What Corporate and Government Surveillance Entail
Many the "free" services that we are using - web browsing, web search, GPS-location mapping, emails, and virtually all of social media - are actually not free. We are entering into a contract where you sell your data, metadata, and privacy - essentially agree to be put under surveillance - in exchange for those unpaid services. Similarly, one might argue that we collectively enter into a contract with the states where we consent to be put under surveillance in exchange for safety and security.
Please write a short essay reflecting on this state of affair. In your essay, make sure to do the following:
(1) Explain how corporate surveillance and state/government surveillance are defined in the readings. Compare and contrast them: is one more pernicious than other? Should we be more concerned over one than the other? Do you think we should maintain the distinction between corporate surveillance and state surveillance, why or why not?
(2) In their current state, do you think the exchange of data ownership and privacy for services, convenience, and/or security constitute a fair exchange (however you like to define "fair exchange")? Why or why not ? Do they do more goods or more harms to society? If you have the power, should these exchanges be allowed to continue, either unconditionally (if so, why) or under certain conditions (if so, which conditions)?
There are many ways to approach this essay so I won't offer specific direction. But take notes of the following:
This is still a reading review, not free writing. So make sure you demonstrate that you have read and understood all three readings for this module.
Recall from module 1, in your very first reading review, I asked you to think about Nudge, whether Choice Architects should be allowed to nudge us, and whether it would makes a difference if the Choice Architect is the government or a Big Data corporation. Now we have come full circle: the same dynamic and tension re-appears here. In this essay, feel free to re-visit your answer in Module 1, and talk about how your view might have evolved since.
Your response should be in the form of a complete essay, with a clearly state thesis, an Introduction, and a Conclusion. Make sure to use consistently a citation style, preferably APA. As usual, recommended length is about 4 pages.
Module 5
Author’s Name
Institution of Affiliation
Course Name
Instructor’s Name
Date
Module 5
Surveillance used to be complex and unaffordable. People only used it when it was essential. For instance, they could do surveillance when law officials wanted to tail suspicions or a business needed comprehensive purchasing history for billing needs. However, there were exclusions, and these cases were difficult and expensive. With time, the surveillance process continued to be simplified and cheap. Recently, corporate surveillance has grown from gathering as little data as possible. Today, corporations tend to gather data concerning their clients, although they only collected a little information about clients' transactions they have to bill in the past. As a result, it has become cheaper and easier for individuals to communicate, publish their viewpoints, and access data. This paper analyzes what corporate and government surveillance entail, including their similarities and differences, which is more pernicious, if there is a need to be concerned with one over the other, and if we should maintain a distinction between the two surveillance. The paper further analyzes whether the exchange for data ownership and privacy for services is fair, surveillance's harm on society, and the opinion of whether to allow the exchanges to remain.
In terms of online privacy, government and corporate surveillance act similarly. Both surveillances track the credit card purchases of a person. They obtain emails to gather information concerning you. Furthermore, they may even control the movement of a person in the real world. If state surveillance had the impact of turning the people into subjects to gain state power, then corporate surveillance turns consumers into a product that corporations sell to other companies, advertisers, and data brokers (Current Affairs, n.d). Government and corporate surveillance, however, have differences in some ways. For instance, corporates are usually interested in making money from individuals, while governments are interested in preventing attacks that could disrupt commercial activities. The government also can imprison or kill a person, while a company does not have that right. A person's inability to refuse the government is a major issue differentiating the National Security Agency (NSA) from the prying corporates worldwide. Therefore, people should care about state surveillance for similar reasons as they should care about the attempt to address other undesired things since they are also bad and addressable.
Corporate surveillance is more pernicious than public surveillance; thus, we should be more worried about it. Usually, private organizations, unlike government or state surveillance, they not massively incentivized to monitor individuals' behavior. However, it focuses on changing behavior (Current Affairs, n.d). On the other hand, the government, to a certain degree, tries to influence people's behavior. However, in the West part, this capacity pales compared to the power of firms such as Facebook and Google. Furthermore, great evidence shows this model is disadvantageous to overall human wellness and human right and tends to infringe on freedom of privacy (Current Affairs, n.d). Also, this paradigm contributes to the increased inability to focus, surged stress levels, and reduced attention spans. Hence it is clear that corporate surveillance is more malicious than public surveillance.
Corporate and government/state surveillance are not different because they are intertwined and support each other. Both surveillances are public-private surveillance that spans the world, but this is not a formal agreement as it is more like an alliance of interest. Even though it is not absolute, it has become de facto in a real sense comprising numerous powerful stakeholders seconding its perpetuation. Numerous nations use corporate surveillance capacities to monitor citizens through programs like TEMPORA (Schneier, 2015). Governments across every corner of the world are surveilling their people and entering computer devices locally and internationally. The government is looking forward to ensuring they spy on each person aiming to get terrorists and lawbreakers, freethinkers, envir...