139,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
Digital information and communication technologies can be seen as a threat to privacy, a step forward for freedom of expression and communication, a tool in the fight against terrorism or the source of a new economic wealth.
Computerization has unexpectedly progressed beyond our imagination, from a tool of management and control into one of widespread communication and expression. This book revisits the major questions that have emerged with the progress of computerization over nearly half a century, by describing the context in which these issues were formulated.
By taking a social and digital approach, the author explores controversial issues surrounding the development of this "digital revolution", including freedom and privacy of the individual, social control, surveillance, public security and the economic exploitation of personal data. From students, teachers and researchers engaged in data analysis, to institutional decision-makers and actors in policy or business, all members of today's digital society will take from this book a better understanding of the essential issues of the current "digital revolution".
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 179
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title
Copyright
Introduction
Chapter 1: Technological Surveillance Subjected to Restrictions
1.1. A test based on data collection techniques
1.2. Information technology understood as a technique for control
1.3. Formalizing the right to personal privacy
1.4. Useful regulations with a limited efficacy
Chapter 2: Security Over Liberty
2.1. The constant instability of security and liberty
2.2. A state of global surveillance
2.3. Changing American security
Chapter 3: A Network Promoting Participation and Exchange
3.1. A liberalizing view on laptop and computer networking
3.2. Uses of the Internet for citizens
3.3. Facilitation of freedom of expression and communication
Chapter 4: Privatization and Economic Exploitation of Personal Data
4.1. Private appropriation of personal data converted for economic benefit
4.2. Questioning of public/private hierarchies by unprecedented monopolies
Chapter 5: Digitalization and Revolution
5.1. The digital revolution as the new Industrial Revolution
5.2. The digital revolution as the foundation for a libertarian political revolution
5.3. Another idea of the revolution in which digitalization is not the first priority
Bibliography
Index
End User License Agreement
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
C1
iii
iv
v
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
117
118
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
Computing and Connected Society Set
coordinated byDominique Carré and Geneviève Vidal
Volume 1
The Uncertain Digital Revolution
André Vitalis
First published 2016 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd
27-37 St George’s Road
London SW19 4EU
UK
www.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
111 River Street
Hoboken, NJ 07030
USA
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2016
The rights of André Vitalis to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016947849
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-086-7
Introduction
“When one is uncertain of one’s destination, it is better to be certain of where one comes from”.
Proverb
The expression “digital revolution” entered public consciousness at the end of the 2000s when millions of people started using smartphones in order to connect to the Internet. Smart devices, which are merely the size of a deck of cards, appeared after the large computers of the 1960s and the smaller laptops of the 1980s and have enabled a great proportion of the population to gain access to the digital world, transferring information both automatically and instantaneously.
The vast majority of discussion surrounding this technological revolution tends to liken it to the Industrial Revolution of our times, a revolution that constitutes a new stage of technological progress while presenting major changes in every realm of experience. Difference in opinion arises on evaluation of the effects of such changes. For example, those who firmly believe in the benefits of the phenomenon do not tend to hold negative opinions about the changes that constantly occur within it. By allowing the individual to access an abundant amount of varied information, technology furthers crucial progress in areas such as general knowledge, education, health and work while guiding us toward a future that is more ecological, more democratic and with increased sustainability prospects.
If we were to perceive technological advancement in an ambivalent light, the effects produced by it would be remarkably contrastive. Along with the benefits come negative aspects such as increased surveillance, loss of jobs and dependence on private companies that monopolize the market (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon (GAFA)). Those able to critically and objectively analyze believe that this revolution conceals a predatory form of capitalism that impedes the liberating possibilities inherent to digital technology. A more radical yet informed technological critic would be quick to question a technology that does nothing but extend technical and technoscientific movements, which started years before, insisting that the system is far from revolutionary.
The ambiguous digital revolution was preceded by 50 years of digitalization in society, marked by incessant technical innovations and increasing numbers of applications. Nothing has disturbed this continual development, considered a guarantee of economic and social progress, despite the fact that efforts were made to expose disadvantages, such as the threat to personal privacy. In France, a number of organizations such as CREIS, CECIL and Terminal magazine have been skeptical from the beginning, analyzing the situation, discussing it critically and introducing modes to educate people about what they call “Information Technology and Society”1. As expressed by a technological historian, “since 1980, criticism about the surge of information technology has never halted despite always being rather insignificant” [JAR 14].
This work, by taking a digital and social approach, will examine the great issues of contention that have appeared as information technology has advanced. Context will be considered in order to explore the ways in which such issues were created and when necessary, theoretical tables will be used to get a better grasp of the issue and its scope. A time frame of half a century, beyond the short-term details and developments, will serve to thoroughly trace the crucial questions that have been revealed, to separate the sustainable from the unsustainable, the essential from the unessential and the innovative from the unimaginative. The phenomenon of computerization has often gone down unexpected paths, different to what had been predicted or announced. Never was it predicted that a management and control tool would turn into a major tool of expression and communication in the space of a few years. In the same way, in spite of the irrevocable concerns and warnings that people attached to the idea of automating personal files, no one could have predicted the sheer extent of control operations undertaken by American intelligence services, facts that were laid bare because of Edward Snowden. By looking back in time, regardless of positive or negative opinions, we can scrutinize events of the past, or the concept of “ça a été”, which was developed by Roland Barthes on his work surrounding photography. Of course, absolute objectivity will never be wholly possible, but the factual information collected has been proven, even if it has been acquired from sources with a particular stance, namely that of progress or, most commonly, that of the preservation of individual liberties. In this respect, particular attention has been given to the ever-changing status of personal data due to the fact that freedoms are dependent on the control or the lack of control that the individual does or does not dispose of when using technology. As Wolfgang Sofsky stated, “respecting the private sphere is the foundation of freedom, and this freedom protects against any figure of power… He who thinks that he has nothing to hide has already renounced their right to freedom” [SOF 11].
Fifty years of digitalization has provoked or seriously contributed to four major social problems:
1) Problems regarding social control that became relevant on the creation of the first data banks in the 1960s.
2) Problems regarding public security that came to the surface in the middle of the 1990s and which following the 9/11 attacks continue to be of particular relevance.
3) Problems regarding communication and exchange due to the invention of the laptop in the 1980s and above all the Internet which arose in 1993.
4) Problems regarding private bodies that use personal data for economic benefit, a phenomenon that appeared in the 2000s.
Each of these problems acquired an American expression before entering the French vocabulary as well as that of other democratic countries around the world. This American supremacy arises from the vital role played by the United States throughout the period. To this day, Silicon Valley remains the main player in the digital revolution.
Throughout the years, society and the digital world have continued to interact, intensified at certain points by purposeful interventions. At the beginning, legislative bodies wanted to control the progress of technology by devising ways to protect personal privacy. A little later, researchers influenced by counterculture in California transformed a means of power and control into one of expression and communication. After September 11, the United States inevitably endeavored to use digital support systems to increase the amount of surveillance imposed onto citizens. In the 2000s, large companies were to make the Internet suit their interests, all in order to maximize profit. Digital technology is not however a neutral tool that can always be mastered and handled with ease. As with all forms of technology, digital technology was to profoundly affect the society in which it was established. A particular social context encouraged the development of such a phenomenon. At the same time, it seems inevitable for this phenomenon to significantly affect the social context in which it was born. According to anthropologist Sherry Turkle, we create new technologies and in turn these technologies shape our lives. Lawrence Lessing, an American lawyer, once claimed that “Code is law”, while French lawyer Alain Supiot notes current problems in terms of being able to successfully maintain individual rights, as well as regarding the replacement of legal methods in favor of technological methods. In this way, expressing consent is rendered completely impossible due to the automation of collecting personal data, which is an irrevocable part of digital technology. In the same way, large banks of data deliberately violate the crucial principals of data protection, sending us, in the name of optimizing absolutely everything, straight into a world of unclear decisions made by automatons, which replace humans and endanger democratic societies.
In today’s climate, the crucial problems that have arisen with the development of information technology come together, often confronting each other. At a time of ecological and economical crisis, when a disaster seems more likely than a revolution, the technological industry capitalizes on the opportunity to extend the scope of their activity and exchange even further, an abundance of activity that is undertaken in a new universe in which the replication of our real world in data banks online offers the possibility for collaborative work as well as the inexhaustible potential for expression and communication. Comparing this period with that of the revolution of the steam engine in the 18th Century and that of electricity in the 19th Century should provide us with some optimism. It can be argued that we are in a transitional phase, about to pass from one industrial period to another. The current instability we witness should come to an end with the arrival of a technological era that has caused new modes of behavior to emerge and that has created a new set of rules in society.
Comparison is not equivocal to reason. Economists have claimed that the technological revolution has not transformed goods, services and production methods at the same dizzying rate as the two preceding revolutions did. The very nature of the progress is by no means the same, while in the 19th Century it was a question of making workers more productive; today, it becomes a question of replacing these very workers with software. By examining this issue in light of history and by placing it at the forefront of discourse about the future, we could neglect the sheer pace that this permanent innovation is developing at, a pace which at present makes determining an end goal in a stable future nearly impossible. The NBIC revolution (nanotechnologies, biotechnologies, information technology, cognitive science) is to be launched in the current climate from the association of information technology with other technologies, a development that should bring with it immense changes. The concern about when permanent instability will finally end will not be of concern in the future. As Lewis Mumford stated in 1963, “whilst describing the technology that seeks to dominate us, I have never forgotten a great and enduring message – Prepare yourself for the unexpected!” [MUM 63].
1
The different activities carried out by these organizations are shown on their websites. For the Centre of Research and Teaching Coordination for Information Technology and Society (CREIS-Terminal), see
www.lecreis.org
. For the Centre of Studies on Citizenship, Computerization and Freedoms (CECIL), see
www.lececil.org
.
1Technological Surveillance Subjected to Restrictions
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, new concerns were raised in response to the first digital data banks and projects involving interconnection files. It is clear that information technology that offers the possibility to record anything can also endanger the security of personal information, while producing an unequivocal entity easily manipulated by those in authority. Of course, recording personal information is by no means a new phenomenon, but the efficiency of a computer in regard to handling information has improved; what in the past seemed hard to achieve is now achievable through technological devices. Because of these machines, it is now possible to store millions of files, compare them all, carry out the most sophisticated technical tasks and transfer the results from anywhere in a short interval of time.
In an effort to protect the individual rights of their citizens, modern democracies have responded by outlining guidelines that seek to protect human rights. Such an intervention was seen by some as ambiguous, because as much as these societies would like to regulate the circulation of information, blocking progress in economical and social terms would be considered highly detrimental. This double objective is not easily achieved and it compromises the efficacy of the established plan for protection.
1.1. A test based on data collection techniques
In the mid-nineteenth Century, a new method of surveillance appeared in the first democratic societies, namely England, the United States and France, a method named “Profiling the Populations” by the authors with the help of Mattelart [MAT 14]. It is an indirect form of surveillance, generally invisible, based on using the data of individuals, which will soon complement and replace the previous method. Unlike these antiquated methods that are carried out directly and require the individual to carry out some work about themselves in order to comply with set standards, the profiling can be put into action without the individual knowing, while requiring no participation on their part. The progression of these operations will follow the progression of the information acquiring techniques.
To put this into context, in the face of records and registers of all sorts, the invention of a movable file in the Paris police headquarters in 1833 constituted a major advance in terms of researching and identifying groups of delinquents, something that according to Foucault was not given due credit by historians [FOU 75]. Unlike older writing systems, the movable file facilitated the inclusion of new data and lent itself to the creation of alphabetical categorization that allowed for the completion of all sorts of tasks, as follows: data sorting, data retrieval, collection of new reports, etc. This technique, picked up again over time in different sectors of work, will soon concern an increasing number of individuals; one single individual can now expect to appear in several hundreds of files.
Herman Hollerith’s 1886 invention of the tabulating machine in the United States constitutes another crucial development in the profiling of populations. The 1978 publication of Nora and Minc entitled “The Computerization of Society” [NOR 78] suggested that the dangers of technology for individual liberties have been overestimated. In order to back up this statement, they put forward the following example: the Gestapo completed their work effectively without the help of electronic technological files. This example is poorly chosen because it demonstrates, on the contrary, the tragic consequences of using the former information handling techniques with undeniable clarity and force.
In his book IBM and the Holocaust, Black puts forward the following question: “What mysterious planning allowed for millions of victims to find themselves on a train station platform in Germany or elsewhere in occupied Europe, to travel for two or three days, and then could go from the ramp of Auschwitz or Treblinka to the gas chambers, all in under an hour? Hour after hour. Day after day. From one timetable to the next, with clockwork precision and the merciless efficiency of a Blitzkrieg. The survivors would never know. The liberators would never know. The politicians would never know. The prosecutors would never know. The experts would never know. It’s almost a question of whether the issue will be raised at all” [BLA 01, p. 490]. After extensive research, it is this question that Black, throughout his book, attempts to answer with great accuracy with the help of supporting data, figures and documents. He demonstrates that the extermination of several million people, with speed and efficiency unmatched to this day, was a result of the automated organization and processing of a considerable amount of information with the help of thousands of Hollerith’s tabulating machines of perforation. Such machines were found everywhere: in offices, stations and factories, but also in ghettos and camps. Every piece of information was seized, handled and analyzed. From 1933, these machines optimized the identification of Jews from Germany living in Prussia, then from 1939 the identification of all the Jews living in the Grand Reich. A significant example showing the extent to which the tabulating machines have contributed to murderous industrialization is provided by a comparison between the fates of the Jews living in Holland and those living in France during the German Occupation: “out of an estimated population of 140,000 people, more than 107,000 Dutch Jews were imprisoned, and out of this number 102,000 were killed – a mortality rate of about 73%. Out of the 300,000 to 350,000 Jews who lived in France, irrespective of region, nearly 85,000 were imprisoned, with only 3,000 survivors. The mortality rate in France was about 25%” [BLA 01, p. 383]. The explanation of these differences comes mainly from the differing tabulating equipment available in the two countries. From 1930, Holland used Hollerith machines for their census. In 1941, they recorded all the Jews in the census office equipped with these same machines and carried out a centralized tabulating operation the same year in order to create an alphabetical register of the Jewish population. Some 159,806 individuals were thus registered according to several criteria in the 80 Hollerith perforated columns, recordings that were the prelude to the systematic and continual surveys that were to follow. Meanwhile in 1940, France denounced its Dutch cousin for the delay in completing the recordings, and so the country found itself unable to turn the Jews living in their country into perforated cards. By the end of 1940 those in occupied areas were identified, and then in 1941 everyone was identified manually because of the extensive Tulard files. Other surveys organized in 1941, which were carried out using the previous round of identifications, did not experience the success that their developers expected. Subsequently, the results gained by a newly formed demographics unit using tabulating machines also proved disappointing. When in the hands of the resistance fighters, headed first and foremost by General René Carmille, these machines did not help the racist policies of the Nazis, but were made to further patriotic objectives, namely the reconstruction of the French Army.
