Data exists in a plethora of forms surrounding our lives. It is anything that affects one or is perceived by one. One way of approaching data is to gather, process and analyse data from experiences, thoughts, memory, sensation or perception. This is known as ‘processual data’ (Murphie 2013). ‘Technical’ or ‘scientific’ data, on the other hand, is gathered and distributed by technologies ranging from printing presses to computers to complex scientific networks (Murphie 2013). In this post, we will focus on the technical data available and affecting our everyday life.
Here, we are presented with Latour’s (2005, p. 23-24) Actor Network Theory (ANT). This idea seemed pointless to me at first, but it was later proved to be simple and useful in analysing the intertwined relations between data, media and users. The theory is illustrated in my diagram drawn below.
Click to view in full size
In the diagram, an example is drawn from the networks of social events on social media (Facebook in particular). All the human and non-human actants/elements involved are treated as neutral, which subsequently forms a ‘flat ontology’. In the assemblage of social events, an actant is not just an object, but an association of heterogeneous elements which constitute a network. The image presents the various human and non-human actants involved in creating a social event on Facebook, and considers the relations between the two as well as some overlapping elements. The graph continues to explore the chain effect of a hypothetical change in a human element - the increased control such as censorship by local government, like the Chinese government. The graph illustrates how this actant’s change leads to the changes in all the other actants, and ultimately, the changes in the relations involved in the assemblage. Though the ANT model is useful in understanding the complex relations and elements within a social network, it can be seen as over-simplifying and undermining the important of human actants, which are treated as minimal objects just to accompany the data and technological elements (Dudhwala 2012).
With the democratisation of data, the sharing, distribution and access to data archive has become unprecedentedly easy. Despite the numerous advantages, it is important to acknowledge the immense threats behind this - users giving away their valuable data to the companies. Take Google as an example. As a search engine giant, major email provider, smartphone developer and location service provider, Google has a large stake in controlling our data. The data range from our personal details from our search history, to our alarms set on Google phones, to our locations and routes taken to work everyday, to our daily experiences captured by Google Glass, and even important information such as passwords, intimate conversations, which can be retrieved, predicted and tracked by Google’s services. By using Google’s free services, we are compromising our privacy and crucial information. Google's potential power of the world's information cannot be ignored. Yet there are no existing laws to protect users from these large commercial corporations, and most importantly, the government. It is so easy to give away our data even without us noticing.
Indeed, data is a powerful tool and an indispensable element in our lives. Some may utilise the global data networks with integrity, like Paul Edwards; while some may exploit and manipulate the access the important data. As Rogers (2011) says, ‘Anyone can take on a fearsome set of data now and wrangle it into shape’, particularly the data brokers and the government.
It is an interesting yet depressing observation of the seemingly ‘improvement’ of our lives brought by accessible and available data. Quilty-Harper (2010) suggests that data has positively transformed our relationships and advertising strategies. One of these improvements is the combining and analysis of users’ specifics to provide users with more convenience and efficiency. Think Facebook selling users’ personal details (age, interests, gender, siblings, country, relationship status) to advertisers and data brokers for commercial purposes. These data brokers trade specific information about people, such as their names, addresses, shopping habits, and personal data, without providing the sources of how they got it (Opsahl and Reitman 2013). Essentially, these data brokers work closely with the government, which poses an even greater threat to our privacy. Opsahl and Reitman (2013) show that government agents have access to extensive database and multiple social media sites on the grounds of ‘terrorist threats’, criminal investigations and citizenship requests.
It is not news anymore that content / service providers are doing this to their users. But should they be entitled to? Personally, I am appalled by the highly unethical practices of data brokers, and the conspiracy behind. The benefits of free-sharing and accessible data are undeniable, but how much control are we willing to give away? How many of the users have even considered the threats that these services pose? Even if we have noticed, how much influence we have to make it less intruding or make it stop?
Word: Augmented (given in lecture 5)
References:
Dudhwala, F. 2012, What is Actor-Network Theory?, Academia, accessed 14 April 2013, <http://www.academia.edu/542543/What_is_Actor-Network_Theory>.
Edwards, P. N. 2010, ‘Introduction’ (eds.), in Murphie, A. 2013, ARTS3091 Study Kit, University of New South Wales, p. 138-145.
Harris, D. 2013, ‘We Need a Data Democracy, Not a Data Dictatorship’, Gigaom, 7April, accessed 18 April 2013, <https://www.diigo.com/bookmark/http%3A%2F%2Fgigaom.com%2F2013%2F04%2F07%2Fwe-need-a-data-democracy-not-a-benevolent-data-dictatorship%2F%3Futm_medium%3Dreferral%26utm_source%3Dpulsenews?tab=people&uname=andersand>>.
Latour, B. 2005, Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory, e-book, accessed 18 April 2013, <http://dss-edit.com/plu/Latour_Reassembling.pdf>.
Murphie, A. 2013, Lecture Week 5—(The Senses), Mixed Realities, lecture notes, accessed 18 April 2013, <http://www.andrewmurphie.org/3091/lecture-notes/#lectures-week-5-6>.
Opsahl, K. & Reitman, R. 2013, ‘The Disconcerting Details: How Facebook Teams Up With Data Brokers to Show You Targeted Ads’, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 22 April, accessed 18 April 2013, <https://www.diigo.com/bookmark/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F04%2Fdisconcerting-details-how-facebook-teams-data-brokers-show-you-targeted-ads?tab=people&uname=andersand>.
Rogers, S. 2011, ‘Data journalism at the Guardian: what is it and how do we do it?’, The
Guardian, 28 July, accessed 18 April 2013, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/28/data-journalism>>.
Quilts-Harper, C. 2010, ’10 ways data is changing how we live’, The Telegraph, 25 August, accessed 18 April 2013, <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/7963311/10-ways-data-is-changing-how-we-live.html>.
No comments:
Post a Comment