Surveillance’s Gaze: Defining Privacy in the Modern Era

In the not-so-distant past, surveillance was limited to jewelry store CCTV cameras and anti-shoplifting mirrors in grocery stores. Today, the tools of surveillance have an almost omniscient power and presence. Whistleblowers like Edward Snowden have drawn back the curtain hiding the global intelligence community’s information gathering abilities, revealing that virtually every instance of human communication (phone calls, emails, or Skype sessions, to name a few) can be intercepted, analyzed, and stored for future reference. As for tomorrow, even the brightest academics on this planet cannot predict with certainty how much we will be watched, and how many personal liberties we may need to surrender under the pretenses of “safety” and “security.”

For the purposes of this essay, I will limit my speculation about the future, and will instead focus on the present debate surrounding privacy and surveillance. To that end, I shall examine the strengths and weaknesses of the positions of Colin J. Bennett and Danah Boyd as expressed in their respective papers “In Defence of Privacy: The Concept and the Regime” and “Dear Voyeur, meet Flâneur… Sincerely, Social Media.” Furthermore, I will discuss how Bennett and Boyd’s positions share many similarities and are less oppositional than one might expect. Both texts present compelling arguments in favour of an expanded effort to define the term “privacy” and its implications in our modern societies. Finally, I will conclude my analysis with a few observations regarding the tone and styling of each paper as well as my opinion about which position I believe emerged as the “victor” of this debate.

Bennett’s article “In Defence of Privacy: The Concept and the Regime,” as its title suggests, is a thorough defence of the notion of privacy and its historical manifestations in our world. According to Bennett, his article “is conceived, therefore, as a defence, of privacy as a way to frame the contemporary problem, as a regime of governance and as a set of practices. It is also an attempt at reconciliation” (Bennett 486). The reconciliation mentioned by Bennett concerns his quest to answer the following questions:

“What areas of concern can appropriately be addressed under the rubric of ‘privacy’? What are beyond its scope? What concerns, for privacy regulators and advocates, can better be addressed by framing the problem in terms of ‘surveillance’?” (Bennett 486).

Bennett does offer plausible answers to the questions mentioned above. In effect, he delves into the murky realm of the contested language and semiotics swirling around the word “privacy.” Bennett argues that our understanding of the term is outdated and unclear, often perceived from the perspective of legal guidelines and frameworks.

Though his text is a defence of privacy, Bennett also raises several important critiques about it and the wider debate regarding surveillance and privacy. He summarizes the main elements of the critiques by stating:

“‘Privacy’ and all that it entails is argued to be too narrow, too based on liberal assumptions about subjectivity, too implicated in rights-based theory and discourse, insufficiently sensitive to the social sorting and discriminatory aspects of surveillance, culturally relative, overly embroiled in spatial metaphors about ‘invasion’ and ‘intrusion’, and ultimately practically ineffective” (Bennett 485).

Bennett’s inclusion of a diverse group of criticisms actually strengthens his own ideas considerably, as it imparts an impression of objective analysis to the reader and also allows Bennett to address, respond to, and dismiss the major opposing viewpoints to his thesis.

Bennett concludes his article with an acknowledgement that future discussions about privacy and surveillance will undoubtedly still be mired by conflicting ideologies about what the two terms actually signify. Unlike many other debates occurring today, the battle to define what “privacy” is, what it means, and what rules should govern it incorporates a staggering amount of variables – ranging from the technological tools and platforms which permit or inhibit surveillance, to the moral, legal, and ethical standards that are applied to an individual’s “right to be let alone” (Bennett 486).

In contrast to Bennett’s long, detailed, and methodological approach to the notion of privacy is Boyd’s much shorter essay “Dear Voyeur, meet Flâneur… Sincerely, Social Media.” While the length of an essay is not necessarily indicative of its quality (otherwise, everyone would likely feel obliged to write twenty-page sermons), the fact that Boyd’s text is a mere three pages long (compared to Bennett’s twelve pages) is a consideration when weighing the strength of the two articles. Boyd has much less space with which to expand upon her claims and a noticeably smaller number of scholarly references embedded into her arguments. Once again, a large number of references is not necessary per se, but it does add increased credibility to one’s statements. In this regard, Bennett’s paper is superior as he includes many scholarly viewpoints in his essay.

Aside from the length of her text, Boyd does provide several interesting insights which are absent from Bennett’s work. The crux of Boyd’s thesis – and also the most distinct aspect separating both her and Bennett’s perspectives – is that human agency and the role of networks are crucial when attempting to ascertain the boundaries of our personal privacy, and the extent to which we survey – and are surveyed – by others. Boyd posits that:

“In focusing on agency, it is possible to recognize the role of networks. People aren’t simply individuals or in groups; they are members of social networks, connected by information, time, and space, and they must navigate life as a series of relationships. When people understand their position in the constellation, they can then achieve the very essence of what privacy is all about. Furthermore, only when they have agency can people respond rationally and responsibly to surveillance” (Boyd 507).

Boyd refutes the idea that privacy is a purely individualistic pursuit, and is instead navigated through the social webs which interconnect us all. Our privacy, she argues, can only be evaluated by examining the communities we belong to. It is through the process of social examination and discovery that we are able to tailor our reaction to surveillance.

Though disagreeing with Bennett’s individual-centric view of privacy, Boyd does concur with many of Bennett’s points: “At a regulatory level, [Bennett’s] argument is persuasive – operationalizing a term that no one can agree upon is impossible. Likewise, he responsibly highlights a simple reality: people like to think about, talk about, and work towards defining privacy” (Boyd 506). Essentially, Boyd views privacy as socially self-deterministic, whereas Bennett is more occupied with lamenting the issues revolving around the increasingly disaggregated definition of privacy.

In conclusion, though both Bennett and Boyd each have their own unique ideas about privacy and surveillance, my opinion is that Bennett’s article “In Defence of Privacy: The Concept and the Regime” is more convincing than Boyd’s text “Dear Voyeur, meet Flâneur… Sincerely, Social Media.” While I prefer Boyd’s more clear and concise writing style over Bennett’s jargon-laden approach, and I appreciate the fact that Boyd utilizes pertinent ethnographic data to inform her ideas, I believe that the increased amount of detail, historical context, and relevant scholarly sources afford distinct advantages to Bennett’s essay. Despite their differences, one thing is certain: Bennett and Boyd have each submitted worthwhile contributions to the ongoing debate about surveillance and privacy.

As our technological capacities increase each year – alongside our growing appetite to share each and every detail of our lives with the world – it is important to occasionally take a moment of pause and to re-examine the shifting foundations of our society. Though some may relish the idea of complete interconnectedness and sharing, many others are determining how best to protect their ethereal shreds of privacy.