Review of David Lyon's "Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life" (2001) Open University Press, Buckingham

Economic deregulation also adds to the blurring of boundaries and more “leaky containers”. The public sector, in order to save time and money, hands out contracts to private companies. This means that personal information flows between the two sectors, and can easily be misused for marketing purposes. Reg Whitaker is concerned on the effect of private companies getting access to public records because they “stand outside whatever regulation and democratic accountability [that] may constrain state agencies”.

 In addition, there is an increase in trying to prevent risk, and some of this is deregulated to private companies, such as in the insurance business or credit risk assessment, where every citizen, Ulrich Beck argues, is treated as a “risk factor”. 

Many other social thinkers support Lyons thoughts on a flow of personal data because of leaky containers. One of them is Simson Garfinkel in “Database Nation”. Garfinkel show how the role of Americans’ Social Security Number has been expanded from only being used by employees of federal agencies to being necessary for e.g. taxpayer identification, blood donations, employment eligibility and driving licenses for all citizens. Garfinkel says: “No matter how you look at it, the SSN is a bad number. But our country has been unable to stop using it.” In 1974 the US government passed the Privacy Act which was intended to prohibit information being collected by government for one purpose, to be used for another. However, since 1980 the government said there is an interest for any collected data that can be used for other reasons.

When discussing surveillance one cannot avoid looking at the “Panopticon” metaphor for the power of surveillance in the contemporary world. The idea of the Panopticon originates from Jeremy Bentham in 1787, and was later taken up by Michel Foucalt. In short it was an idea of a prison constructed in circular form with individual cells, all visible to the Inspector. This meant there would be no trouble as they were constantly monitored.The public could also come and watch, and thus “produces homogeneous effects of power” in addition to “automising” and “disindividualise” it, Foucalt says. Bentham specified that the principle could also be extended to asylums, workplaces and schools, thus making the original idea a leaky container. However, Whitaker argues, the new Panopticon is different from the old one in two ways as it is “decentred and predominantly consensual”. Lyon adds that in the post-modern society the Panopticon works through software architectures.

I am a member of the Scandinavian airline SAS’s frequent flyer programme “Eurobonus”. Every time I fly from Oslo, Norway to London I receive 2,400 bonus points. After earning 20,000 points in a certain period, I have enough points to go on a flight for free. And it is not just on SAS flights I can earn points, but through all airlines that are members of Star Alliance, such as Lufthansa and United. I also get special offers and discounts on hotels, car rentals, exhibitions etc through my membership. I do not even need a ticket, but can simply use my bonus card for check-in. Lately, SAS has also developed a voice recognition programme for check-in, which is only available to members of the bonus scheme.

Now this membership looks like having nothing but benefits. However, airlines’ frequent flyer schemes is one of the best examples on how global data flows all over the world, which Lyon covers in the second part. My personal details go beyond national borders, and get used for marketing purposes, although it is under the European Union Convention on Data Protection. As the fear of a terrorism attack on the West has been ever-growing since 9/11, it might also be used to watch e.g. passengers from an ethnic minority. Colin Bennett argues that “international airlines have considerable power over individuals through the personal information that they collect, process and disseminate during the now routine process of undertaking international airline travel”.

The issue of how global data flows is very much linked to the issues of leaky containers: risk management and political economy. Globalisation has opened up the world market and more and more organisations or companies are interested in getting new consumers. Lyon believes there are several different dimensions to global surveillance. It is not only about global consumer markets and the use of the internet for e-commerce, but also political issues, such border-policing, comes under this term. The new globalised surveillance is there “not only to keep track of past movements, but also try to anticipate future flows”.

Global surveillance as a method of preventing terrorist attacks is widely used by intelligence services. Comint (short for communications intelligence) has developed from intercepting military messages and diplomatic communications during the Cold War to collection economic intelligence. It has also been used to target narcotics trafficking, organised crime and money laundering, to “obtain sensitive information concerning individuals, as well as on governments, trade and international organisations”. 

Another surveillance system, which has taken over much of Comint’s role, is ECHELON. This system makes an examination of computer messages among the cooperating UKUSA agencies picking up certain key words. Although it is being used for government purposes, it can also intercept everyday communications, which David Lyon believes “shows how the largest scale of global economic and international operations is articulated with the mundane minutiae of local life through the medium of surveillance.” Some spy satellites used by intelligence agencies, are also available for the public such as SPOT, which is being sold to farmers to watch over their fields or fast-food chain McDonald’s to locate stores. Police surveillance has been globalised too, through border-controlling, because of an increase in global criminal economy. To stop criminal gangs, such as Turkish drug dealers or the Russian mafia, police authorities must find new ways of monitoring them. Police in the past mainly dealt with national crime, but now work on a trans-national basis through the police networks “Europol” and “Interpol”. Allowed access to the European Intelligence System, they are now able to monitor criminal activities, but it is still not known how well they protect personal data. 

The internet is the tool where the most people are being affected by global surveillance. When visiting a certain web site, one leaves behind a trail – known as a “cookie” – showing you have been on the site. This is later being used for marketing purposes by companies, who then know who their target audience is. Lyon calls this the “world wide web of surveillance” and argues that the internet’s capacity is being widely exploited. The biggest concern of globalised surveillance is how systems have been developed for military purposes, but later been made available for commercial corporations, and how it flows all over the world. Lyon argues that globalised surveillance is shifting towards a classificatory and pre-emptive surveillance “that tries to simulate and anticipate likely behaviours”.

Lyon is a keen intellectual follower of Giddens, and emphasises that the heightened surveillance used by nation states and also the capitalist corporation have been because of computerisation. However, Lyon understates how violence and war has led to an increase in surveillance, and especially the fear of this happening. Frank Webster argues that the growth of surveillance springs from “the nation state’s duty to safeguard its frontiers”. After 9/11, surveillance has been intensified in the USA. Passengers, even from close allied countries, arriving at the American international airports must give a fingerprint and other personal details before being allowed into the country, although only being there on a tourist visit. The US government has also increased surveillance through the Patriot Act of 2001, which many argue strip the citizens’ right for privacy.

Webster and Kirstie Ball say: “The destruction by terrorists of the Twin Towers in New York has stimulated, and perhaps even more importantly, legitimated, the acceleration and expansion of surveillance trends.” If London suddenly is attacked, it is very likely that the same will happen – and that we will experience much more surveillance. Not just by installing more CCTV cameras or more police in the streets, what Gary T. Marx calls overt and non-deceptive surveillance, but also more intelligence and undercover methods to find more “terrorists”.  The book was printed shortly after the terror attacks on New York and Pentagon, but when discussing a topic such as surveillance, Lyon should have looked what implications it could have. However, he does look at the issue in a chapter in Kirstie Ball and Frank Webster’s The Intensification of Surveillance, where he writes: “…One of the most prominent ongoing reactions is to enhance surveillance operations on a number of fronts and there has been no lack of proposals concerning the best way to achieve this,” adding that surveillance in the Western world has been intensified and centralised.

The future of surveillance is difficult to foresee. In Steven Spielberg’s Hollywood blockbuster Minority Report, Tom Cruise is constantly monitored by CCTV cameras and having his eyes scanned every time he gets off the subway. Advertising – even the billboards - is targeted directly towards to the specific customer and their specific “needs” or wishes.

Although this is science fiction, it might not be too far from reality in some years. Computer technology is under constant development and the lap top computer you bought two years ago might already be too old for some software. In his final chapter, “The future of surveillance”, he does not only look at what direction surveillance is going, but also where it should go. The further development of technology will surely have an effect on surveillance, as will the increase of leaky containers and flow of global data. Lyon argues that surveillance is no longer bounded of borders and is instead “steadily experiencing globalisation and virtualisation”.

He believes that the expansion of surveillance is due to a tilt towards the post-modern society and while risk assessment was previously feared as a method of monitoring by the state, it is now also done by capitalist companied, and rapidly expanding. Lyon sees the disappearing of bodies – that people do not interact face-to-face – as one of the major issues that need to be tackled. Hence he wants to “re-embody” persons, and that surveillance should be influenced by the conviction of this and thus help to focus on what is wrong with surveillance today.

Garfinkel believes that “technology will increasingly be used to limit ambiguity” in the future and that computers must become more secure. He says that we stand before a crossroads, where it could be necessary for the government to come up with new legislation on surveillance. Without it, he says, “it is simply too easy and too profitable for business to act in a manner that’s counter to our interest”. Whitaker focuses on how the new technology has enabled resistance groups to present their opposition against dictatorships etc. He argues that “Big Brother” is coming back as an outside consultant because of the threats of globalisation. However, he believes that the global surveillance regime is required “because the networked world contains deep elements of instability and contradiction”, such as the threat of terrorism. Gary T. Marx sees both advantages and disadvantages of the new surveillance used by police authorities. Federal agencies’ record has been held to an acceptable level, Marx says, but there is still need for caution and respect for the dangers of it, and that America is shifting into a maximum-security society. 

According to Lyon, surveillance and risk works in two ways because it has two faces. It can be seen as minimizing or averting risk, but also as a government intrusion into privacy. While he does not fear an Orwellian society – where citizens are constantly monitored by “Big Brother” and completely stripped of their rights for privacy – Lyon is concerned with the intensification of surveillance, whether it is by the government or commercial organisations.

However, the book is very one-sided. Although he has written in his introduction that he will not focus on the benefits of surveillance, it is still important to look at both the pros and cons such as Giddens does when he states that systems of surveillance “both strengthen managerial control and increase choices for people”. Another important factor is that Lyon, together with many other social thinkers, only describe the problems that exist and the direction they are going, but do not come up with a solution to it. In some ways one can argue that it is like Winston Smith from George Orwell’s Nineteen-eighty-four at an early stage, who can see all the problems of “The Party” controlling Oceania’s citizens, but without doing anything about it. Although he gives reason how and why surveillance works, he should also emphasise more on what implications it has for people. The average “prole”, if you like, does not understand it by reading this book as they might just register it, but not necessarily react to it.

Word count: 2847

Bibliography:

• Garfinkel S. (2001), “Database Nation: The Death of Privacy in the 21st Century”, O’Reilly and Associates, Sebastopol, California, USA.

• Liberty report, “Liberty’s evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on the Draft Identity Cards Bill”, May 2004.
• Lyon D. (1994), “The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society”, Polity Press, Cambridge.
• Lyon D. (2001), “The Information Society: Monitoring Everyday Life”, Open University Press, Buckingham.
• Marx G.T. (1988), “Undercover: Police Surveillance in America”, University of California Press, Los Angeles, USA
• Surveillance and Society journal, www.surveillance-and-society.org.
• The Independent, “‘Martyrs’ who fail to register for ID cards face £2,500 fines”, 30 November 2004.
• The Times, “ID cards for all to fight terrorism”, 24 November 2004.
• Webster F. (2004), “The Information Society Reader”, Routledge, London.
• Webster F. (2002), “Theories of the Information Society” (2nd edition), Routledge, Oxon.
• Whitaker R. (1999), “The End of Privacy: How total Surveillance is Becoming a Reality”, Scribe Publications, Melbourne, Australia.

---