Our Surveillance Society (presentation at City State - July 20 2002 -Melbourne)
David Lyon

Network societies are surveillance societies - both are dependent on information infrastructures. This means that no one is exempt from the gaze that records, checks, and sorts. In front of the computer, in the taxi, in the street, at work, in school, in the sports stadium, everywhere we may be located and tracked. Even in the great outdoors, mobile (cell) phones pinpoint our location and advertise their wares.

Equally, surveillance serves to make life more convenient, comfortable, efficient and, possibly, secure. It is an ambiguous process. To work, surveillance also depends on its subjects, and they may comply, negotiate, or resist, depending on the circumstances. As surveillance spreads, and people become more aware of it, so responses become more varied, and questions about surveillance become part of the new politics of information.

Twenty-first century surveillance societies are the product of twentieth century modernity. Surveillance practices and processes have proliferated as a result of societies becoming more mobile, affluent, and individualized. State surveillance has increased, paradoxically, due to the fears and anxieties of living in a more fluid and open world, and commercial surveillance has grown alongside this, expressing many of the desires and designs of the twentieth century. Reducing risk is key.

The events of September 11 2001 now catalyze further developments in surveillance. Punitive justice and the build up of security measures were already strong features, especially of the USA and the UK (despite dropping crime rates and improving economies) before the attacks. September 11 reinforced these; produced further laws designed to strengthen security, procured new technologies to enhance surveillance, and fostered convergence between commercial and state surveillance. Today, a new vigilance is required to match the new surveillance.

Groups such as anti-globalization protesters are now lumped together with 'terrorists', and other prejudicial categories threaten the life-chances of the poor and the marginalized. Privacy laws represent one response, but they tend to be individualized (like the societies that produce them) and to miss the social sorting capacities and thus the social justice issues. Involvement of all in information politics, and a call for accountability among those who process personal data is crucial.