An Information Situation

Galen Caulfield

The emerging preference of the Internet as a mode of communication can be attributed towards its variety of potential uses. You can look at cute dogs, buy almost anything, find a recipe for Tira Mi Su, or learn how to make explosives. Internet technologies can be seen liberating or oppressive. The manifestation of information technologies depends upon the way that they relate to other forms of communication, regulations and legislation surrounding their use, and how the providers and users perceive them.

“The Internet” is a loaded term, so allow me to clarify that when I say “The Internet” I am specifically referring to it’s content that is in constant flux. The physical means that enable these networks I will refer to as infrastructure.

The interplay of the Internet’s content and its infrastructure determine its role as mode of communication. Questions like: Who can own it? What does it mean to own it? How will it be regulated? How it’s content is accessed and generated is an object of great curiosity; and has been met with a variety of approaches to policy by governing bodies. They are presented with the opportunity to engage in practices of censorship, security, and propagation through the use of automation and surveillance. Across the board, institutions are concerned about the way that individuals can use the Internet to challenge them.

The potential of disinhibited discourse using the Internet may prompt citizens to follow up on these questions. The interactivity of the Internet makes it possible for this sort of inquiry to occur. Conventional mass media (TV, print) typically quells these desires due to the authority of its voice. The variety of methods used to author Internet content, it’s accessibility, and the author’s position of self-determined anonymity make it more desirable as a forum for individual expression.

It is critical to note that rank is not as easy to distinguish in Internet communication. This opens the possibility for either: unrestricted free speech or underlying power structures functioning from within the architecture of the network. In the course of human events, the Internet is quite young. However, it is quite possible to characterize attitudes towards the Internet as formed by antiquated notions. Rather than the properties of the technology itself creating those attitudes, they derive more influence from our relationship to the technology, and how it "fits in" to the greater cultural landscape.

The Internet is arranged in a way so that the one who provides the connection can decide what is allowed, what isn't, and how measures will be enforced. It is presumable that controlling Internet access might be a priority for those who wish to maintain or proclaim any image or idea.

Those who see the distinct possibility and/or manifestation of the Internet being used as a means of social control often reference Foucault's analysis of the Panopticon structure. The Panopticon was a prison designed by Jeremy Bentham[1]. Its design enabled the jailer to observe prisoners without the prisoners knowing when or if they were being watched. This created a more consistently obedient group of prisoners. With the ever-present threat of the now-omniscient punisher, this comes as no surprise. While this may be a useful way to think about information systems (particularly the internet), there are also some very important and notable differences between the Panopticon prison and the digital Panopticon.

The idea of a Panopticon fits nicely with the function of a prison. A prison is made to contain people and watch them in order to regulate their erratic behavior. The Panopticon design does well within these criteria. The function of the Internet as a method of surveillance is a bit more dubious. It is notable that both the architecture of the Panopticon and the "information superhighway" were initially adapted from military applications. The Panopticon design was inspired by the design of a barracks for soldiers in training (requiring supervision)[2]. The Internet existed in many military applications prior to the introduction of the World Wide Web as we know it[3]. From that the properties of discipline, automation, and efficiency were inherited. Perhaps these properties are what draw those who can implement a Panoptic structure of any kind to do so, as they aid the process of gaining control very much. They allow for unlimited surveillance, which can translate to influence (given that the observer seeks to do so).

The system's nature and appearance determine whether or not the observed are conscious of their surveillance. In a system where the observed are aware, the observer takes a more intimidating position, using the constant fear of being watched as a means of control. It gives the observer and inflated sense of omniscience to the observed. This can be seen in the prison models. In the case of the Internet, the degree of self-censorship exhibited by its users can be considered a measure of how aware they are of their own surveillance.

China implements a system that requires all connections to the rest of the world to pass through a centralized server before transmission. It has surrounded itself with the world’s most sophisticated information barrier. This system shares similarities to the architecture of the Panopticon prison, in that all Internet activity is supervised from a strategic vantage point of necessary convergence. ChinaNet serves as the jailer in this regard[4].

Using the limited number of points that data exits and enters China, the Chinese government restricts access to whatever information they see fit. Restricted domains include: Sex.com, The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, GALA : Gay and Lesbian Alliance, Depression Reality: Information and Support, and The University of Michigan Health System[5]. John Gilmore’s idea that the Internet “interprets censorship as damage and routes around it” is facing some serious challenges from the practices of the Chinese government[6]. A list of banned sites (identified by their URL’s and IP addresses) is mounted on a server. Internet service providers then use the constantly updated list of restricted sites to filter access to that information through their network[7].

With that, as an individual requests restricted information and it is not provided as a result of the filter, they are not confronted with a message exclaiming “THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT HAS BLOCKED THIS SITE.” They simply receive a “Site not found” screen, a network timeout screen, or any one of a number of HTTP error codes. It can be difficult to determine between censorship and technical errors. For example, sometimes The New York Times website is available in China, and other times it is not. This implies that the mandated list of blocked sites changes as political events develop[8].

On top of that, networks are required by law to monitor and keep records of Internet usage. The Chinese Government requires bloggers to register with the Central government. In Internet cafés, users have to register with their national ID card before logging on. Cafés also feature cameras pointed at the computer screens and, occasionally, roving police officers that simply watch what users are doing[9]. Individual reactions lead towards a vicious cycle of self-censorship, facilitated through a system of sustained intimidation. Populations and businesses censor themselves and those around them to avoid trouble. This is a testament to the passive power of a Panoptic structure to regulate behavior.

We can see two uses of Panoptic method in the contemporary context of the internet. There is the former, where the observed are highly aware of the observer’s presence, for they fear it. In a system where the observed is, typically, wholly unaware of the observer; the observer typically manifests into a form that is more suitable to obtaining information.

While the government of China's model of the Panopticon works to intimidate users, a different configuration is utilized by corporate America to examine and implement buying habits and attitudes. Many marketing directors seem to be more concerned with the way that people feel about the product than with what that product actually is. In order for these businesses to survive, they need to understand and stimulate demand. To do this, companies often use compiled databases of personal information to determine demographics and launch campaigns accordingly. This research is all done remotely, without the user's knowledge. Information is guided into these databases from many sources, to the point where involvement is nearly mandatory[10]. One must compromise their personal information very often to participate in the Internet. One might compare the status of the American consumer to a prisoner in a Panopticon prison, in that they are subject to their environment, convictions aside. The producers of advertisements use this lack of objection to "show" people how they should feel about the products. In order to maintain their power structure, a set of symbols must be put forth by the companies and validated by their consumers[11]. The validation of these symbols is easier to come by when one understands the psychological attributes of their demographic in relation to one's marketed product.

The principal determination of content lay in the provider of the communication medium. The instances of pervasiveness and persuasion aforementioned reflect activity in arenas like government and commerce, where some feel that influence on others is absolutely crucial. Both the American corporation and Chinese politician seek to establish a working relationship with the provider or to be the provider itself. The position that any said network takes in reaction to these pressures will determine every aspect of the content that it can provide to users. It determines whether the Internet serves as a document of cultural reflection or a series of unspoken projections that are eventually usurped by many as beliefs. Producers of content which serves to instill dominant cultural values and direct people's beliefs will likely attempt to extinguish dissent and the contrary.

If there are measures to ensure free speech, the possibilities of Internet communication as a political tool are made more apparent. There exists a discourse about topics of this nature that does not receive nearly as much attention as it warrants. Imagine voting on individual issues through a process of participatory representation. No longer would the American political system be plagued by the two-party system that asks it citizens to "settle for the lesser of two evils." The public is indoctrinated into thinking these two parties are the only choices by dominant, authoritarian forms of media such as newsprint and television. The politician says what they want to say, and are in a position to make criticism seem trite or unimportant through the voice of these media. News has become highly dramatic, for example. It would be interesting to see how politicians currently employed by the United States would respond to forms of conversation where charisma is rendered useless by the medium. Internet poses the threat of de-sensationalizing the political process by leveling the playing field[12]. While not all Americans are able to afford a personal computer, it is law that access is granted in public places. In theory, the "average Joe" does not need exorbitant funds to be heard with the Internet. In practice, Joe's voice faces far different circumstances on the Internet when it comes to publishing an effective message.

The Internet voice lacks non-verbal cues and other elements of face-to-face conversation that can disrupt the conversational process. The format of computer-mediated conversation isolates the message from stereotypes and prejudices that could be activated by face-to-face interactions. This pars down the emotional content of the discourse significantly. Though, with no face or voice to bear accountability for the message, it makes it hard to know who is really doing the talking. Stories of victimization could easily be faked to make a group seem more dangerous than they really are. On the up side, there is an added dimension to catching child molesters using the anonymity of the computer-mediated voice to bait them. Due to the new sense of identity instilled by computer-mediated conversation, old communicative barriers could be transcended while new modes of manipulation emerge.

The magnitude of the Internet’s effect on the culture surrounding information has been compared to the introduction of the printing press. Information culture will be informed by what the Internet is used for and who controls it’s content and procedures. It can be used to promote Chinese nationalism over ever-corrupting Western ideals. A group can compile information about your preferences in order to send you only the most relevant advertisements and solicitations. Global communities have formed to discuss specific issues expediently. The anonymity of authorship creates a set of issues, which make the Internet culture quite different in character from the culture of the printing press in its time.

[1] Lyon, David. Theorizing Surveilence: The Panopticon and Beyond. Willan Pub. Cullompton, U.K. 2006.

[2] Wright, Thomas. Escaping the Panopticon: Protecting Data Privacy in the Information Age. New York. Bantam Doubleday Dell. 2004.

[3] Wright, Thomas. Escaping the Panopticon: Protecting Data Privacy in the Information Age. New York. Bantam Doubleday Dell. 2004.

[4] Cothran, Helen. The Internet: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego. Greenhaven Press. 2002.

[5]Wu, Tim. Who Controls the Internet? New York. Oxford. 2006.

[6] Shapiro, Andrew. The Control Revolution: How the Internet is Putting Individuals in Charge and Changing the World We Know. New York. Public Affairs. 1999.

[7] Wu, Tim. Who Controls the Internet? New York. Oxford. 2006.

[8] Shapiro, Andrew. The Control Revolution: How the Internet is Putting Individuals in Charge and Changing the World We Know. New York. Public Affairs. 1999.

[9] Wu, Tim. Who Controls the Internet? New York. Oxford. 2006.

[10] Larson, Erik. The Naked Consumer: How Our Private Lives Become Public Commodities. New York. Henry Holt & Company. 1992.

[11] Breakenridge, Derdre. Cyberbranding: Brand Building in the Digital Economy. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice Hall. 2001.

[12] Jaffe, Micheal. Mass Media and Political Participation. University of Haifa. Israel. 1995.