(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Imagine the position of women in relation to their husbands in a society where husbands have legalized power over their wives – for example, power to decide where they can appear publicly, who they can interact with, what church they can belong to, and so on. And then imagine a woman whose husband worships her the way Torvald worships Nora in Ibsen Et dukkehjem, and give her carte blanche – He actually lets her do what she wants within the intuitive room of personal freedom.
Hit, but no longer. Is Nora free when she is granted freedom of choice within this sphere thanks to Torvald's spaciousness? Not at all. Admittedly, Nora can do as she pleases within this room of action, but she can only do as she pleases because Torvald lets her do as she pleases. She is dependent on his will to be able to act as she pleases – so that is his will when it comes to acting. Like a horse that gets long out – to use an old metaphor – she can get free rein. But it is Torvald who sits in the hall and who can tighten the reins at any time.
If you accept these considerations about freedom, there is a lot to be learned – not least in the new field of digital communication.
Individual targeting. We receive advertisements related to choices we have made in the past, and everyone is now aware that the companies we rely on to get certain services have the tools needed to make us individual targets to notice our movements, and in principle to interfere with and characterize our lives. The companies thus have the opportunity to punish us for penal use of the Internet – for example by imposing financial restrictions (fining us) if it can be shown that we are using our funds carelessly. And they can give the authorities access to monitor us in connection with possible suspicious activities.
The benevolence of despotism does not remove despotism – the benevolence of the big brother does not remove the power they have.
Being exposed to the possibility of interference in this way means that in the personal sphere of freedom – as we have imagined it – we are not really free. We do not need to be subject to any of the punitive reactions we may be subjected to. But as in the case of Nora and Torvald, the possibility that we can become that in itself is enough to compromise our freedom.
The other's benevolence. We avoid the potential interference of our digital providers only as long as they are willing to be magnificent. We depend on their benevolence – as Nora relies on Torvalds – to release their interference. We are not granted their non-interference or restraint as a robust, enforceable right, as true freedom requires. We depend on their willingness to give us this good.
Does it matter that there are many companies operating in this field – not just a monopoly company – and that we can use our consumer power by leaving one company and moving to another? No, it does not. None of the companies offer us personal security against their ability to make us the target. None of them have any incentive to offer such security because their ability to make us the target is crucial to attracting commercial advertising.
It is true that there is no single company that can play a role like George Orwell's Big Brother. But together, the companies form a big brotherhood. To say that we have the opportunity to change company is like saying to Nora – if divorce had been an alternative i A doll's home the world – that she can always leave Torvald for a life under the power of another husband.
Can we take comfort in the fact that none of these companies have any particular interest in using their meddling power against us – at least not in many areas? Not really. Many areas are not all areas, and a likely incentive is not a stable incentive. In addition, this power actually exists a problem, regardless of how it is used. Just as the benevolence of a despot does not remove despotism – in the case of both Torvalds and a public ruler – neither does the "benevolence of" the big brotherhood's power.
The problem of criminals? But can we take comfort in the fact that we do not actually behave in a way that can trigger the punitive sanctions available to the "brothers"? We do not make penal choices, we do not waste our funds, we do not make suspicious contacts? No, we can't.
One reason is that while it may be commendable not to act in a way that can subject us to punishment, it does not mean that it is right to be forced to act in a commendable manner in a free society. Being forced to be virtuous – if virtue is in the picture – is not a good social policy. And it's not good for the soul either. Trying to reinforce virtue with the threat of consequences can replace virtue with undue caution and self-censorship.
We rely on the good-will of the big brotherhood – as Nora relies on Torvalds – to avoid interference with our life experiences.
The other reason why we cannot take comfort in the fact that we are compliant types that hardly stimulate any kind of punishment is because there can always be misunderstandings. Even if we behave extremely cautiously, we can still be identified by mistake and actually be prosecuted. Just as with all powerful regulatory measures, the digital regime represents a problem for those who coordinate as well as for those who do not.
The Brotherhood sees you. The digital regime has brought CCTV cameras into our homes and offices. And this has far more frightening implications than surveillance cameras in our streets. Digital CCTV is connected to us individually; regular CCTV is not connected to anyone in particular. Digital CCTV keeps an eye on us and makes it possible to chart our behavior; Regular CCTV maps behavior – especially criminal behavior – and allows those responsible to be tracked only after such behavior has occurred.
What about freedom? The digital challenge is sometimes presented as a matter of privacy. But that is to underestimate the problem, as we now see it. We experience a loss of privacy every time we are exposed to the eyes of others in a presumptively personal sphere, even though what these "others" see does not result in any power over us. What we are exposed to in relation to the big brotherhood is not only exposure to an intruder look, but also exposure to a look that is both powerful and invading. Not only is this exposure likely to compromise our privacy – it also compromises our freedom.
The article is reproduced with permission and was original
published on IAI News:
http://www.iai.tv/articles
