George Orwell coined the term, “Big Brother”, but has social media and technology allowed us all to become, “Little Brother”? Even if we are all “Little Brother” now is that such a bad thing?

THE PARTICIPATORY PANOPTICON

If you’ve ever been to London then you won’t fail to notice the overwhelming number of CCTV cameras in the city. Apparently, there are over 4.2 million CCTV cameras in London, watching the every move of Londoners as they go about their daily business.

Multiple signs remind us we are being watched and that “CCTV operates in this area”. It is reminiscent of Jeremy Banthams vision of the Panopticon. In 1785 Bantham proposed the idea of the Panopticon to “allow an observer to observe (-opticon) all (pan-) prisoners without the prisoners being able to tell whether they are being watched, thereby conveying what one architect has called the “sentiment of an invisible omniscience.”

The idea was that if nobody knew when and where they were being watched then members of a society would begin to regulate themselves. Live streaming sites, camera phones and video sites, such as, YouTube, mean that we can “watch the watchers”. Instead of merely being observed in the Panopticon, we now participate in it.

On one level, we can see on social news sites, such as, Digg and Reddit if somebody only ever promotes their own stories. Are they giving anything back to the community? If not, then it’s unlikely they’ll gain many votes or friends.

We might also use reputation management tools and Google Alerts to monitor what is being said about us. Free web analytics tools also mean that we can turn our blogs and websites into “miniature pantopticons”. We can see where our visitors came from, what content they liked and how they interact with a site.

We’re only just starting to see how aspects of social media and technology are beginning to not only shape commercial enterprises, but also the political landscape. For charities and political organisations social media could help to throw a spotlight on some of the injustices in the world. Transparency might mean the end of privacy, but it’s also the end of secrecy.

SOUSVILLANCE AND SOCIAL MEDIA

Sousveillance is another step towards us becoming “Little Brother”. The term, “Sousveillance” was coined by Steve Mann of the University of Toronto. Here is Mann’s definition of sousveillance:

“Sousveillance (roughly French for undersight) is the opposite of surveillance (roughly French for oversight). But by “sousveillance”, I’m not suggesting that the cameras be mounted on the floor, looking up, rather than being on the ceiling looking down like they are now. Rather, I am suggesting that the cameras be mounted on people in low places, rather than upon buildings and establishments in high places.

Thus the “under” (sight) means from down under in the hierarchy, rather than physically as in “underneath” the floor. “

Last year in Canada, police officers were caught on film posing as protesters and trying to incite the crowd to act more aggressively against the police. Members of the crowd quickly identified these Agent Provocateurs and the footage quickly ended up on YouTube and in the mainstream media. From the article:

Videotaped footage of the incident shows the three disguised Sûreté du Québec officers wearing masks and holdings rocks in their hands, walking near a phalanx of officers in riot gear, while Mr. Coles tries to shoo them away, demanding they put down their rocks.

Another group, Video Vote Vigil, also used camera phones to record and document the voting process. As worldchanging.com reports, citizens recording police arrests of protesters resulted in 91% of all cases being dropped.

Social media is opening up new levels of transparency and openness. We can now use the tools at our disposal to highlight real concerns and problems within society. These tools can help us hold a mirror up to what is going on in the world. What do you think, is privacy more important than transparency? Leave your comments below