Cell phones, Social media, and the problem of identity
Our mobile phones are a part of us now. What’s on the inside & outside of our phone is a part of ourselves. Vincent Miller (2008) wrote a critical analysis titled “Cell phones, Social media, and the problem of identity”. Miller explains how young adults view their cell phones as an extension of themselves. He also explains how young people use social media to present a version of themselves that they desire.
What was once simply a digital device is now more personal to us than ever. The content of what’s on our phone is deemed as private & we use it as our personal day to day gadget to help navigate through our day. Miller suggests that young people view their phone as part of their commercial identity, as phones now contain all our information & personal data. Mobile phones also include all our social media profiles on them.
But how did it lead to this? When did people become so attached to their phones? Marcia (1992) considers puberty to be stage of construction in the course of identity formation. Therefore, devices such as the internet, digital media & our mobile phones can influence identity construction. Previous research has found that identity status can be related to internet use, music taste & television viewing. Today’s smart phones include all the above therefore it would be logical to suggest that the usage of smartphones can construct a young person’s self-identity.
Miller suggests that today’s society consists of individualism which in result causes people to be less social & feel isolated. Mobile phones enable people to connect with others and to ameliorate the loneliness & sense of separation many people feel in today’s society. Miller talks about a futurologist Howard Rheingold, who visited tech-advanced Tokyo in the early 2000’s. “I began to notice people on the streets of Tokyo staring at their mobile phones instead of talking to them. . . . on subway trains, large numbers of people were focused on their cell phones”. Mobile phones enable people to deal with awkward or uncomfortable situations in public & avoid social interaction, for e.g being on a packed subway train.
The model of the mobile phone can, from a semiotic perspective, be used as a signifier as to how the individual chooses to present their socioeconomic status. Certain brands such as the iPhone are seen a fashion statement & deemed as trendy.
In relation to the government tracking people’s mobile phones, the explanations above are why most people do not feel comfortable with mobile phone surveillance. As the government would consider intercepting the publics personal messages & phone calls as public safety procedure, in a time where threats to public safety are at risk. Despite that, many people still feel like their privacy & a part of themselves has been violated when the government, companies, websites track any sort of personal data from their phone.
It’s safe to say, our phones are now us.
References:
__________________________________________________________
Vice News
The police are tracking our messages & phone calls. Vice News made a short documentary about how the police & the state are tracking the general publics messages & phone calls using surveillance technology. However, Vice reports that there is a black market for these same surveillance devices, and individuals are illegally buying them, as thousands of people’s private information is at risk.
The device used to do this is called an IMSI catcher, a portable surveillance tool that can monitor thousands of mobile phones at a time. It intercepts calls & messages from mobile phones nearby to the device. As our phones are becoming more & more part of our identity, what’s inside it has become a part of our private identity. Most people don’t feel comfortable with knowing the government are going through our phones as they feel like they are exposed to a private part of themselves.
It is thought that the UK police have IMSI catchers to help them identify serious criminals, also for public security reasons in case of the threat of terrorism. However, there has been no clear statement given to the public as to why these devices are being used or about the issues of privacy. When Vice tried to speak to police officers about ISMI catchers, they all of them refused to comment, almost as if they have all been told specifically not to talk about these devices to the public.
However, Vice found out there is a black market IMSI catchers, mainly being imported from China, into the hands of individuals of the general public. Privacy campaigners are extremely worried about this, as it a threat to publics personal data & can be used for serious harm such as fraud. What can happen if these devices are put in to the wrong hands?
Vice got in touch with MP David Davis and asked him about his opinion of the use of IMSI catchers. Davis believed that “eventually somebody will mis-use it, it may not be the government, it may be a fraudster”. However, Vice using an MP who previously campaigned for issues surrounding the privacy of data, may be bias opinion. This means Vice’s report could potentially be case of fear mongering, over an issue that isn’t particularly a threat to the average citizen. Yes, it is true that these devices are out there, but how many of them are in the hands of average citizens? How easy are they to obtain?
Vice News got in touch with an individual from China, who offered to sell them an ISMI catcher. The Vice reporter pretended to be a private business owner who is interested in buying the device. The seller didn’t seem to ask if they were apart of a police department or government officials. Vice news clearly re-assures the salesman “We are not police, we are not the state” via a skype phone call. The seller then replies by saying “That’s no problem, you need to assure us that your using it legally”.
Why police use IMSI catchers has not been clearly stated yet by any officials. However, Vice News confirmed by speaking to a surveillance company who sells IMSI catchers in France that UK police are indeed clients of theirs. How easy is it for members of the general public to get a hold of these devices is the real question? How far is the black market going to grow before officials begin to crack down on it? All we know is that these devices are out there & we walk past them every day.
__________________________________________________________
THEY’RE WATCHING YOU
Britain the most CCTV surveillance cameras in the world. More than 6 million CCTV cameras. We are 1% of the world’s population but have 20% of the world’s CCTV cameras says the BBC. This makes many of us feel uncomfortable and feel as if our privacy has been invaded. However, is there a propaganda against CCTV that has us over-reacting about this?
RT news claims that the government not only watches us via CCTV, but now surveillances all electronic communication as well, including social media. “What you say in calls & messages won’t be kept, but the government will know who you speak to, when & where”. This is apparently due to Anti-Terror legislations. With the threat to national security at risk, this seems to be the governments justification for this level of surveillance.
It almost seems like every news report about surveillance tends to suggest that we are heading towards an evil ‘Big Brother’ state, where we are controlled by the government and have no privacy in anything we do. However, how is this a bad thing? Is it really violating our rights as many would believe?
In a news report by the BBC, they constantly bombard us with numbers & statistics that remind us of how much tax payers’ money is being spent, & how many cameras are watching us. They claim that in total councils have spent over half a billion pounds on CCTV over the past four years. Birmingham council spent £14 million since 2007, the borough of Westminster spent £11.8 million, Leeds £8.8 million.
Maybe this is an attempt of fear mongering? Or are they trying to simply inform & educate the public of what their tax money is being spent on? Either way all these numbers & statistics are alarming to most & leave many with the questions; Why are the watching us? & is it even beneficial for our society?
The BBC continue by claiming that the amount of money councils spent on CCTV cameras since 2007, could have covered the wages of 4121 police officers. Isn’t there more effective ways of deterring criminals’ other cameras? Such as more bobbies on the beat, more funds put towards our police?
There seems to be an over all bleak outlook that the media attempts to feed to the public, regarding this ‘surveillance state’. However, the reason why people are so concerned about being watched by higher powers who could possibly protect you is not discussed enough in these news reports. If we have nothing to hide, why are we concerned? Or, in contrast, why are we not concerned enough?
A man being interviewed by the BBC in the report says “It doesn’t particularly make him feel any safer, more like he’s being watched”. A woman says “She doesn’t mind”, she continues to explain how as long as it makes the street’s safer, if somebody attack’s her they are more likely to be caught afterwards. Interesting how she says, “caught afterwards”, rather than deterring from the person to commit the crime in the first place. The question is, does CCTV deter criminals? Many believe it doesn’t, as crime rates are still rising in many areas in the UK since 2010.
__________________________________________________________
Hackers, or Artists?
Paolo Cardullo (Sniffing the City: Issues of Sousveillance in Inner City London, 2013) wrote an interesting article about a series of art workshops ran by hackers. In the article, Cardullo describes how hacked CCTV footage, was used to form a story of the working class.
The ‘hacktivist’ collective hacked into CCTV across south East London, using the footage to create an interesting short film showing everyday life in Deptford. The collective call themselves ‘Deptford TV’ who are in collaboration with CUCR at Goldsmiths.
Using digital signal receivers, without permission or consent the group hacked CCTV material of private businesses, and public areas across Deptford. The footage was used to show realistic portrait of the everyday hustle & bustle of inner-city London.
Of course, Cardullo mentions the ethical concerns of consent & breaking the law. He explains that there are complicated grey areas regarding this. He goes on to explain how CCTV footage of private business are supposedly ‘semi-public’ spaces, rather than private. Using this as a reason to suggest that the hacking of the high street businesses CCTV is not as immoral as many would argue.
Cardullo also suggests that regardless of the lack of consent, the participants remain anonymous as you can hardly see their faces due to the camera positioning and poor quality.
However, the question of what happens to the huge amount of CCTV recorded material & who watches us that we are not aware of can arise whilst reading the article. If this group can hack into public & private CCTV, who else can?!
Regardless of this, the film shows CCTV footage of corner shops, hairdressers, take-aways, halal butchers and more high street shops. Beautifully montaged together, showing the everyday lives of the involuntary participants.
The film beautifully displays the vibrance of the cultural melting pot which Deptford is. The film aims to celebrate working class culture, community as well as the diversity & enrichment in which the area offers.
The areas diverse demographic is visible around the busy high street shops & market stalls. Serving a mostly local clientele of African-Caribbean’s, Chinese & white British (Back and Lyon 2012). Showing the people of Deptford, in their habitat, completely unaware they are being recorded by hackers.
Cardullo also mentions how the area’s working-class community is under threat of gentrification. “It’s working-class residents are undergoing unprecedented levels of ‘exclusionary’ and ‘indirect’ displacement due to speculation in the residential housing market, to creation of new shops and services which foreground a different set of consumers preferences and lifestyle” (pp.6). Therefore, celebrating the existing working-class diverse community, is important.
Cardullo highlights how the narrative of gentrification tends to not value the existing working-class community, and that their displaced community remains regardless of regeneration of the area. Cardullo argues that short films like this are valuable as “the embeddedness and groundedness of visual representations can instead help to reposition peoples lives”, emphasising the value that the working class hold within society.
Cardullo’s article highlights the key reasons as to why the workshops took place. Which is to celebrate the working-class community under threat of gentrification. But to also highlight the issue of privacy in a society watched by camera surveillance. Also, the overall issue of personal information & data of the public not being protected. Cardullo explains how especially in the working-class community, who cannot afford high-security CCTV, are subject to having ethical concerns violated. The issue of CCTV relates to a bigger scale issue. That is of the working class not having the resources to combat against bigger ethical issues, such as gentrification.
CCTV and surveillance 