Surveillance After September 11,

2001 David Lyon

Lee JungryeEnglish Language and Literature

ljr0220@hanmail.net

‘Big event’- Transformation device between past and fu-ture- Indispensable prism to see social structure and process

Also, surveillance is ‘Products of Moder-nity’

The September 11 2001 ‘terrorist’ attacks

Aftermaths of September 11 2001 ‘terrorist’ attacks

- Military retaliation in Afghanistan- Extensive anti-terrorist legislation- Especially enhance surveillance opera-tions iris scanners, closed circuit television(CCVT), political control on everywhere

Is surveillance good or bad?

Bad?!

Good?!

Fare treat-ment of suspects

A question of human

right

- The expanding range of already exist-ing range of surveillance processes and practices that circumscribe and help to shape our social existence

- The tendency to rely on technological enhancements to surveillance sys-tems

Aspects of social structure and process of surveillance after 911

- Passed legislation intended to tighten se-curity to give police and intelligence ser-vices greater powers, and to permit faster political responses to ‘terrorist’ attacks

But, some questioned How new and necessary are the measures?

How long the measures will be in force?

Legal changes after 911

- Giving high-tech companies the opportunity to launch their products But, what about the price?

- Technologies may be not precise- Social division and exclusion within the

countries- Seeking superior technologies appears as a

primary goal But, original terrorism involve relatively aged technologies

Technical changes after 911

Not long ago surveillance is- Centralized power- Big Brother, Class weapon, Unseen ob-

server- Panopticon is a key point - Centrally controlled and coordinated sys-

tem

Social changed after 911

- Panopticon : A type of prison building to

allow an observer to observe all prison-ers. A power to control public. A surveillance system constructed by information technology.

- Big Brother : A fictional character in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Everyone is under complete surveillance by the authorities, mainly by telescreens. Authorities or power with monopolized information control a society.

Recent studies about surveillance

- As a looser, more malleable and flowing set of processes – “Surveillant Assemblage”

- Our daily experiences - Mundane moments - Designed in to the flows of everyday exis-

tence

Social changed after 911

In the surveillant assemblage

Then, question on hierarchies and centralized power

Abstract human bodies from their territorial set-tings

Reassemble in different locations as virtual ‘data doubles’

Separate them into flows

- Centralized state informational power

- Socio-technical developments- Growth of information and communication

technologies in personal and population data processing

- More networked modes of social organization with flexibility and departmental openness

Social changed after 911

- Potential threat to privacy and individual freedom- Social sorting : Verifying identities and assessing risks based on large personal information data-

bases. Powerful means of creating and reinforc-ing long-term social differences.

Surveillance and privacy Is it intrusion or exclusion?

- Reproducing and rein forcing social, economic, and cultural division in in-formational societies

- We are “Bearers of our own surveil-lance”

- The degree of collaboration with sur-veillance depends on a range of cir-cumstances and attitudes

Contemporary surveillance

- Effective in some very limited cir-cumstances

- Only increasing internal surveillance of citizens

- Terrors can be by other means (not with high-tech)

Limitation of surveillance

Surveillance responses to September 11- Helps to make visible the already existing vast

range of surveillance practices and processes that touch everyday life in informational soci-eties

- Surveillance is more dispersed that central-ized, more intrusive then exclusionary, that data-subjects are dupes of the system, that it is technically-driven, that it contributes more to prevention than to investigation after the fact.

Conclusion

Where are democratic accountability and

ethical examination in surveillance systems?

Only to start with a willingness to lis-ten to others, care for the other to re-

lieve and prevent suffering

Conclusion

Thank you ^^