Prof Ruchi Sinha, TISS, Mumbai
Prof Ruchi Sinha, Tata Institute of Social Sciences
Before I begin it would be interesting to know that the context has been set. We are okay with staying in gated localities, yet we do not have a problem with being digitally exposed. This dichotomy is the underlying problem with surveillance and privacy. I want my privacy physically, but I don’t mind being put under surveillance if it is based upon a digital community.
This context is the problem which has actually polarised all of us. Should we have it? Should we not have it? Is it good? Is it bad? These questions are so typical of what I call a stochastic experience. That is, it comes up. Snowden happened. Everybody was absolutely shaken. Oh my God! This can happen! But when Pegasus happened nobody was shocked. They’re like hota hai (it happens). The way we have a reduced reaction than what we should have to this privacy being removed, has slowly been blunted by technology. That is where the problem is. That is what we need to understand.
On the Permeance of Technology and the Surveillance that Follows
I think that comes from the fact that our understanding of surveillance and privacy is variably different. When we talk about it, we tend to talk about it in homogeneous terms. We assume that the other is talking about or thinking about it in the same context but it’s not. It’s different. It is these layers of difference between surveillance and privacy that give the leeway to the power holder whether it’s the state or the corporation to be able to permeate our lives. That is why we need to address that as well.
Interestingly, the neighbourhood COMMON CAUSE | Vol. XLII No. 1 January-March, 2023 | 27 watch scheme is the best surveillance tool that Delhi police used before CCTV cameras came. That was something that everybody was happy about without realising that you can put anyone under surveillance. So, the neighbourhood auntie, uncle and child, everybody was supposed to be saying kya sahi hai, kya galat hai (what is right and what is wrong). That kind of surveillance is acceptable, but CCTV camera surveillance is not acceptable! When did CCTV cameras become so important? Everybody is now busy with their gadgets. You don’t know who’s travelling with you on the train, or the metro or who’s walking next to you. In fact, many a times people don’t even remember which bag they were carrying. They themselves don’t know that. When you have blunted your understanding and awareness to this level, you have given the right to CCTV cameras to enter into your lives. Now, the logical permeance of technology in our lives has given apparently the rationale to have surveillance in place.
Jeremy Bentham is said to have made prison humane. He actually didn’t make it humane. Actually, he said that the best way to have surveillance in prison is to have the panopticon. This technology is all about the panopticon. It’s basically saying that I can see you, you can’t see me. It is this invisibility that has made people absolutely immune to the idea of surveillance. This invisibility is what most activists and advocates of privacy and surveillance keep trying to highlight. Every time you download an app it asks you to give access to your phonebook, the right to make calls and to read the SMS. You’re saying “okay kar dete hain” (let’s do it). Once you’ve done that can you imagine what all you’ve given away? But I don’t have any problem with Google and Apple. When the policewala is doing it away from me, I have a problem. This difference is then used by the state “usse problem nahi hai toh isse problem kyun hai?” (if you don’t have problem with that, then why does this bother you?) Now this is physical and that is metaphysical apparently.
On Invisible Gaze and Disciplinary Power of Surveillance
The power that is largely being circulated around is known as disciplinary power that Foucault talked about. Foucault talked about three powers. For instance, absolutist power, which was used by the monarchy. The juridical power, which Justice Chelameswar will be talking about. I’m going to be talking about the disciplinary power. Technology is using that disciplinary power. If Zomato is telling you which food to order and when, Croma is going to tell you that it’s time to replace your AC, or if XYZ is saying, now it’s time to do this, that’s surveillance. That is surveillance of your most private desires that we are letting be but we don’t react. If you’re not reacting to it, I think that’s a huge problem.
This invisible gaze of digital hits is something that needs to be regulated now. That is where accountability comes in. That accountability will not come from the powers up there, the corporation. It will come from us. How will it come from us? Stop downloading apps. Stop making your life so easy. Start working hard because the lesser you have to use your mental faculties the more will be the surveillance in your lives.
The surveillance is normally seen as being top-down. But many a times surveillance is also bottoms-up. There are people below you who are keeping tabs on you. That bottom-up surveillance is also a minefield of information. We completely negate it because it’s bottom up. Surveillance from the power holder is credible but surveillance from the bottom is not so credible.
Horizontality of Surveillance and the Way Out
We are victims of is horizontal surveillance. That horizontality which is cutting across all of us is technology. That’s another reason to understand that surveillance is not homogeneous. I would basically try to bring about the understanding that contemporary surveillance is asymmetrical. It’s a place where you are seen but I do not see who’s seeing me. The data capture that I’m giving to them is giving 28 | January-March, 2023 COMMON CAUSE | Vol. XLII No. 1 permission for the corporations to use with the power holder. In 2001, this is where she was and today in 2023 this is what she’s doing and there is a data footprint showing that she was about to do this.
Data footprint, as has already been pointed out, is the bias of the person who has done the coding. Is there any guideline that people who are doing the coding, have human rights training, have social sensitivity training, and are diversity congruent? Do we know about that? No. So, we probably need to get down to all those data centres. We need to get down to all the computer scientists educational places and say that they need to start doing that. If we don’t do that it’s just a reaction to an action that has taken place. There will be no solution to what we are doing.
If you don’t have a problem with data misused by the corporations, the state will definitely turn around and ask why you have a problem with me if I’m doing it in the name of security. Now, security is the biggest consumable that everyone will take over. Whatever surveillance is happening is happening in the name of security. Which security are we talking about? My personal security or national security? You are not clarifying that. If you are not clarifying and crime rates are escalating, despite your CCTV cameras with security, then why should I agree or understand that your surveillance is further safeguarding me? It gives me a tool as a citizen to ask whoever is doing the surveillance, should give me a guarantee. Do we ask for guarantees? We don’t. So we are laid back and we need to now stand up for our rights.
I would say that Google’s Brillo, Apple’s home kit, smart watches, if you are raring to be the “in person”, you’re also raring to give permission to someone to do your surveillance. You decide what you want to be: the in-person, the cool person or the safe person. Finally, I would say it’s frightening that everything is being controlled. This control is pervasive and imposing. Unfortunately, we are only stuck with the absolutist power that is against the state but not against the others. We need to put checks for everyone.
NEXT »
