Sometimes a negative response comes in here that's so well thought out and cogent that I just need to share it.
Jamais Cascio was on the previous story faster than Manu Ginobili on a loose ball. (OK, I'm a Spurs fan.)
Did you even read the article? It sure seems like you didn't. I know it was long, but if you're going to attack it, do so for good reasons (like the term) and not for things I didn't say.
It's not about the government.
It's not about Big Brother.
It's not about big business or big science being evil.
It's not about the developments I discuss being unmitigated problems or uniformly undesirable.
To quote from the very beginning of the article:
"This won't simply be a world of a single, governmental Big Brother watching over your shoulder, nor will it be a world of a handful of corporate siblings training their ever-vigilant security cameras and tags on you. Such monitoring may well exist, probably will, in fact, but it will be overwhelmed by the millions of cameras and recorders in the hands of millions of Little Brothers and Little Sisters. We will carry with us the tools of our own transparency, and many, perhaps most, will do so willingly, even happily."
...and a few paragraphs later...
"But in the world of the participatory panopticon, this constant surveillance is done by the citizens themselves, and is done by choice. It's not imposed on us by a malevolent bureaucracy or faceless corporations. The participatory panopticon will be the emergent result of myriad independent rational decisions, a bottom-up version of the constantly watched society."
(Emphasis added, as you seem to have missed it the first time.)
Why do I link to the Abu Ghraib picture? Because I cite it as an example of how personal digital technology can be used to undermine overreaching government control. The whole article is about community and individual use of these observation and monitoring technologies for both good and bad uses, not about "Big Brother" or "damn government," and certainly not about knee-jerk Luddism.
(You know, I think this is the first time in my life I've been implicitly accused of being a Luddite. I am far more frequently accused of technophilia and "cheerleading" as on WorldChanging I tend to point towards technological advancements as positive tools for building a healthier, more democratic and more sustainable society.)
I'm sorry to go off like this, but this critique of the Participatory Panopticon speech/article is so wildly off-base that I'd hate to have anyone take it as an accurate depiction of the argument.
You want to say that the name is ungainly or awful? More power to you. There are undoubtedly more substantive problems with the concept, as well. But the piece has nothing to do with the government or big business monitoring and/or controlling our lives, and in no way is it a rant against technology.
Critique the piece for real weaknesses in the argument, not fundamentally inaccurate bogeymen.
COMMENT: I don't think you've read my Always-On visions too closely either, Jamais. But I take your points, I am glad to share them, and I thank you very much for sharing them with me.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Jamais Cascio on June 9, 2005 12:07 AM writes...
Sorry to be so snippy in my reply, Dana -- I was really just shocked at seeing a take on my piece that felt so polar opposite from what I (thought I) said.
The world you describe in your Always On pieces actually meshes well with much of what I've written on the participatory panopticon. These are useful tools, with much to offer, allowing us a far better understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Where I draw some caution is from the implications they present in terms of how this far better understanding of ourselves overlaps with a far better understanding of others.
We don't live solitary lives; we're social creatures. And, as an inevitable result, the tools we build for enhancing our knowledge of our own lives will capture aspects -- sometimes substantial aspects -- of the lives of our families, our neighbors, and the people we pass along the street. This is neither an unmitigated bad nor an unblemished good; as with all the technologies we've created over the millennia, it will ask us to renegotiate our relationships with our surroundings and our societies.
Permalink to Comment