NCREASINGLY in our lives, the issue of privacy is becoming a serious one and most of us are not really aware of the legal and ethical complexities of the situation. Traditionally, privacy has been seen as an individual concern centring around domestic spaces which are conceptualised as private spaces, while streets, parks and other public places are seen as public spaces where privacy is necessarily limited. An uninvited person in your house may be prosecuted, a person looking through your window may be labelled a “peeping Tom” or voyeur, no one is legally allowed to open any envelopes addressed to you. However, what about reading your e-mail-even personal e-mail? Tracking your car? Keeping track of which websites you visit? Monitoring movements in the office space through smart ID cards? Is the office space a private space or a public space? Do you have any rights to privacy as an employee?These were some the questions that we asked employers and employees in large and small corporations in Pune, Kolkata and Hyderabad as part of a larger research project on the use of New Media in India. The huge silence that was the official response to these questions told its own story. Not a single company — large or small — not a single employee was willing to speak to us “on the record.” “Off the record” many employees and employers told us of their experiences.
|
Photograph that launched a
divorce
One of the first legal rulings on the definition of private and publics spaces in the United States was centred on a photograph published in a city newspaper of a couple kissing tenderly on a railway platform just before Christmas. The accompanying story highlighted the sadness felt by couples who were not able to spend Christmas together for some reason. The problem arose because the two individuals were married to different spouses and on seeing the evidence of an extra-marital affair published in the newspaper, divorce proceedings were begun.The couple in the photograph sued the newspaper for violation of privacy, which led to the breakdown of two marriages. The court, however, ruled that because the act took place on a railway platform, it was a “public” act and therefore no violation of privacy took place.
Privacy vs
security
As part of a larger research project on the "Use of New Media in India," questions about surveillance were asked from employers and employees in large and small corporations in
Pune, Kolkata and Hyderabad. The huge silence that was the official response to these questions on privacy told its own story. Not a single company — large or small — not a single employee was willing to speak to us "on the record." "Off the record" many employees and employers told us of their experiences. All theorists and sociologists seem to agree that privacy is a quality that is beneficial to individuals and society as a whole, while activists argue that the right to privacy is a fundamental human right. A Chicago city representative justified the use of such cameras by saying that about 4,500 crimes were solved over five years by using camera footage. However, he did not mention that more than a million crimes had taken place during the same time period. Thus surveillance cameras led to only a very small fraction of convictions.
|
In many workplaces, employees have to surrender all their personal communication devices, such as cell phones, tablets, at the entrance. They are returned at the end of the day. No personal email accounts may be accessed and no personal phone calls may be made during work hours. Neither may Facebook or other social networking sites be accessed. Many said they believed this was to safeguard the information available to employees and to prevent corporate espionage. Some employees said that they thought these sort of prohibitions were acceptable as corporate security was a matter of concern. A few, however, told us that they felt alienated from the company because of this lack of trust and felt that if anyone was really intending to divulge corporate secrets, they would be able to bypass the strict rules.
Insidious surveillance
The more insidious kinds of surveillance however existed in places where such prohibitions did not exist so clearly. Many employees said that, though they had no real proof, they had the feeling that their personal communication over the Internet was monitored by their employers, whether they had been generated at the office or at home. Many of the employees also worked on projects from home and through internet connections, so the physical division of work and home was not so distinct. Many of them used devices given to them by their employers and so felt that they were always under the surveillance of their employers. That was the only way they could explain otherwise inexplicable decisions such as new team compositions, unexpected projects given to them etc. Many of them said that they had signed a contract when they joined which had a security clause but had never read these clauses. Employers, on the other hand, claimed that employees were fully aware of company privacy policies and had agreed to abide by them.
In-house networks
In many large corporations, there are in-house networks which all employees may use for both professional and social reasons. These seem to be popular and the administrators also use them to announce new policies, new contracts and to circulate other important messages. These networks also have social sections and many employees find them useful and entertaining. For example, in case of transfers from one city to another, these networks can help in finding an apartment, selling a car, locating a good school etc. Some even have a kind of dating service where employees are encouraged to “meet” and find partners from within the organisation. Yet, these too are monitored. Not only do complaints and cribbing grab the attention of the bosses, but even good-natured teasing can lead to administrative decisions. One employee told us that she was teasing a friend of hers for successfully having convinced his boss that the work he had been assigned would take much longer than it actually would. That meant he could take things easy for a while. When this post came to the attention of the bosses, he was pulled up and given a different assignment.
Trouble makers
Some administrative decisions were criticised on these sites. Sometimes steps were taken to address the problems, but also a few employees would be identified as “trouble makers” and long-term decisions would be guided by such assessments. Everyone had to remember that they were under surveillance all the time.
One of the problems in the debates and discussions surrounding the issue of privacy is that it is very difficult to define what should be private. Is domestic violence within a family a private affair? Does it matter to anyone if my sexual preferences are non-conventional? Is my 'selfie' on Wassup a private possession or can it be used by anyone in whatever way they wish to? Yet all theorists and sociologists seem to agree that privacy is a quality that is beneficial to individuals and society as a whole, while activists argue that the right to privacy is a fundamental human right. The removal of privacy is taken to extremes only as a form of punishment as in concentration camps and other penal structures.
Panoptical model
The most famous model for the removal of privacy is the Panoptical model for the perfect prison developed by Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century. This architectural style would make it possible for one watchman to watch each inmate in his cell all the time. Though, of course, this would be physically impossible, it is the fear of being under surveillance that would influence the prisoner and he would consequently modify his behaviour even though no one was actually watching him.
Making an individual visible in all her actions and words is itself an exercise of power. If you have visited the Cellular Jail in Port Blair, you will have seen how each prisoner was isolated and turned into a subject of colonial power. In the Panoptican model, the individual is the object of such visibility, never the willing participant. It may be that the employer does not always actually monitor each conversation, but the possibility of monitoring is itself enough for the exercise of control. In these conditions of surveillance, what happens is the exact opposite of what happens in collective action where many individuals merge into a single mass with a common consciousness. Instead, the crowd or group with its potential of multiple conversations is separated and reconstructed as a collection of isolated individualities who cannot communicate in private with each other.
Surveillance systems
In schools and colleges across India too, teachers and administrators are colluding to create surveillance systems to create information about their students. Some schools have forbidden teachers to interact with their students on popular networks such as Facebook, Twitter or Wassup, while others encourage teachers to become “friends” with their students in order to “eavesdrop” on the conversations that take place. Once again, the public world of the student merges with her private life and teachers become privy to all sorts of gossip, information and incidents that are shared by the student body. Often, action is taken on these communications. In some schools and colleges, daily attendance records and grades are put up on websites which are accessible by the parents of the students. Thus, parents and teachers can collude to enforce disciplinary regimes through the use of surveillance.
In all the instances discussed above, one of the concerns is the question of power relations. Information is always in the hands of and in the control of those who wield power over the persons who are made visible through the exercise of surveillance. While surveillance of their citizens by governments has always raised debates about the right to privacy, it seems that the corporate intrusions into the private worlds of their employees or subordinates have happened quietly and in the name of justifying greater efficiency. Similarly, the need for security has become a justificatory argument for the state, at the international level, on the street and in our homes. Most gated communities will ask for a visitor's name, mobile number, address, licence number of his car and reason for the visit. Cameras have been installed on streets, inside lifts, on school and college campuses and in many public spaces. According to some, this increased surveillance makes them feel safer.
However, most studies, such as the summary of several studies across the globe put together by the Harvard Kennedy School show that the surveillance system only yield a decrease in crime that is very marginal and in many cases crime is 'displaced' to spaces which are not covered by surveillance cameras. A Chicago city representative justified the use of such cameras by saying that about 4,500 crimes were solved over five years by using camera footage. However, he did not mention that more than a million crimes had taken place during the same time period.
Reduction of crime
Thus surveillance cameras led to only a very small fraction of convictions. In other studies in US cities, it was found that while certain crimes were reduced after the installation of cameras, such as car theft from parking lots, others like shootings or robberies were not. Interestingly, one of the best results came from a study in South Korea, which claimed that in some places, crime had reduced by 47 per cent after the installation of cameras.
The chilling representation of the Big Brother in Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 foretold a story of government surveillance of citizens where the Big Brother was literally omnipresent and omniscient. In Michel Foucault's discussion of modern society as a panoptican structure, he showed how the fear of surveillance was enough to lead to modified behaviour. In our world today, we seem to accept that a loss of privacy is a small price to pay for security, safety and efficiency.
Perhaps that is why there have been no questions asked as the state, institutions and corporations have been busy introducing the surveillance state in India. Or maybe we are all aware that a Big Brother is watching us from somewhere.
The writer is a Professor & Chairperson
Department of English and former head of School of Media studies and Communication, Jadavpur University
THERE was a time when people in Pakistan came to the streets to defend their democratic system from the onslaught by the military which wanted its say in the country's affairs. Today, the same people want the military to intervene to save whatever is left of the democratic structure in their country.
M