Social Media and Rioters

My friend Alexandra Samuel penned a piece titled “After a Loss in Vancouver, Troubling Signals of Citizen Surveillance” over at the Harvard Business Review. The piece highlights her concern with the number of people willing to engage in citizen surveillance.

As she states:

It’s one thing to take pictures as part of the process of telling your story, or as part of your (paid or unpaid) work as a citizen journalist. It’s another thing entirely to take and post pictures and videos with the explicit intention of identifying illegal (or potentially illegal) activity. At that moment you are no longer engaging in citizen journalism; you’re engaging in citizen surveillance.

And I don’t think we want to live in a society that turns social media into a form of crowdsourced surveillance. When social media users embrace Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and blogs as channels for curating, identifying and pursuing criminals, that is exactly what they are moving toward.

I encourage you to read the piece, and, I’m not sure I agree with much of it on two levels.

First, I want to steer away from good versus bad and right versus wrong. Social Media isn’t going to create only good outcomes, or only bad outcomes, it is going to create both (something I know Alex acknowledges). This technology will, like previous technologies, reset what normal means. In the new world we are becoming more powerful “sensors” in our society. We can enable others to know what, good and bad, is going on around us. To believe that we won’t share, and that others won’t use our shared information to inform their decisions, is simply not logical. As dBarefoot points out in the comments there are lots of social good that can come for surveillance. In the end you can’t post videos of human right injustices without also being able to post videos of people at abortion clinics, you can’t post videos of officials taking bribes without also being able to post videos of people smoking drugs at a party. The alternative, a society where people are not permitted to share, strikes me as even more dangerous than a society where we can share but where one element of that sharing ends up being used as surveillance. My suspicion is that we may end up regulating some use – there will be some things people cannot share online (visiting abortion clinics may end up being one of those) but I’m not confident of even this.

But I suspect that in a few decades my children will be stunned that I grew up in a world of no mutual surveillance. That we tolerated the risks of a world where mutual surveillance didn’t exist – they may wonder at a basic level, how we felt safe at night or in certain circumstances (I really recommend David Brin’s Science Fiction writing, especially Earth in which he explores this idea). I can also imagine they will find the idea of total anonymity and having an untraceable past to both eerie, frightening and intriguing. In their world, having grown up with social media will be different, some of the things we feel are bad, they will like, and vice versa.

Another issues missing from Alex’s piece is the role of the state. It is one thing for people to post pictures of each other, it is another about how, and if, the state does the same. As many tweeters stated – this isn’t 1994 (the last time there were riots in Vancouver). Social media is going to do is make the enforcement of law a much and the role of the state a much trickier subject. Ultimately, they cannot ignore photos of rioters engaged in illegal acts. So the question isn’t so much on what we are going to share, it is about what we should allow the state to do, and not to do, with the information we create. The state’s monopoly on violence gives it a unique role, one that will need to be managed carefully. This monopoly, combined with a world of perfect (or at least, a lot more) information will I imagine necessitate a state and justice system that that looks very, very different than the one we have right now if we are to protect of civil liberties as we presently understand them. (I suspect I’ll be writing some more about this)

But I think the place where I disagree the most with Alex is in the last paragraph:

What social media is for — or what it can be for, if we use it to its fullest potential — is to create community. And there is nothing that will erode community faster, both online and off, than creating a society of mutual surveillance.

Here, Alex confuses the society she’d like to live in with what social media enables. I see nothing to suggest that mutual surveillance will erode community, indeed, I think it already has demonstrated that it does the opposite. Mutual surveillance fosters lots of communities – from communities that track human rights abuses, to communities that track abortion providers to communities that track disabled parking violators. Surveillance builds communities, it may be that, in many cases, those communities pursue the marginalization of another community or termination of a specific behaviour, but that does not make them any less a part of our society’s fabric. It may not create communities everyone likes, but it can create community. What matters here is not if we can monitor one another, but what ends up happening with the information we generate, and why I think we’ll want to think hard about what we allow the state to do and to permit others to do, more and more carefully.

10 thoughts on “Social Media and Rioters

  1. Diederik van Liere

    The story of social media and rioters is a great illustration that privacy is a networked concept. It’s not just the I figure who discloses information to the rest of the world but also friends and sometimes even bystanders who disclose information about the I figure (and this is regardless whether the I figure likes this).

    For me, the question becomes more how much privacy can you reasonably expect when you start rioting in a public place and the answer seems “not a lot”. I watched a courageous woman (on tv) stand up to the rioters and ask them to stop, it didn’t help but maybe old-school police with the help of social media prevents rioting the next time. 

    Reply
  2. canuckistani

    Great post! I hope to get some time to write on this issue, more along the lines of how the dynamics of the spectacle and large numbers of social media ‘observers’ greatly impacted how things turned out last night. One idea that really strikes me is that many people who committed illegal acts may not have done so, or as much, without such a large and immediate audience.

    Reply
  3. Pingback: Social media brings out the snitch in all of us — Tech News and Analysis

  4. Pingback: Google introduces new online reputation management tool – Muskblog

  5. Pingback: Social media brings out the snitch in all of us — Tech News and Analysis « Future Case

  6. Ian Bron

    Memory is is getting so cheap and so compact that within a few years people will be able to record their entire lives. Many will. While this will reduce privacy, I wonder if it’s not a step back to life in our ancestral past – when everyone knew what everyone else was doing. While I’m sure that has its downside in a much more complex society, it also has advantages: reliability. Aside from the impact on general behaviour (which I argue would improve substantially) imagine how it would affect such things as verbal contracts. Personal accountability would be enhanced, which I think is a good thing.

    There will need to be caution when dealing with people’s more intimate moments, ranging from love to grief to death, but I believe the net effect will be positive.

    Reply
  7. Pingback: Social Media, Crowd-Sourced Justice, and the Vancouver Riots | AndrewKurjata.ca

  8. Panopticon

    A panopticon and lack of privacy makes for a more conservative society where everyone has to be careful at every moment lest they be recorded and embarrassed by the truth of who they are. The fact is that people have public and private lives and this social panopticon violates the sanctity of the private lives.

    The issue is not if this rioting and vigilantism is justified, the issues is that at any moment we are being watched and the govt is asking (nicely at the moment) for this data.

    In the other direction, if technology is cheap why don’t we make those responsible for violence, such as the police, actually be recording video during all hours on duty? Before we encumber the citizens with surveillance, let’s ensure that those with the power of force are infact acting responsibly

    Summary:
    * Panopticon creates a repressed society
    * Police should have video recorders strapped to them for evidence and anti-corruption purposes.

    Reply
  9. Panopticon

    A panopticon and lack of privacy makes for a more conservative society where everyone has to be careful at every moment lest they be recorded and embarrassed by the truth of who they are. The fact is that people have public and private lives and this social panopticon violates the sanctity of the private lives.

    The issue is not if this rioting and vigilantism is justified, the issues is that at any moment we are being watched and the govt is asking (nicely at the moment) for this data.

    In the other direction, if technology is cheap why don’t we make those responsible for violence, such as the police, actually be recording video during all hours on duty? Before we encumber the citizens with surveillance, let’s ensure that those with the power of force are infact acting responsibly

    Summary:
    * Panopticon creates a repressed society
    * Police should have video recorders strapped to them for evidence and anti-corruption purposes.

    Reply
  10. Panopticon

    A panopticon and lack of privacy makes for a more conservative society where everyone has to be careful at every moment lest they be recorded and embarrassed by the truth of who they are. The fact is that people have public and private lives and this social panopticon violates the sanctity of the private lives.

    The issue is not if this rioting and vigilantism is justified, the issues is that at any moment we are being watched and the govt is asking (nicely at the moment) for this data.

    In the other direction, if technology is cheap why don’t we make those responsible for violence, such as the police, actually be recording video during all hours on duty? Before we encumber the citizens with surveillance, let’s ensure that those with the power of force are infact acting responsibly

    Summary:
    * Panopticon creates a repressed society
    * Police should have video recorders strapped to them for evidence and anti-corruption purposes.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s