A Million Prisoners and A Billion Dollars

<-- Working Draft -->

In the late 1700s, the English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, designed an architecturally advanced schema for prisons, and called it the "Panopticon" - the ability to see all in a single view. This design allowed a solitary guard to keep an eye on each prisoner's potential for negative behaviour. Unique to the architecture of the guard's tower and the cells, prisoners could never know if the guard was surveying them. Hence, assuming that they were being watched at all times, prisoners would keep a check on their conduct, thus effectively maintaining discipline.

Fast forward to the 21st century: Natalie Fleming, a 26-year old London-based professional, would often indulge in 'web-window-shopping', occasionally making online purchases. However, she would notice that her paper mail would triple in the weeks following her online purchases. With commercial offers ranging from discounts on her favourite brands, to cosmetic samples specific to her skin tone; the advertising literature would almost uncomfortably be spot-on. (The Times)

Bentham's Panopticon and target marketing - the two outwardly individual phenomena are derivatives of a singular mechanism: surveillance.

The Panopticon approach evaluated the possibility of the prisoner engaging in undesirable behaviour. Accordingly it surveyed, grouped and numbered prisoners, so as to avoid such behaviour. The aim was to regulate a social institution to produce disciplined and "predictable" citizens - surveillance for a desired outcome.
Internet based 'personalization' services contrive methods of information gathering and compiling personal data of Internet users into economic profiles. A sifted dataset of "predictable" netizens is then produced and labelled as economically viable consumers - a group to be targeted for a desired outcome.

Internet tools such as DoubleClick Dart, Atlast AMT, MatchLogic, AdKnowledge, and Mediaplex have been giving marketing organizations the tools to customize Internet marketing through the tactical positioning of online promotions. The promise is to communicate the correct message to the right audience. Technology has enabled these marketing entities to spot, group, and analyse potential buyers in order to avoid uncertainty in introducing new products and services; much as what the Panopticon did for the guards in avoiding uncertainty in prisoners' behaviour.

In the consumerist Panopticon that is our Internet today, we have subjected ourselves to believing that disclosure of our personal information will grant us greater access to goods and services. The netizen has been conditioned to assume that unless he exposes his private life to the peering eyes of the Internet salesman, he will be reprimanded with exclusion from the goodies of the bazaar. This has resulted in the commodification of privacy, where we see an epistemological shift towards 'self-surveillance'.

"The participation of the consumer in surveillance or self-surveillance has partially been accomplished through the re-conceptualization of privacy in the consumer's mind, from a right or civil liberty, to that of a commodity which can be exchanged for perceived benefits", says Simon Davies, Director, Privacy International.

The Opinion Research Corporation Survey, 1999, stated that 87% of the Internet users considered it not illegitimate for marketers to gather information about online consumer preferences for statistical analysis of buyer behaviour. A massive 79% agreed to banner ads on their computers for receiving benefits or free services on websites. And 59% approved of their email being passed on to partner companies to receive relevant promotions. We see that the markets have created a sense of ?losing out? sentiment in the consumer, should they not submit to panoptic surveillance. Users have been converted to believe that they will win pots of gold for trading their privacy with marketing entities.

Consumer surveillance on the Internet is an inequitable technology created to influence mass consumption. The extreme ramifications of the discriminatory use of this technology are that it cuts the socio-economic landscape into the have's and the have not's, excluding individuals because they do not form part of a profile or category. In peddling our privacy to corporations, we are reducing ourselves to mere numbers and figures, making ourselves vulnerable to external manipulation of our consumption patterns.

Electronic panoptic powers have been operating behind and within our social and economic institutions, augmenting our reality to influence our behaviour and preferences. As boundaries between the real and virtual spheres of life continue to blur, these powers will continue to grow. It is the law and technology that will jointly need to thwart this growth. And that is when we will break free from the Panopticon.