The Logic of Surveillance Capitalism

Things hid and barr'd from common sense

Philosophical DisquisitionsPhilosophical DisquisitionsHome About Best Of Academic Papers Media

T h u r s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 1 5

The Logic of Surveillance Capitalism

Tweet

You have probably noticed it already. There is a strange logic at the heart of the moderntech industry. The goal of many new tech startups is not to produce products or servicesfor which consumers are willing to pay. Instead, the goal is create a digital platform or hubthat will capture information from as many users as possible — to grab as many ‘eyeballs’as you can. This information can then be analysed, repackaged and monetised in variousways. The appetite for this information-capture and analysis seems to be insatiable, withever increasing volumes of information being extracted and analysed from anever-expanding array of data-monitoring technologies.

The famous Harvard business theorist Shoshana Zuboff refers to this phenomenon assurveillance capitalism and she believes that it has its own internal ‘logic’ that we need tocarefully and critically assess. The word ‘logic’ is somewhat obscure in this context. To me,logic is the study of the rules of inference and argumentation. To Zuboff, it meanssomething more like the structural requirements and underlying principles of a particularsocial institution — in this instance the institutions of surveillance capitalism. But there’sno sense in getting hung up about the word. The important thing is to understand thephenomenon.

And that’s what I want to do in this post. I want to analyse Zuboff’s characterisation andassessment of the logic of surveillance capitalism. That assessment is almost entirelynegative in nature, occasionally hyperbolically so, but contains some genuinely provocativeinsights. This is marred by the fact that Zuboff’s writings are esoteric and not alwaysenjoyable to read. This is largely due to her opaque use of language. I’m going to try to

John DanaherFollow 373

Academic withinterests in the

philosophy of technology,religion, ethics and law. Blogs athttp://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com

View my complete profile

About Me

On Twitter

On Academia.edu

On Philpapers

On Google Plus

On Facebook

Follow me!

Search

Search This Blog

Link

Amazon Store

This work by John Danaher islicensed under a CreativeCommons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0Unported License.

▼ 2015 (90)

► December (3)

► November (8)

► October (9)

► September (7)

► August (10)

► July (10)

▼ June (8)

Technological

Blog Archive

6 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In

Philosophical Disquisitions: The Logic of Surveillance Capitalism http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-logic-of-...

1 of 8 12/12/15, 2:15 PM

simplify and repackage what she has to say here.

Zuboff identifies four key features in the logic of surveillance capitalism. In doing so, sheexplicitly follows the four key features identified by Google’s chief economist, Hal Varian.These four features are: (i) the drive toward more and more data extraction and analysis;(ii) the development of new contractual forms using computer-monitoring and automation;(iii) the desire to personalise and customise the services offered to users of digitalplatforms; and (iv) the use of the technological infrastructure to carry out continualexperiments on its users and consumers.

Each of these four features has important social repercussions. Let’s look at them in moredepth.

1. Data Extraction and AnalysisThe first feature of surveillance capitalism is probably the most obvious. It is the insatiableappetite for data extraction and analysis. This what many refer to under the rubric of ‘bigdata’ and what people worry about when they worry about data protection and privacy.Zuboff says that there are two things you need to understand about this aspect ofsurveillance capitalism.

First, you need to understand the sources of the data, i.e. what it is that makes it fair torefer to this as the era of ‘big data’. There are several such sources, all of which feed intoever-increasing datasets, that are far beyond the ability of a human being to comprehend.The most obvious source of data is the data from computer-mediated transactions. Theinfrastructure of modern computing is such that every computer-mediated transaction isrecorded and logged. This means that there is rich set of transaction-related data to bemined. In addition to this, there is the rise of the so-called internet of things, or internetof everything. This is the world being inaugurated by the creation of smart devices thatcan be attached to every physical object in the world, and can be used to record andupload data from those objects. Think about the computers in cars, lawnmowers,thermostats, wristwatches, washing machines and so on. Each one of these devicesrepresents an opportunity for more data to be fed to the institutions of surveillancecapitalism. On top of that there are the large datasets kept by governments and otherbureaucratic agencies that have been digitised and linked to the internet, and the vastarray of private and personal surveillance equipment. Virtually everything can now be usedas a datasource for surveillance capitalism. What’s more, the ubiquity of data-monitoring is

Unemployment andPersonal Well-being...

The Logic of SurveillanceCapitalism

Drunken Consent to Sexand PersonalResponsibility...

How might algorithms ruleour lives? Mapping thel...

Four Concepts of Consentand their Relevance toSe...

Voluntary Intoxication andResponsibility

Intoxicated Consent toSexual Relations: A Mapof ...

Hume's Argument AgainstMiracles (Part Two)

► May (7)

► April (8)

► March (4)

► February (7)

► January (9)

► 2014 (118)

► 2013 (100)

► 2012 (100)

► 2011 (133)

► 2010 (188)

► 2009 (31)

Blogroll

Stanford Encyclopedia ofPhilosophySocial Minimum18 hours ago

Public ReasonCFP: The Values of LiberalDemocracy: Themes ofJoseph Raz’s PoliticalPhilosophy1 day ago

SprachlogikVote Sprachlogik at3QuarksDaily1 day ago

Notre Dame PhilosophicalReviews // NewsIntroduction to Non-Marxism1 day ago

Stephen Law3 days ago

Practical EthicsAnnouncement: Future ofHumanity Institute advertisesfour research positions3 days ago

ex-apologist


2 of 8 12/12/15, 2:15 PM

often deliberately hidden or ‘hidden in plain sight’. People simply do not realise howoften, or how easy it is, for their personal data to be collected by the institutions ofsurveillance capitalism.

Second, you need to understand the relationship between the data-extracting companies,like Google, and the users of their services. The relationship is asymmetric andcharacterised by formal indifference and functional independence. Each of these featuresneeds to be unpacked. The asymmetry in the relationship is obvious. The data is oftenextracted in the absence of any formal consent or dialogue. Indeed, companies like Googleseem to have adopted an ‘extract first, ask later’ attitude. The full extent of dataextraction is often not revealed until there is some scandal or leak. This was certainly trueof the personal data about wi-fi networks extracted by Google’s Street View project. Theformal indifference in the relationship concerns Google’s attitude toward the content ofthe data it extracts. Google isn’t particularly discriminating in what it collects: it collectseverything it can and finds out uses for it later. Finally, the functional independence arisesfrom the economic use to which the extracted data is put. Big data companies like Googletypically do not rely on their users for money. Rather, they use the information extractedas a commodity they can sell to advertisers. The users are the product, not the customers.

It is worth dwelling on this functional independence for a moment. As Zuboff sees it, thisfeature of surveillance capitalism constitutes an interesting break from the model of the20th century corporation. As set out in the work of economists like Berle and Means, the20th century firm was characterised by a number of mutual interdependencies between itsemployees, its shareholders and its customers. Zuboff uses the example of thecar-manufacturing businesses that dominated American in the mid-20th century. Thesecompanies relied on large and stable networks of employees and consumers (often one andthe same people) for their profitability and functionality. As a result, they worked hard toestablish durable careers for their employees and long-term relationships with theircustomers. It is not clear that surveillance companies like Google are doing the same thing.They do not rely on their primary users for profitability and often do not rely on humanworkers to manage their core services. Zuboff thinks that this is reflected in the fact thatthe leading tech companies are far more profitable than the car-manufacturers ever were,while employing far fewer people.

For what it’s worth, I fear that Zuboff may be glorifying the reality of the 20th centuryfirm, and ignoring the fact that many of Google’s customers (and Facebook’s and Twitter’s)are also primary users. So there are some interdependencies at play. But it might be fair tosay that the interdependencies have been severely attenuated by the infrastructure ofsurveillance capitalism. Companies really do require fewer employees, with less stablecareers; and there is not the same one-to-one relationship between service users andcustomers.

One final point about data extraction and analysis. There is an interesting contrast to bemade between the type of market envisaged by Varian, and made possible by surveillancecapitalism, and the market that was beloved by the libertarian free-marketeers of the 20thcentury. Hayek’s classic defence of the free market, and attack on the centrally-plannedmarket, was premised on the notion that the information needed to make sensibleeconomic decisions was too localised and diffuse. It could not be known by any singleorganisation or institution. In a sense, the totality of the market was unknowable. Butsurveillance capitalism casts this into doubt. The totality of the market may be knowable.The implications of this for the management of the economy could be quite interesting.

2. New Contractual FormsWhereas data extraction and analysis are obvious features of surveillance capitalism, theother three features are slightly less so. The first of these, and arguably the mostinteresting, is the new forms of contractual monitoring and enforcement that are madepossible by the infrastructures of surveillance capitalism.

These infrastructures allow for real-time monitoring of contractual performance. They also

6 days ago

Mind HacksA temporary blindness duringa wrongful conviction1 week ago

Ethics EtcSchedule for SpeculativeEthics Forum at St Johns1 week ago

PEA SoupThe Marc Sanders Prize inMetaethics1 week ago

Philosophy, et ceteraLichtenberg on EffectiveAltruism1 week ago

New APPS: Art, Politics,Philosophy, ScienceCelebrating women inphilosophy at UC Davis andelsewhere1 week ago

Nick ByrdPhilosophers’ Reasoning,Errors, & Beliefs3 weeks ago

Words, Ideas, and ThingsRelatively Easy Data Entry fora MySQL Database10 months ago

Flickers of FreedomBack to Basics This Month--Except for the Zombies10 months ago

The ProsblogionCall for Papers-Logos 2015:Religious Experience1 year ago

Evolving Thoughts2 years ago

Subscribe To

Posts

Comments

Counter

Disqus for PhilosophicalDisquisitions


3 of 8 12/12/15, 2:15 PM

allow for real-time enforcement. You will no longer need to go to court to enforce theterms of a contract or terminate a contract due to breach of terms. The technology allowsyou to do that directly and immediately. Varian himself gives some startling examples (I’mhere quoting Zuboff describing Varian’s ideas):

New Contractual Monitoring and Enforcement: “If someone stops makingmonthly car payments, lenders can ‘instruct the vehicular monitoring system notto allow the car to be started and to signal the location where it can be pickedup.’ Insurance companies, he suggests, can rely on similar monitoring systems tocheck if customers are driving safely and thus determine whether or not tomaintain their insurance or pay claims.”

(Zuboff 2015, 81)

I can imagine similar scenarios. My health insurance company could use the monitoringtechnology in my smartwatch to check to see whether I have been doing my 10,000 steps aday. If I have not, they could refuse to pay for my medical care. All sorts of social valuescould be embedded into these new contractual forms. The threat of withdrawing keyservices or disabling products will be ever-present.

Zuboff argues that if such a system of contractual monitoring and enforcement becomesthe norm it will represent a radical restructuring of our current political and legal order.Indeed, she argues that it would represent an a-contractual form of social organisation.Contract, as conceived by the classic liberal writers, is a social institution built upon afoundation of trust, solidarity and rule of law. We know that we cannot monitor andintervene in another person’s life whenever we wish, thus when we rely on them for goodsand services, we trust that they will fulfil their promises. We have recourse to the law ifthey do not. But this recourse to the law is in explicit recognition of the absence of perfectcontrol.

Things are very different in Varian’s imagined world. With perpetual contractualmonitoring and enforcement, there is no real need for social solidarity and trust. Nor isthere any real need for the residual coercive authority of the law. This is because there isthe prospect of perfect control. The state need no longer be a central mediator andresidual enforcer of promises. Indeed, there is no real need for the act of promisinganymore: you either conform and receive the good/service; or you don’t and have itwithdrawn/disabled. Your promise to conform is irrelevant.

This new contractual world has one other important social repercussion. According toZuboff, under the traditional contractual model there was a phenomenon of anticipatoryconformity. People conformed to their contractual obligations, when they were otherwiseunwilling to do so, because they wished to avoid the coercive sanction of the law. In otherwords, they anticipated an unpleasant outcome if they failed to conform. She believes thatVarian’s model of contractual monitoring and enforcement will give rise to a distinctphenomenon of automatic conformity. The reality of perpetual monitoring and immediateenforcement will cause people will instinctively and habitually conform. They will nolonger choose to conform; they will do so automatically. The scope of human agency willbe limited.

This is all interesting and provocative stuff. I certainly share some of Zuboff’s concernsabout the type of monitoring and intervention being envisaged by the likes of Varian. And Iagree that it could inaugurate a radical restructuring of the political-legal order. But it maynot come to that. Just because the current technology enables this type of monitoring andintervention doesn’t necessarily mean that we will allow it do so. The existing politicallegal order still dominates and has a way of (eventually) applying its principles andprotections to all areas of social life. And there is still some scope for human agency toshape the contents of those principles and protections. These combined forces may make itdifficult for insurance companies to set-up the kind of contractual system Varian isimagining. That said, I recognise the countervailing social forces that desire that kind of


4 of 8 12/12/15, 2:15 PM

system too. The desire to control and minimise risk being one of them. There is a battle ofideas to be fought here.

3. Personalisation and Customisation of ServicesThe third structural feature of surveillance capitalism is its move towards thecustomisation and personalisation of services. Google collects as much personal data as itcan in order to tailor what kinds of searches and ads you see when you use its services.Other companies do the same. Amazon tries to collect information about my bookpreferences; Netflix tries to collect information about my viewing habits. Both do so in aneffort to customise the experience I have when I use their services, recommendingparticular products to me on the basis of what they think I like.

Zuboff thinks that there is something of a ‘Faustian pact’ at the heart of all this. Peopletrade personal information for the benefits of the personal service. As a result, they havegiven up privacy for an economic good. Varian thinks that there is nothing sinister orworrisome in this. He uses the analogy of the doctor-patient or lawyer-client relationships.In both cases, the users of services share highly personal information in exchange for thebenefits of the personal service, and no one thinks there is anything wrong about this.Indeed, it is typically viewed as a social good. Giving people the option of trading privacyfor these personalised services can improve the quality of their lives.

But Zuboff resists this analogy. She argues that something like the doctor-patientrelationship is characterised by mutual interdependencies (i.e. the doctor relies on thepatient for a living; the patient relies on the doctor to stay alive) and are protected andgrounded in the rule of law. The disclosures made by are limited, and subject to an explicitconsensual dialogue between the service user and service provider. The relationshipbetween Google and its users is not like this. The attempts at consensual dialogue areminimal (and routinely ignored). It is not characterised by mutual interdependencies; itoften operates in a legal vacuum (extract first, ask questions later); and there are nointrinsic limits to the extent of the information being collected. In fact, the explicit goal ofcompanies like Google is to collect so much personal information that they know us betterthan we know ourselves.

The Faustian pact at the heart of all this is that users of these digital services are oftenunaware of what they have given up. As Zuboff (and others) put it: surveillance capitalismhas given rise to a massive redistribution of privacy rights, from private citizens to


5 of 8 12/12/15, 2:15 PM

surveillance companies like Google. Privacy rights are, in effect, decision rights: theyconfer an entitlement to choose where on the spectrum between complete privacy andtotal transparency people should lie. Surveillance capitalism has allowed large companiesto exercise more and more control over these kinds of decisions. They collect theinformation and they decide what to do with it.

That said, Zuboff thinks people may be waking up to the reality of this Faustian pact. Inthe aftermath of the Snowden leak, and other data-related scandals, people have becomemore sensitive to the loss of privacy. Legal regimes (particularly in Europe) seem to beresisting the redistribution of privacy rights. And some companies (like Apple in recenttimes) seem to be positioning themselves as pro-privacy.

4. Continual ExperimentationThe final feature of surveillance capitalism is perhaps the most novel. It is the fact thattechnological infrastructure allows for continual experimentation and intervention into thelives of its users. It is easy to test different digital services using control groups. This is dueto the information collected from user profiles, geographical locations, and so on. Thereare some famous examples of this too. Facebook’s attempt to manipulate the moods of itsusers being the most widely-known and discussed.

Varian argues that continual experimentation of this sort is necessary. Most methods of bigdata analytics do not allow companies to work out relationships of cause and effect.Instead, they only allow them to identify correlational patterns. Experimental interventionis needed in order to tease apart the causal relationships. This information is useful tocompanies in their effort to personalise, customise and generally improve the services theyare offering.

Zuboff gets a little bit mystical at this stage in her analysis. She argues that this sort ofcontinual intervention and experimentation gives rise to reality mining. This is distinctfrom data-mining. With continual experimentation, all the objects, persons and events inthe real world can be captured and altered by the technological infrastructure. Indeed, thedistinction between the infrastructure and the external world starts to breakdown. As sheputs it herself:

Data about the behaviors of bodies, minds and things take their place in auniversal real-time dynamic index of smart objects within an infinite globaldomain of wired things. This new phenomenon produces the possibility ofmodifying the behaviors of persons and things for profit and control. In the logicof surveillance capitalism there are no individuals, only the world-spanningorganism and all the tiniest elements within it.

(Zuboff 2015, 85)

I’m not sure what Zuboff means by an ‘infinite domain of wired things’. But setting thataside, it seems to me that, in this quote, with its mention of the “world-spanningorganism”, Zuboff is claiming that the apotheosis of surveillance capitalism is theconstruction of a Borg-like society, i.e. a single collective organism that consumes realitywith its technological appendages. The possibility and desirability of such a society issomething I discussed in an earlier post.

5. ConclusionTo sum up, Zuboff thinks that there are four key structural features to surveillancecapitalism. These four features constitute its internal logic. Each of the features hasimportant social and political implications.

The first feature is the trend toward ever-greater levels of data extraction and analysis.The goal of companies like Google is to extract as much data from you as possible and


6 of 8 12/12/15, 2:15 PM

Newer Post Older PostHome

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Posted by John Danaher at 12:27 PM 1 Comment

convert it into a commodity that can be bought and sold. This extractive relationship isasymmetrical and devoid of the mutual interdependencies that characterised 20th centurycorporations like General Motors.

The second feature is the possibility of new forms of contractual monitoring andenforcement. The infrastructure of surveillance capitalism allows for contracts to bemonitored and enforced in real-time, without the need for legal recourse. This wouldconstitute a radical break with the classic liberal model of contractual relationship. Therewould be no need for trust, solidarity and rule of law.

The third feature is the desire to personalise and customise digital services, based on thedata being extracted from users. Though there may be some benefits to these personalservices, the infrastructure that enables them has facilitated a considerable redistributionof privacy rights from ordinary citizens to surveillance capitalist firms like Google andFacebook.

The fourth, and final feature, is the capacity for continual experimentation andintervention into the lives of the service users. This gives rise to what Zuboff calls reality-mining, which in its most extreme form will lead to the construction of a ‘world-spanningorganism’.

+6 Recommend this on Google

Why haven't robots taken our jobs? TheComplementarity Argument3 comments • 3 months ago

ClarenceDarrow — The Complementary Effectseems comically class-blind. Clearly the burdenof re-education will fall, as it always has, on …

Assessing the Philosophical Apologetics ofWilliam Lane Craig (Series Index)2 comments • 4 months ago

Freyr Myrddin — And in this moment, you areeuphoric.

Beginning to Exist and the KalamCosmological Argument5 comments • 3 months ago

John Danaher — Ah now, you're being toomodest. You are already an excellent blogger onthese topics.

On the Limitations of General SkepticalTheism5 comments • 4 months ago

John Danaher — The fawn example wasn't meantto be compelling; it was meant to illustrate themethodological point. You are quite right that …

ALSO ON PHILOSOPHICAL DISQUISITIONS

1 Comment Philosophical Disquisitions Login!1

Share⤤ Sort by Best

Join the discussion…

• Reply •

Paul-Olivier Dehaye • 6 months ago

Quinn Norton has also written about the "reality mining", and the shaping of the real world by theinfrastructure in https://medium.com/message/the...

WHAT'S THIS?

Subscribe✉ Add Disqus to your sited Privacy🔒

Recommend♥

Share ›

CC Licence


7 of 8 12/12/15, 2:15 PM

This work by John Danaher is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Simple template. Powered by Blogger.


8 of 8 12/12/15, 2:15 PM

The Logic of Surveillance Capitalism

Documents

Transcript of The Logic of Surveillance Capitalism