LG Digital has announced that a full A3 sized e-paper that will be introduced in April. The novelty in LG’s latest marvel, is that it makes the physical distribution and the every day hustle of printing millions of newspapers obsolete. The Gutenberg era of mechanical reproduction is changing into digital reproduction. The smell of ink and the touch of fresh paper soon will be nostalgia. Newspaper corporations are sluggish and conservative in their approach to new media. The distribution costs rise dramatically and the product is a static, disposable, environmentally unfriendly medium. What is the USP of a news paper? Is it the content? The Smell? Selling Paper? Selling emotion? A combination of these elements? In this post, I will briefly elaborate on the contemporary distribution. And I will propose a distribution model that is based on digital reproductivity and its positive effect on the contemporary environment, distribution and costs.
(Engels)
At this moment, we are in a transition of conventional analog identification to digital virtual identification. Hereby, a mutual trust between government and civilians plays an essential role. The lack of a pure form of identification can result in an emergence of many restrictions and legislation based on movement in the physical and virtual space.
In this paper, personal information is defined as “all the information that is possibly available of one person”. This information encompasses things such as: name, address, location, income, expenses, depths and biometrical- en DNA information, but also information like eating habits, sexual orientation, political opinion, religious beliefs and physical appearance. For short, it reveals intimate, private, economic en political issues in the life of a person. All the unique features that can be registered will form the identity of a natural person.
Within social studies, identity is considered a process of becoming. Stuart Hall (1994) makes a distinction between two influences on the production of identity. Firstly, he states that [1994:394] identity is being produced by differences between cultures based on similar histories; like slavery, colonization and migration. Secondly, he states that [1994:394] a cultural identity is formed by a reproduction of the past. Thus, the telling of stories and myths. So, when is stated that “All the unique features that can be registered will form the identity of a natural person.”, we have to keep in mind that the (virtual) identity is never fixed, but rather dynamic: it is continuously becoming (completed by unique elements).
Computers have brought several advantages to cope with these issues. These advantages do not necessarily apply to the privacy of civilians nor to the control of the government. Thanks to technology, the government can enforce tons of complicated legislations upon civilians, which is only possible within a process of fast decision making and calculation power. When somebody is speeding for example, the authority will take notice by means of technology (speed sensors). Which will lead to a punishment (speeding ticket). For the authority it seems impossible to grasp total control, though. Technology works both ways (Spam, internet piracy, hacking).
Due to the lack of control for both civilians and government, they have to cope with the following issues: it has been more difficult to (1) discover what personal information is stored where and by whom and (2) what it is used for. The Dutch legislation on the protection of personal information elaborates on these issues. It states [WBP, 2006], in a nutshell, that personal information can only be used for the purpose the civilian has meant it to be used for. And, if this is the case, it should be accurate and complete. The appearance of a digital virtual identity has a tendency to bring fear upon us. Fear of big brother and anarchy. Based on the impact that exposing your digital identity could potentially unveil. Based on what bad things might happen.
The digital virtual identity can be thought of in terms of a body, which incorporates a collection of personal information. The ‘founder’ of this data body is Steve Kurtz (2006), who is a member of the Critical Art Ensemble (CAE). He writes in Utopian Promises – Net Realities an essay, where a virtual body is considered as one of five utopian promises. Kurtz (2006) states: “The virtual body is a body of great potential. On this body we can reinscribe ourselves using whatever coding system we desire. We can try on new body configurations. We can experiment with immortality by going places and doing things that would be impossible in the physical world.” (Kurtz, 2006) The data body is a ‘fascist sibling’ of the virtual body. “(…) a much more highly developed virtual form, and one that exists in complete service to the corporate and police state.” (Kurtz, 2006) One could define the data body as an embodyment of (personal) information, which is linked to one person.
Haggerty and Ericson (2000) elaborate on a body that is similar to that of the data body. “The observed body is of a distinctively hybrid composition. First it is broken down by being abstracted from its territorial setting. It is then reassembled in different settings through a series of data flows. The result is a de-corporealized body, a ‘data double’ of pure virtuality.” (Haggerty and Ericson 2000:613) They mention the concept of the data body again when they state: “It is not so much immediately concerned with the direct physical relocation of the human body […], but with transforming the body into pure information, such that it can be rendered more mobile and comparable.” (Haggerty and Ericson 2000:613)
Figure 1. Evolutionary step
The notion of completeness in relation to data bodies has inspired the idea behind this concept. The data body, which is illustrated in figure 1 has a rather negative image, because its troubled relationship with man, technology and society. Troubled, because man could be seen as the shadow of the data body. The shadow connotes the lack of agency over the data body within the realms of control, surveillance, and discipline. The evolutionary step illustrates the evolution of the data body. As shown, the evolution of the data body starts later. It is therefore less evolved, less sophisticated and less complete than that of man. This unsophisticated (caveman) property could be inconvenient for man, because of its impact on daily life. For example, a data body is corrupt, which is the equilivant of an error in a database. As a consequence, the person who is linked to this database is prohibited to travel across boundaries.
There is a theoretical solution to fear of the impact that data bodies could have. The completion of the data body. How? There should be a mutual trust between government and citizens. On the one hand, should the government agree to full transparency towards the aggregation and recording of personal information. On the other hand, should the citizen agree to partly give up his/her privacy. Technology should be the key for making sure the data body is complete and in that way sophisticated enough to resemble man.
References:
- Haggerty, K.D., Ericson, R. V. (2000). The Surveillance Assemblage. British Journal of Sociology, 51,(4),(pp. 605-622).
- Hall, Stuart (1994). Cultural Identity and Diaspora in Colonial Discourse and Post Colonial Theory. Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman (Eds). Cambridge: Harvester Wheatsheaf. (pp. 394).
- Kurtz, S. (2006). Essay: Utopian Promises – Net Realities (http://www.well.com/user/hlr/texts/utopiancrit.html), 14 mei
- WBP, Wet Bescherming Persoonsgegevens. (Dutch Privacy Act of personal data) (2006).http://www.cbpweb.nl/downloads_wetten/WBP.PDF?refer=true&theme=purple
(Engels)
Google has launched the Street View application in The Netherlands. This is another phase in Google’s mission to organise the world’s information by building a 3D-environment. Simon Davies, a surveillance watchdog, stated: “The cultural imperative within Google is anti-privacy”. From his perspective that is certainly the case, but then they probably would follow a different strategy (figure below).
Google's alternative anti-privacy strategy.
To regulate its content, Google uses a bottom-up approach of self-regulation. As Cherian George states on the bottom-up model: “[As] bloggers keep an eye over readers’ comments appended to their posts. Popular sites heavy with pictorial or video content, such as YouTube, have their own rules forbidding salacious material.(…) With the evolution of new technology, it is neither practical nor is there need for the state to play the role of a master moderator. (George)”
The bottom-up approach is very pragmatic in a sense that it is the only realistic way for regulation. Simply because, the effort to control its vast amount of ever changing content would be, in a top-down manner, an extremely labour intensive and costly practice. Even Google doesn’t have the resources to bring this into practice. So, Google uses a different strategy which is called: ‘flagging’ . The online Youtube community can get rid of inappropriate and sensitive video material by marking it as such.
The difference between YouTube’s approach and Google’s Street View approach, is the source which is generating the content. YouTube’s content is generated by its users, while Street View’ content is generated by its own apparatus. Because of the shear size of the content, regulation is mosty done by the user. From a psycho-analytical perspective, this relation between Street View and the user is rather disturbing, because the former lacks a proper conscience and the latter has to compensate this. So, when somebody stumbles upon a privacy sensitive image, he or she should be its conscience and flag it!
Google's imperative culture of anti-privacy?
Microsoft’s Photosynth also forms a 3D-environment, but it’s based on user generated content. Photo’s taken by individuals are uploaded to a server. Here, Photosynth takes over and stitches the photo’s, taken in the same location, together to form a 3D environment of that area. If everyone would upload their images, then, in time (like Google’s Street View), a whole 3D representation of the world could be created. Except, this world is created by the users, instead of a hegemonic company like Google. Even though, we would regulate that space bottom-up. I would rather regulate a world made by users, then by a corporation without a clear conscience.
an alternative 3D representation of the world