as a disguised power that watches us and monitors us from behind the scenes (or the shadows). Another evident instance of this is the invisible aspect of surveillance that is utilised through the use of ‘drones’. Whereas while metadata is seemingly more limited to governmental use and qualified use. While in comparison drones as use of technology is not restricted to qualified use, and therefore has the capacity to be used by anyone at any time. As mentioned by James Bridle ‘The invisibility of the drone follows the invisibility of many of our contemporary, networked technologies’ (Bridle 2014). Encouraging the idea that like many aspects in contemporary society we are being watched from the ‘shadows’, constantly monitored and assessed. Government surveillance, in some parts of the world, controls the media. This refers to no one being able to broadcast or publish anything the government considers corrupt, harmful or threatens the country’s solidity, which usually indicates the government’s own power. Democratic countries take pride in maintaining the norm of freedom of speech, allowing people to express what they wish to say or write, to some extent. However even in these democratic countries, censorship can arise. The Iran’s Green Movement (2009) and the UKs riots (2011) is an example of government surveillance. Society uses these social media networks as a tool that enables people to have access to freedom and democracy. Governments monitor protesters on social media and mobile media and justify their actions by stating that they do so to protect the publics interest. Social media had both favourable and unfavourable consequences in both Iran and the UK as both protestors and governments benefited from it. They both “used social media to monitor, track, threaten, follow and arrest the opposition groups, protesters and rioters. The positive presentation of social media’s role in collective action that they are technologies of freedom is put in question by the reality of government surveillance” (Kadivar 2015). Both authorities also justify surveillance of social media and mobile phone communications in the name of protecting public order, security, or national interests (Kadivar 2015). Social media and mobile phone media during government actions and protest are both an extreme importance.
Global surveillance is a global phenomenon as it has become apart of our life. The topic of global media networks and preservation of public interest information by government authorities has risen due to the shift in the technology age. Yet this issue of governance surveillance can be seen in a positive or negative light, as it is known as a debated topic in today’s society where everyone has an opinion. Global media (social media and mobile media for e.g.) can be used to hide information yet also survey people.
WORDS: 1531
References:
Al-Rodhan, N & Stoudmann, G 2006, Definitions of globalization: a comprehensive overview and a proposed definition, Geneva Centre for Security Policy, retrieved 24 September 2015, <http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30929642/Definitions_of_Globalization_-_A_Comprehensive_Overview_and_a_Proposed_Definition.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1443231529&Signature=oFpMPBXZ9CeaayX6kGnb1UgHTbw%3D&response-content-disposition=inline>.
Andrejevic, Mark. 2007. iSpy: surveillance and power in the interactive era. Lawrence, Kan: University Press of Kansas.
Baruh, L and Soysal, L 2010, ‘Public intimacy and the new face (book) of surveillance: the role of social media in shaping contemporary dataveillance’, in Dumova, T and Fiordo, R (eds.), Handbook of Research on Social Interaction Technologies and Collaboration Software: Concepts and Trends, Information Science Reference, Hershey, p.402, viewed 4 September 2015.
Bridle, J 2013, ‘Australia: drone shadows, diagrams and political systems’, booktwo.org, weblog post, 6 September, retrieved 24 September 2015, <http://booktwo.org/notebook/australia-drone-shadows/>.
Fuchs, Christian. 2012. ‘Social media, riots, and revolutions’. Capital & Class 36 (3): 383–391.
Lyon, David. 2001. Surveillance Society: Monitoring everyday life. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Lyon, David. 2006. Theorizing surveillance: the panopticon and beyond. Cullompton: Devon, Willan Publishing.
Lyon, David. 2007. Surveillance Studies: an Overview. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Palevic, M & Djordjevic, S 2013, ‘Freedom of information and abuse of media in the process of globalization’, Webology, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–9, retrieved 26 September 2015, EBSCOhost.
Peterson, J.K., 2007, Handbook of Understanding Surveillance, 3rd edn, Origins and Evolution, pp 119
