Timeline - Hidden Networks - How the Dissemination of Anonymous Information Using the Deep Web Has Changed Our Digital Culture
www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/555010/Hidden-Networks-How-the-Dissemination-of-Anonymous-Information-Using-the-Deep-Web-Has-Changed-Our-Digital-Culture/
www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/555010/Hidden-Networks-How-the-Dissemination-of-Anonymous-Information-Using-the-Deep-Web-Has-Changed-Our-Digital-Culture/
The experience of being observed, monitored and regulated has become a substantial component of a life which is lived, to varying but generally increasing degrees, online. Recent revelations regarding the means by which we are observed online were cause to (and continue to be) one of the biggest public outcries of the modern, contemporary digital age by the general public and yet the increasing methods by which we are monitored by bodies in our digital sphere remain with, I will argue, less transparency and culpability than ever before. Simultaneously, we have become exhibitionists to a voyeuristic ideology, happily submitting increasing amounts of our life to those whom we are aware are watching. To further explore these simultaneous issues, I will use Bernard Harcourt’s contemporary theory of the ‘Expository Society’ (2015) who suggests that previous works on citizen freedom and surveillance are now inadequate to satisfactorily and wholly discuss this phenomena of being both observed and exposing oneself to the observer in ways more overt than previously possible. To further construe aspects of the so-called ‘surveillance state’ in which we exist presently, I will also acknowledge that an important contribution to discourse on this matter derives from the libertarian tradition of novelists. One can hardly talk about the surveillance state without applying the term ‘Big Brother’ coined by George Orwell in 1984 (1949) and, as such, much has been written on this important novel in regards to contemporary surveillance culture. Whilst upholding the opinion that "projected political fiction" (Horan, 2007, p. 314) can enhance (or even begin) an understanding the issues we face in society, I will also concede that, as Harcourt argues, the discourse we extract from this source is deficient in providing the basis for a fair and thorough analysis. With this in mind, within this paper I will review the lesser-analysed novel, We (1924), written by Yevgeny Zamyatin as one method of examining the relationships between digital freedom/suppression, rebellion and transparency. Zamyatin’s We (1924) not only predates Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) and George Orwell’s 1984 (1949) but, as this paper seeks to substantiate, posits itself as a remarkably relevant criticism of a docile and overly-regulated society. This paper will begin by exploring Zamyatin’s term “ideal nonfreedom” (1993, p. 36) in order to form an understanding of the ways in which digital “freedom” is sold to society but, ultimately, belongs to the observer.
Yevgeny Zamyatin’s early speculative novel, We (1921), depicts OneState[1], an autocratic society in which citizens are ruled by rationality, denied individual or imaginative thought and, thus, are disenfranchised against the government’s apparatus of power and control. The novel is presented as a series of ‘records’ which have been written by the protagonist that are designed to serve as propaganda for the states intransigent ideology. Within these records the protagonist, D-503, offers an account of life within OneState by which he is assigned the task of constructing a spaceship, the INTEGRAL, which will be used to colonise new spaces and extend the powers of the novels omnipresent overseer, The Great Benefactor, and his rigid regime. If, as this paper suggests, we can draw affinity between Zamyatin’s imagined society, and specifically his concept of “ideal nonfreedom” (p. 36), and the relatively recent emergence of the electric Panopticon then it is conducive to explore the context in which Zamyatin uses this provocative phrase to extract a utile definition. In ‘Record – 2’, D-503 meditates on the beauty of machinery and askes himself “Why is the dance [of machinery] beautiful?” and concludes that “…because it is nonfree movement, because all the fundamental significance of the dance lies precisely in its aesthetic subjection, its ideal unfreedom.” (Zamyatin, 1993, p. 36). If we apply this same definition to the way that we exist digitally, internet users are free to browse, play, shop, document, chat but only within parameters set by government bodies and digital capitalists – our freedom is given within the framework set by those who seek to control, monitor and profit from our digital activity.
[1] I am aware that in some editions of Zamyatin’s texts, ‘OneState’ is written as ‘One State’ but in the specific edition I have, the names of the state is translated from Russian to English as one word.
Bernard Harcourt proposed this similar argument in his 2015 text, Exposed: Desire and Disobedience in the Digital Age, in which he argues that, rather than previously illustrated societies dominated by Orwell’s ‘Big Brother’ or Foucault’s interpretation of Bentham’s Panopticon model, we are now citizens of the Expository Society that capitalises on our pleasure and desires, mimicking some form of freedom. Further, and is a key strand to Harcourt’s text, those whom are democratically elected to take some form of control of society now act alongside, and sometimes as subordinates to, commercial infrastructures. Harcourt evidences this by referencing Glenn Greenwald’s point that, “70 percent of our [USA] national intelligence budget is being spent on the private sector.” (2015, p. 160). Whilst most assume that all state money would be used by the public sector only, we must question the intentions of those who seek to observe us and without our knowledge. The citizens of OneState in Zamyatin’s novel live in a transparent society – literally - all housing is made of completely transparent glass (discounting one hour for sexual activity when citizens are permitted to lower their blinds) making it easy for the guardians to monitor the actions of the citizens and as noted by Michael Amey in his journal article, ‘Living Under the Bell Jar: Surveillance and Resistance in Yevgeny Zamyatin's We’, “citizens [can] continually spy on each other” (2005, p. 22). This is strikingly derivative of the Panopticon model imagined (though never realised) and designed by Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century which, in turn, influenced Michel Foucault’s much-later theories on the panoptic state;
He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principal of his own subjection. (Foucault, 1995, p. 203)
There are certainly parallels between OneState and the Panopticon which Foucault describes as “…an important mechanism, for it automatizes and disindividualizes power. Power has its principle not so much in a person as in a certain concerted distribution of bodies, surfaces, lights, gazes; in an arrangement whose internal mechanisms produce the relation in which individuals are caught up" (1995, p. 203). Both utilise similar devices and concepts, however, there is one stark difference which Amey identifies; “While the Panopticon empowers some individuals to regulate and modify the behavior of other individuals, the OneState uses everyone to regulate and modify the behavior of everyone” (Amey, 2005, p. 22). To surmise, the authorities in OneState ideologically condition all of the citizens to not only self-regulate but to monitor the behaviour of their peers. Whilst this seems unlike the structure of our own Western society (and certainly we still adhere to a clear hierarchy of societal power) the UK government undoubtedly benefits from a divisive rhetoric (particularly discourse surrounding immigration, acts of “terror” and vulnerable people who rely on the state for support). This ever-popular method of ‘divide and conquer’ is explicitly demonstrated in many government-supporting media outlets and aims to destroy communities, cultivate bitterness and create a thriving ‘point the finger’ culture. Whilst these techniques hardly mirror that explicit, transparent structure found in Zamyatin’s OneState, it does create a narrative of suspicion and censure in which authorities find it easier to justify punishing regimes on all sectors of society. Additionally, though the reader does not have an abundance of information on the conditions and context of OneState, Zamyatin aids a reading of this by assigning qualities associated with OneState to D-503, as Alex Shane notes, “Although the state is a thousand years old, many imperfections still exist; the personal hours are not yet completely regulated, the weather is not controlled, the world beyond the Green Wall has not been subjugated and –most important – the inhabitants have not been purged of fantasy (irrationality)” (1968, p. 145). Similarly, to assume that because Bentham’s model never came to fruition is not to deny that similar methods of control have not been implemented within our own contemporary society, and as Siva Vaidhyanathan suggests, “We have a ‘cryptopticon’” because “we don’t know all the ways in which we are being watched or profiled—we simply know that we are. And we don’t regulate our behavior under the gaze of surveillance: instead, we don’t seem to care.” (2011, p. 112).
The novel is set within the geometrically structured OneState whereby everyone is as equally subordinate to the Benefactor who presides sinisterly over the state. OneState functions on the basis of rationality with no room for independent or creative thought. D-503 appears to be completely at ease within the structure of OneState and, as such complies with his task in recording his life, whereby he merely reiterates the discourse either of, or complementary to, the state by which he is ruled “…in order to discard some bolt that has gotten bent, we have the heavy, skillful hand of the Benefactor, we have the experienced eye of the Guardians.” (1995, p. 45). Whilst D-503 is seemingly functioning in some form of happy state, later in the novel he meets and seemingly lusts after a rebellion identified as I-330. I-330 is an overt manifestation of the antithesis to D-503 and the OneState, she physically interrupts the rigidity and calm conformity of OneState, explicitly outing herself as opposition to authority, “But at this point, like a nut flying off a machine at top speed, a lithe, slender female figure tore off out of our ranks screaming, “That’s enough! Don’t you dare ... !” and pitched right into the midst of the rectangle. This was like the meteor 119 years ago. The whole walk froze, and our ranks were like the gray crests of waves instantly immobilized by a flash frost.” (1995, p. 167). Not surprisingly, I-330 habitually flouts OneState laws by smoking, drinking and not attending the job she has been designated. Whilst I-330 acts as the ‘love interest’ for D-503, she also represents freedom if not happiness as expressed by Zamyatin throughout the novel, in an oppressive state the two cannot co-exist “Those two [happiness and freedom], in paradise, were given a choice: happiness without freedom, or freedom without happiness. There was no third alternative.” (1993, p. 97). As I-330 acts upon her human instincts and submits to her hardly-nefarious human desires, she places herself precisely within the role of the rebel. I-330’s character, as it is represented in D-503’s records, is comparable to those groups, such as Anonymous, in our society who openly challenge government policies that are not for the greater good of society and this has led to significant punishments for some members (similarly, I-330 is tortured at the end of the novel). Others who have flouted the digital parameters by which we are required to abide by are Ross Ulbricht (known online as ‘Dread Pirate Roberts’), who operated on the ‘DarkWeb’ in which users were free to trade in items not usually available to purchase such as weaponry, drugs, hit-men, prostitutes etc. Whilst Ulbricht was also accused of attempting to have somebody carry out six murders for him (Mullin, 2015), he was (rather brazenly) mimicking the neoliberal, consumerist framework that exists on the so-called surface web, in fact, the Silk Road was oft-nicknamed the ‘eBay of Illegal Drugs’ (Kostein, 2013). Perversely, Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to life imprisonment despite the fact that his actions never resulted in a murder and he never peddled illegal substances or services himself. Furthermore, as expected, the most nefarious acts of the Silk Road are still in operation. Others that have acted in ways which defy government policy on internet use include those involved in the WikiLeaks scandal, namely Julian Assange, who published thousands of formally-private government documents and, whilst the charges brought against him and his subsequent political asylum are well documented, this non-violent act led to Joe Biden (Vice president of the United States of America) to call Assange a “hi-tech terrorist” (MacAskill, 2010). However, the most famous of the ‘digital rebels’ and the biggest act of ‘rebellion’ in recent is history is the leaking of NSA documents by Edward Snowdon in 2013. This essay will not analyse these events in any details as they are all subject to comprehensive study, however, when talking about ‘digital crimes / rebels’ it is interesting to note what it is that constitutes ‘crime’ and I would argue that the “crimes” of both Assange and Snowden cannot be such when they have benefited the wider society as they have. Without these recent revelations, we would not have an open and transparent discourse surrounding, freedom, surveillance or data collection.
Tactics to filter and obstruct digital content has been explicit in some authoritarian states such as those in China, Iran and others which have only increased since the well-documented political uprisings such as the 2011 movement in Egypt which sought to overthrow its government. Whilst the issue at hand is separated from digital culture, the way in which the citizens managed to mobilize was, in the beginning, almost completely owed to the online communications. Similarly, during the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, Yulia Marushevska posted a video (2014), I am a Ukrainian, urging the public to support the protesters in their fight against their oppressive and violent government. Just as OneState produces its own propaganda media - State Gazette - authorities in countries like the ones mentioned above work to provide a narrative by filtering the information available to citizens. For example, in 2014, Twitter confirmed that images were being blocked (Knibbs, 2014) by the Venezuelan authorities during the ongoing protests. Furthermore, it would be ignorant to suggest that echoes of these techniques have not infiltrated Western culture, whilst we are largely unrestricted in our online presence and, until the Edward Snowdon leaks in 2013, Western governments had pledged to uphold online freedom with the formation of the Freedom Online Coalition. However, since 2013, the US and UK have been subject to particularly harsh criticism regarding revelations of mass surveillance by both the NSA (US) and GCHQ (UK). The Brazilian President, Dilma Rousseff, addressed this issue at the United Nations General Assembly in 2013; “Without the right to privacy, there is no real freedom of speech or freedom of opinion, and therefore there is no actual democracy” (The Daily Conversation, 2013). This narrative which was established the by US and UK governments (and their seemingly endless resources available for surveillance), whereby citizens are vulnerable to authorities turning data into knowledge. To illustrate this point, a survey on 2,000 US adult citizens was carried by ESET out to determine whether they had changed their online behaviours since the NSA leaks and interestingly, almost half of the respondents claimed that they had become more aware of their digital footprint. (Cobb, 2014). This evidence portrays the citizen as both conscious of both his public presence (due to CCTV, police presence etc.) and now his private presence are compromised. Whilst defenders of increasing means of surveillance cite terrorism and other crimes as justification for bulk data collection, and it fact, Judge William Pauling (on the ruling of mass telephone spying) asserted that; “Armed with all the metadata, the NSA can draw connections it might otherwise never be able to find.” (Óskarsdóttir, 2013). However, former-NSA official, Jeff Williams, directly contradicts this by using the Boston bombings as evidence of the failure of mass surveillance, “"That's why they couldn't stop the Boston bombing, or the Paris shootings, because the data was all there… the agency isn't carefully and methodically setting its tools up for smart data collection, that leaves analysts to search for a needle in a haystack.” (Whittaker, 2015). Likewise in We, Despite the highly regulated framework in OneState, both the Benefactor and the guardians fail to stop the acts of the anarchy carried out by the rebels, who break through a glass wall which prompts others to partake in unscheduled sexual activity. Ultimately this leads to the execution of the rebellion and the removal of imagination for others, foreshadowing a bleak future for the residents of OneState.
In a letter, Zamyatin wrote that We was “a warning against the twofold danger which threatens humanity: the hypertrophic power of the machines and the hypertrophic power of the State” (Shane. 1968, p. 145) and whilst the image of machines and machinery is prominent throughout the novel. The machinery upholds the imagery of the rational and rigid totalitarian state, perfectly representing the ‘ideal unfreedom’ and we can read this as Zamyatins criticism of not only increasing use of technology over humanist creative thought, but of a society which seeks to oppress its citizens. D-503 largely (specifically at the beginning and the end of the novel) acts, as a machine, without autonomy but only as he is ‘programmed’ to do so. Interestingly, the two female ‘love interests’ of D-503 both attempt to reprogrammed him to fit their own agenda. His regular partner 0-90 urges him to impregnate her, despite not having permission from the authorities. When D-503 is exposed to I-330, she seduces him in order to fulfil her own agenda; to gain access to INTEGRAL. Though D-503 internal conflict regarding autonomy, he is always dominated by another so never truly acts according to anything like his own desires, but his actions are generally in the interests of others. This is mirrored in our digital culture when even our acts of ‘self-interest’ are commodified. Citizens may spend time browsing free-to-use social networks, such as Facebook, in their ‘free time’ but during that time – while likely, sharing and communicating – our data is commodified. Users are being put to work as they connect, just like small parts of machinery that may only be providing the small job, but as a whole, the machine – the social network machine – is fulfilling its agenda. This relatively new mode of accessing information online is completely in line with neoliberal capitalism, this mode of commercial gain for businesses is particularly efficient and costs are relatively low (compared to the commodification of physical goods). In a particularly illuminating article for The Guardian, ‘The end of capitalism has begun’, Paul Mason speculates that;
“The main contradiction today is between the possibility of free, abundant goods and information; and a system of monopolies, banks and governments trying to keep things private, scarce and commercial. Everything comes down to the struggle between the network and the hierarchy: between old forms of society moulded around capitalism and new forms of society that prefigure what comes next” (2015)
Whilst it is easy criticise this super digital companies commodifying the digital experience of its users (whilst often paying very little tax, interestingly complicated by the digital nature of the model), users are often uninterested in the ways that their usage is capitalised on. As a secondary consequence of such huge user-numbers, brands with a social media presence can start an advertising campaign that has the potential to reach millions of potential customers within hours, events can be advertising within seconds, trailers for films and TV shows can generate a near-hysteria within minutes of being released. So, rather than Masons point that capitalism is dying, I would propose that it is merely a digital capitalism which now dominates our culture, that brands and super companies can determine what ‘comes next’ by manipulating what their users are exposed to. Like I-503, we are merely acting on the agendas of others.
Zamyatin illustrates in his novel a semi-satirical, semi-dystopia and his explicit portrayal of the struggle within oppressive societies to remain as both free and happy citizens. Whilst I am aware that both of these are completely subjective terms, it is worth noting that the very recent developments regarding the Investigatory Powers Bill (which limits our digital freedom) was presented to public by Theresa May (Home Secretary) in March 2016 who claimed that “Terrorists and criminals are operating online and we need to ensure the police and security services can keep pace with the modern world and continue to protect the British public from the many serious threats we face.”. Whilst this seems to be for the greater good of the UK citizens if, as outlined above, government agencies are collecting too much data to actually act on terrorism before it happens, is it merely a futile attempt? One striking line of Zamyatin’s novel which seems to comprehensively summarise the totalitarian ideology occurs when the rational-minded D-503 writes that “The only means to rid man of crime is to rid him of freedom.” (1993, p. 69). This important statement, seems to be the framework by which the UK government aim to justify their excessive Investigatory Powers Bill, informally known as the appropriately-names, Snoopers Charter. I have attempted to demonstrate throughout this essay that, whilst of course there needs to be regulatory measures within our digital lives, the excessive nature of this process has resulted in criticism from other world leaders and distrust from the general public – thus, it is fair to conclude that regulating our digital life results in neither increased happiness or freedom for citizens. Those that fail to stay within the parameters of the ‘ideal unfreedom’ are excessively punished whilst those that do stay within the parameters risk having a disproportionate amount of their online activity observed and, often, commodified. Privacy, both on and offline, is a civil liberty that should not be contravened for the sake of those few who act unlawfully and further, how can we be sure that we are acting lawfully in the electric Panopticon when the laws are covertly passed?
Zamyatin illustrates in his novel a semi-satirical, semi-dystopia and his explicit portrayal of the struggle within oppressive societies to remain as both free and happy citizens. Whilst I am aware that both of these are completely subjective terms, it is worth noting that the very recent developments regarding the Investigatory Powers Bill (which limits our digital freedom) was presented to public by Theresa May (Home Secretary) in March 2016 who claimed that “Terrorists and criminals are operating online and we need to ensure the police and security services can keep pace with the modern world and continue to protect the British public from the many serious threats we face.”. Whilst this seems to be for the greater good of the UK citizens if, as outlined above, government agencies are collecting too much data to actually act on terrorism before it happens, is it merely a futile attempt? One striking line of Zamyatin’s novel which seems to comprehensively summarise the totalitarian ideology occurs when the rational-minded D-503 writes that “The only means to rid man of crime is to rid him of freedom.” (1993, p. 69). This important statement, seems to be the framework by which the UK government aim to justify their excessive Investigatory Powers Bill, informally known as the appropriately-names, Snoopers Charter. I have attempted to demonstrate throughout this essay that, whilst of course there needs to be regulatory measures within our digital lives, the excessive nature of this process has resulted in criticism from other world leaders and distrust from the general public – thus, it is fair to conclude that regulating our digital life results in neither increased happiness or freedom for citizens. Those that fail to stay within the parameters of the ‘ideal unfreedom’ are excessively punished whilst those that do stay within the parameters risk having a disproportionate amount of their online activity observed and, often, commodified. Privacy, both on and offline, is a civil liberty that should not be contravened for the sake of those few who act unlawfully and further, how can we be sure that we are acting lawfully in the electric Panopticon when the laws are covertly passed?