Some of the world's most powerful corporations practise what Shoshana Zuboff (2015; 2019) calls ‘surveillance capitalism’. The core of their business is harvesting, analysing and selling data about the people who use their products. In Zuboff's view, the first corporation to engage in surveillance capitalism was Google, followed by Facebook; recently, firms such as Microsoft and Amazon have pivoted towards such a model. In this paper, I suggest that Karl Marx's analysis of the relations between industrial (...) capitalists and workers is closely analogous to the relations between surveillance capitalists and users. Furthermore, three problematic aspects of industrial capitalism that Marx describes – alienation, exploitation and accumulation – are also aspects, in new forms, of surveillance capitalism. I draw heavily on Zuboff's work to make these parallels. However, my Marx-inspired account of surveillance capitalism differs from hers over the nature of the exchange between users and surveillance capitalists. For Zuboff, this is akin either to robbery or the gathering of raw materials; on the Marx-inspired account it is a voluntary sale. This difference has important implications for the question of how to resist surveillance capitalism. -/- Joint winner of the 2020 Philosophy essay prize. (shrink)

The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, by Shoshana Zuboff. London: Profile Books, 2019, 704 p.

In this paper, I argue that surveillance capitalism and computational propaganda can undermine democratic equality. First, I argue that two types of resources are relevant for democratic equality: 1) free time, which entails time that is free from systemic surveillance, and 2) epistemic resources. In order for everyone in a democratic system to be equally capable of full political participation, it’s a minimum requirement that these two resources are distributed fairly. But AI that’s used for surveillance (...) capitalism can undermine the fair distribution of these resources, thereby threatening democracy. I further argue that computational propaganda undermines the democratic aim of collective self-determination by normalizing relations of domination and thereby disrupting the equal standing of persons. I conclude by considering some potential solutions. (shrink)

There is increasing concern about “surveillance capitalism,” whereby for-profit companies generate value from data, while individuals are unable to resist (Zuboff 2019). Non-profits using data-enabled surveillance receive less attention. Higher education institutions (HEIs) have embraced data analytics, but the wide latitude that private, profit-oriented enterprises have to collect data is inappropriate. HEIs have a fiduciary relationship to students, not a narrowly transactional one (see Jones et al, forthcoming). They are responsible for facets of student life beyond education. (...) In addition to classrooms, learning management systems, and libraries, HEIs manage dormitories, gyms, dining halls, health facilities, career advising, police departments, and student employment. HEIs collect and use student data in all of these domains, ostensibly to understand learner behaviors and contexts, improve learning outcomes, and increase institutional efficiency through “learning analytics” (LA). ID card swipes and Wi-Fi log-ins can track student location, class attendance, use of campus facilities, eating habits, and friend groups. Course management systems capture how students interact with readings, video lectures, and discussion boards. Application materials provide demographic information. These data are used to identify students needing support, predict enrollment demands, and target recruiting efforts. These are laudable aims. However, current LA practices may be inconsistent with HEIs’ fiduciary responsibilities. HEIs often justify LA as advancing student interests, but some projects advance primarily organizational welfare and institutional interests. Moreover, LA advances a narrow conception of student interests while discounting privacy and autonomy. Students are generally unaware of the information collected, do not provide meaningful consent, and express discomfort and resigned acceptance about HEI data practices, especially for non-academic data (see Jones et al. forthcoming). The breadth and depth of student information available, combined with their fiduciary responsibility, create a duty that HEIs exercise substantial restraint and rigorous evaluation in data collection and use. (shrink)

As civil liberties are shredded and powerful corporate and political force engage in a range of legal illegalities, the state itself becomes a model for corruption and violence. Violence has become not only the foundation of corporate sovereignty, it has also become the ideological scaffolding of common sense. Under casino capitalism, the state has become the enemy of justice and offers a prototype for types of misguided rebellion that mimic the lawlessness enshrined by corporate sovereignty and the repressive state (...) apparatuses. Under such circumstances, the force of action does not reside in deliberation, compassion, justice, equality and freedom. The state of exception has become the rule serving to legitimate illegality and normalizing violence and force as the only mediating dynamic worth utilizing to solve problems. In addition, subjectivity itself has become both hyper-masculinized, transformed, and subordinated to the celebration of an aggressive, violent and hyper-competitive war machine. Evidence of the hardening of the culture and the ongoing visibility of a pathological form of hyper-masculinity abounds in polices that amount to a permanent war on the poor, women, immigrants, workers, public servants, Muslims, poor minorities and those adults marginalized by class and race. Casino capitalism's paranoiac and increasingly repressive institutional and ideological apparatuses live in fear of dissent, critical rationality and the possibility of collective struggles moved by the desire for justice and a radical democracy. This is precisely where questions about education and resistance connect to broader debates about producing critical agents capable of acting as engaged and responsible citizens in a substantive democracy. Neoliberalism, as a dominant ideology, changed not only ways of thinking, but, consequently, practices. Evidently, a process of transformation like the one imposed by the hegemony of neoliberal ideology does not take place without resistance-conscious or not-and here it is the role of the State (and its ideological apparatus) in the subjection of individuals. For Fisher, there is no element that shows that the public actually embraced neoliberal doctrines with enthusiasm. For Mark Fisher, capitalist realism is \\\"an expression of class decomposition, and a consequence of class disintegration\\\". The phenomenon resulting from this discontent that finds few ways to express itself that are not individual is named by Mark Fisher as the \\\"privatization of stress\\\", which easily converts into depression and other psychological suffering. Although both its neoliberal and neoconservative components are opposed to bureaucracy in favour of privatised decentralisation, in practice capitalist realism involves the normalisation of bureaucracy and the creation of additional and unnecessary labour. Although pyramidal hierarchies are flattened, the increase and establishment of constant communication through technology has led to people at the same level surveilling each other. (shrink)

The article introduces the concept of "surveillance-capitalist biopolitics" to problematize the recent expansion of "data extractivism" in health care and health research. As we show, this trend has accelerated during the ongoing Covid pandemic and points to a normalization and institutionalization of self-tracking practices, which, drawing on the "quantified self", points to the emergence of a "quantified collective". Referring to Foucault and Zuboff, and by analyzing key examples of the leading "Big Tech" companies (e.g., Alphabet and Apple), we argue (...) that contemporary forms of digital biopolitics are privatized, opaque, flexible, and not limited to the state. Instead, especially through the integration of wearable technologies, the biopolitical regulation of bodies is increasingly mediated by private tech companies. These companies rely on a questionable narrative of participation, responsibility, and care despite owning, and ultimately controlling, access to intimate health data and the proprietary algorithms mediating this data. The article shows that the proliferation of "surveillance-capitalist biopolitics" ultimately strengthens not only market power but also the epistemic and infrastructural power of the dataowning and gadget-producing firms. Finally, against an exclusively repressive and negative reading of biopolitics, and to effectively counter the forms of power emerging from surveillance-capitalist biopolitics, we propose four dimensions that are central to its democratizationnamely privacy/individual sovereignty, democratic deliberation, pluralism, and epistemic equality. -/- DOI: 10.1007/s41358-021-00309-9. (shrink)

Big data and predictive analytics applied to economic life is forcing individuals to choose between authenticity and freedom. The fact of the choice cuts philosophy away from the traditional understanding of the two values as entwined. This essay describes why the split is happening, how new conceptions of authenticity and freedom are rising, and the human experience of the dilemma between them. Also, this essay participates in recent philosophical intersections with Shoshana Zuboff’s work on surveillance capitalism, but the (...) investigation connects on the individual, ethical level as opposed to the more prevalent social and political interaction. (shrink)

Our technologically mediated world is dominated by tech giants. This impacts our freedom. The classic liberal conception of negative freedom can’t adequately address this impact. Freedom as non-interference doesn’t see how the potential power of these giants is making us less free, even if we are not aware of this power. This paper uses a neorepublican lens to look at our relationship with surveillance capitalists like Google and Facebook. Exploring three ways of framing this relationship, it argues that these (...) companies have an arbitrary form of control over us and demonstrates how this control impinges on our freedom from domination and erodes our democracy. (shrink)

The processes of computation and automation that produce digitized objects have displaced the concept of an image once conceived through optical devices such as a photographic plate or a camera mirror that were invented to accommodate the human eye. Computational images exist as information within networks mediated by machines. They are increasingly less about what art history understands as representation or photography considers indexing and more an operational product of data processing. Through genealogical, theoretical, and practice-based investigation, this dissertation project (...) traces a lineage of computation through images from early cybernetics to contemporary machine learning under algorithmic capitalist conditions of political economy. Objects include mundane examples such as smartphone cameras to sublime examples such as the imaging of black holes. It articulates new conditions and forms of perception and surveillance that result from contemporary technological development in computation. The project builds on theorists of computational media such as Friedrich Kittler, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Jussi Parikka, Shane Denson, and Alexander Galloway to examine the interplay between perception, computation, and epistemology. Further theoretical contribution builds on the work of Luciana Parisi and Jacques Ranciére’s articulation of aesthetics, and Michel Foucault’s gesture towards a heterotopia. Finally, it draws from Donna Haraway’s metaphors of the cyborg and sympoiesis to frame the capacity of art to transfigure the limitations of digital network culture into new possibilities for being. Here, it curates practices by Danielle Brathwaite-Shirley, Harun Farocki, Morehshin Allahyari, and Pierre Huyghe. (shrink)

From a socio-theoretical and media-theoretical perspective, this article analyses exemplary practices and structural characteristics of contemporary digital political campaigning to illustrate a transformation of the public sphere through the platform economy. The article first examines Cambridge Analytica and reconstructs its operational procedure, which, far from involving exceptionally new digital campaign practices, turns out to be quite standard. It then evaluates the role of Facebook as an enabling ‘affective infrastructure’, technologically orchestrating processes of political opinion-formation. Of special concern are various tactics (...) of ‘feedback propaganda’ and algorithmic-based user engagement that reflect, at a more theoretical level, the merging of surveillance-capitalist commercialization with a cybernetic logic of communication. The article proposes that this techno-economic dynamic reflects a continuation of the structural transformation of the public sphere. What Jürgen Habermas had analysed in terms of an economic fabrication of the public sphere in the 1960s is now advancing in a more radical form, and on a more programmatic basis, through the algorithmic architecture of social media. As the authors argue, this process will eventually lead to a new form of ‘infrastructural power’. (shrink)

The Philosophical Contribution of Kostas Axelos: The Issue of the Open System and Technological Civilization -/- Kostas Axelos (1924–2010) remains one of the most intriguing and underexplored figures in contemporary philosophy. His work, situated at the crossroads of Marxism, Heideggerian phenomenology, and the philosophy of technology, raises critical questions about the nature of modern civilization and the fate of thought in an increasingly technological world. One of the central academic issues in Axelos’ thought is his concept of the "open system," (...) which presents a radical alternative to both dialectical materialism and structuralism. This issue is especially relevant in our age of digital globalization and algorithmic governance, as it poses fundamental questions about the limits of human autonomy and the possibilities of thought in a technologically determined world. -/- The Open System: A Critique of Closed Philosophical Paradigms -/- Axelos’ notion of the "open system" challenges traditional metaphysical and epistemological assumptions that rely on closure, determinacy, and finality. Unlike Hegelian dialectics, which seeks resolution through synthesis, Axelos proposes a dynamic, ever-unfolding process that resists totalization. His critique extends to Marxist orthodoxy, which he argues falsely assumes a teleological closure in history. By advocating an open-ended view of reality, Axelos aligns himself with thinkers like Nietzsche and Heidegger, emphasizing a world in flux rather than one governed by fixed structures or ultimate goals. -/- This issue raises critical academic debates: How can philosophical thought remain relevant in an era dominated by technological systems that impose rigid structures on human existence? Is the "open system" a viable framework for understanding contemporary globalized societies, or does it risk devolving into an abstract and impractical relativism? -/- For Axelos, closed systems—whether philosophical, political, or scientific—seek to impose rigid frameworks that ultimately stifle thought and creativity. He sees Western metaphysical traditions as largely obsessed with categorization and finality, which leads to an artificial separation between subject and object, mind and world, theory and practice. In contrast, his "open system" embraces indeterminacy and fluidity, recognizing that reality is in perpetual motion and that any attempt to fix meaning within rigid boundaries leads to intellectual stagnation. -/- Axelos’ concept also engages with existentialist and phenomenological traditions, particularly in how it resists essentialist definitions of being. He challenges not only the dogmas of classical metaphysics but also structuralist tendencies that seek to analyze reality in terms of fixed codes and relationships. Instead, Axelos suggests that the world should be understood as a game (le jeu du monde), a process of continuous becoming where human existence is not predefined but rather shaped by the interactions of open-ended forces. This issue raises critical academic debates: How can philosophical thought remain relevant in an era dominated by technological systems that impose rigid structures on human existence? Is the "open system" a viable framework for understanding contemporary globalized societies, or does it risk devolving into an abstract and impractical relativism? Furthermore, how does Axelos' open system relate to contemporary discussions of complexity theory, cybernetics, and ecological thinking, all of which emphasize the interconnectedness and dynamism of systems? -/- A related issue in Axelos' work is his analysis of technological civilization. In Le Jeu du Monde (The Play of the World), he argues that technological advancement has not only transformed human existence but has also reshaped the very way we think and conceptualize reality. Technology, in Axelos’ view, is not merely a tool but a fundamental mode of being that structures our world and thought processes. -/- This raises significant academic concerns about autonomy, alienation, and the role of philosophy. If technology governs human thought as Axelos suggests, can there be genuine freedom in intellectual and political life? How does one resist technological determinism without retreating into romanticized notions of pre-technological existence? Axelos does not advocate for a rejection of technology but rather calls for a new form of thinking that embraces its presence while resisting its totalizing tendencies. -/- Axelos highlights the paradox of technological civilization: while it offers immense possibilities for connectivity, knowledge production, and efficiency, it also risks subordinating human creativity and autonomy to systemic logic. He critiques the way in which technology, rather than serving human purposes, increasingly dictates them—turning individuals into passive participants in a mechanized world. The dominance of algorithmic governance, artificial intelligence, and automation exemplifies the culmination of this technological destiny, raising profound concerns about the future of human agency. -/- Furthermore, Axelos’ thought resonates with contemporary debates about digital culture, surveillance capitalism, and the commodification of knowledge. As digital technologies reshape the nature of labor, communication, and governance, the question arises: To what extent can individuals maintain authentic engagement with the world when technological mediation defines nearly every aspect of existence? In this sense, Axelos anticipates concerns found in posthumanist and critical media theories, particularly regarding the erosion of subjectivity in the face of ever-expanding cybernetic systems. -/- Another crucial aspect of Axelos’ critique is the way in which technological civilization imposes a fragmented, instrumentalized view of knowledge. He challenges the reduction of thought to mere data-processing and the dominance of specialized, compartmentalized disciplines that fail to grasp the holistic nature of existence. By contrast, his open system philosophy encourages a mode of thinking that resists fragmentation and embraces a planetary perspective, one that acknowledges the interrelation of philosophy, science, politics, and art in an ever-evolving world. (shrink)

Silicon Valley pretende ofrecer un mundo de «soluciones» tecnológicas a problemas sociales complejos. Atentas a la desconfianza social sobre esa posibilidad, algunas empresas apuestan ahora por el metaverso, una realidad virtual en la que todo es fantasía: incluso las soluciones que promueven.

The central claim of this article is that post-truth requires a political and socio-economical perspective, rather than a moral or epistemological one. The article consists of two parts. The first part offers a critical examination of the dominant analyses of post-truth in terms of shifting standards of the origin and the evaluation of facts. Moreover, the claim that postmodernism is the cause of post-truth is examined and refuted. In the second part an alternative perspective is developed, centring around the notion (...) of gatekeepers. Rather than linking post-truth to bullshit and postmodernism, it should be understood as a symptom of a contemporary shift in the gatekeepers of truth and knowledge. Knowledge and truth are always mediated in society through the hands of gatekeeping institutions such as journalism or science. Post-truth is a symptom of a broader transformation of the gatekeeping institutions of our current society. It therefore requires a political philosophy of these institutional shifts and the new risks they involve. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on AI-based cognitive and perceptual enhancements. AI-based brain enhancements are already under development, and they may become commonplace over the next 30–50 years. We raise doubts concerning whether radical AI-based enhancements transhumanists advocate will accomplish the transhumanists goals of longevity, human flourishing, and intelligence enhancement. We urge that even if the technologies are medically safe and are not used as tools by surveillance capitalism or an authoritarian dictatorship, these enhancements may still fail to do their (...) job for philosophical reasons. In what follows, we explore one such concern, a problem that involves the nature of the self. We illustrate that the so called transhumanist efforts to “merge oneself with AI” could lead to perverse realizations of AI technology, such as the demise of the person who sought enhancement. And, in a positive vein, we offer ways to avoid this, at least within the context of one theory of the nature of personhood. (shrink)

According to the 2020 docudrama, The Social Dilemma, our very addiction to “social media” has, today, become encapsulated in the tensions between its facilitation as a mode of interpersonal communication and as an insidious conduit for machine learning, surveillance capitalism and manipulation. Amidst a variety of interviewees – many of whom are former employees of social media companies – the documentary finishes on a unanimous conclusion: something must change. By using the docudrama as a pertinent example of our (...) “social media malaise,” and while remaining aware of the problems and unethical practices encompassing international digital/social media companies, this paper will argue that we continually refrain from the very question(ing) that would call these companies to account: what does the algorithm desire? In approaching this question, this article will draw from Lacan’s ‘hysterical’ position in accordance with Robert Pfaller’s notion of interpassivity. Together, these concepts will be used to provide a psychoanalytic account of how our subjectivization in social media renders an unconscious endorsement that both frames our awareness of the dilemmas encompassing social media, while also positing an inherent limitation that may offer a possible path out of its impeding affects. This subjective ambivalence – delegated yet reluctantly disavowed – offers an opportunity to realign discussions on the lost object of desire (objet a) and its reproduction in social media algorithms. In so doing, the case will be made that an account of interpassivity can help lay bare the hysterical significance underscoring our digital subjectivization. (shrink)

Compartmentalizing our distinct personal identities is increasingly difficult in big data reality. Pictures of the person we were on past vacations resurface in employers’ Google searches; LinkedIn which exhibits our income level is increasingly used as a dating web site. Whether on vacation, at work, or seeking romance, our digital selves stream together. One result is that a perennial ethical question about personal identity has spilled out of philosophy departments and into the real world. Ought we possess one, unified identity (...) that coherently integrates the various aspects of our lives, or, incarnate deeply distinct selves suited to different occasions and contexts? At bottom, are we one, or many? The question is not only palpable today, but also urgent because if a decision is not made by us, the forces of big data and surveillance capitalism will make it for us by compelling unity. Speaking in favor of the big data tendency, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg promotes the ethics of an integrated identity, a single version of selfhood maintained across diverse contexts and human relationships. This essay goes in the other direction by sketching two ethical frameworks arranged to defend our compartmentalized identities, which amounts to promoting the dis-integration of our selves. One framework connects with natural law, the other with language, and both aim to create a sense of selfhood that breaks away from its own past, and from the unifying powers of big data technology. (shrink)

The paper outlines critical aspects concerning the increasing use of big data in agriculture and farming. In particular, the aim is to shed light on the emerging dominance of the platform economy in the field of agriculture and food production. To analyze those power structures shaping this dynamic, we start with brief observations on the general relationship between digitization and agriculture and explain the platform economy, its general business model, and the proprietary forms of market power emerging from it. Subsequently, (...) we analyze the implications of the involvement of platform-economic companies in the agricultural sector. To do so, we critically examine several key examples that illuminate the strategies and ultimate objectives of those key tech players involved in this transition––particularly, two of the most dominant cloud providers, Alphabet and Amazon. Finally, we identify the main problems that can potentially emerge, and that can already be observed, from Big Tech’s involvement in agriculture and food production: (1) epistemic asymmetry (2) the erosion of privacy (3) potential harms to smaller farms and farmers, and (4) systemic dependencies on a monopolist data infrastructure. As we argue, these four dimensions are not only essential to take into account, but they also ultimately need to be responded to politically. From a policy perspective, to maintain data justice and epistemic symmetry, and to avoid the risks highlighted, we suggest––next to stressing the need for critical scholarship––to establish a democratically governed data trust, rely on open source technology, and fundamentally commit to the principle of collective data sovereignty. -/- Keywords: big tech, data sovereignty, digital farming, digital agriculture, surveillance capitalism, platform economy. (shrink)

The article critically investigates various approaches to “smart” governance, from algorithmic regulation (O’Reilly), fluid technocracy (P. Khanna), “smart states” (Noveck), nudge theory (Thaler/ Sunstein) and social physics (Alex Pentland). It specifically evaluates the cybernetic origins of these approaches and interprets them as pragmatic actualisations of earlier cybernetic models of the state (Lang, Deutsch) against the current background of surveillance capitalism. The authors argue that cybernetic thinking rests on a reductive model of participation and a limited concept of “the (...) political” (whereby the systemic focus is on adaptive behaviour, stability and self-preservation instead of antagonism and dissensus). This limitation becomes particularly articulate in the aforementioned neocybernetic models of governance, and is even intensified in the contemporary monopolistic digital infrastructure. (shrink)

Apple CEO Tim Cook claimed in 2019 that his company’s greatest achievement will be “about health.” But the pandemic has shown that Big Tech’s involvement in health care is all about data collection.

Felix Maschewski und Anna-Verena Nosthoff untersuchen Facebook als Beispiel einer besonders eindringlichen Form „kybernetischer Gouvernementalität“ und nehmen das „soziale“ Netzwerk dazu als psychopolitisches System von Affekten und Aktivierungen in den Blick. Dabei analysieren sie v.a. die zugrundeliegende »Sozialphysik des Anstoßes« und ihre implizite kybernetische Logik, um den so forcierten (behavioristischen) Subjektbegriff zu beleuchten. In diesem Konnex wird nicht nur dargestellt, wie das gouvernementale Unternehmen qua feedbacklogischer Programmatik die Entscheidungen, das Verhalten oder gar die Wünsche seiner Nutzer_innen antizipiert und auf diese (...) Weise indirekt ‚regiert‘, sondern auch, welche Konsequenzen die konsumtive Plattformlogik für das Politische selbst zeitigt. Letztlich zeigt sich, dass digitale Apparaturen entgegen dem insb. im Silicon Valley populären Narrativ von einer technologischen Neutralität keineswegs bloße Mittel, sondern zuallererst Machtinstrumente sind. (shrink)

In his 2018 essay Down to Earth, the French philosopher Bruno Latour proposes a hypothesis that connects a number of contemporary issues, ranging from climate denialism to deregulation and growing inequality. While his hypothesis, namely that the elites act as if they live in another world and are leaving the rest of the world behind, might seem like a conspiracy theory, I will argue that there is a way to make sense of it. To do so, I will turn to (...) two other authors, Timothy Mitchell and Shoshana Zuboff, to highlight the kind of logic that Latour seems to have in mind. In the final section, I will propose to capture the commonalities of these authors through the concept of shifting reciprocities and will return to Latour’s political plea to define one’s territories, reinterpreted as reciprocities. (shrink)

This paper argues, against the prevailing view, that consent to privacy policies that regular internet users usually give is largely unproblematic from the moral point of view. To substantiate this claim, we rely on the idea of the right not to know (RNTK), as developed by bioethicists. Defenders of the RNTK in bioethical literature on informed consent claim that patients generally have the right to refuse medically relevant information. In this article we extend the application of the RNTK to online (...) privacy. We then argue that if internet users can be thought of as exercising their RNTK before consenting to privacy policies, their consent ought to be considered free of the standard charges leveled against it by critics. (shrink)

The 2010s were a golden age of information privacy research, but its policy accomplishments tell a mixed story. Despite significant progress on the development of privacy theory and compelling demonstrations of the need for privacy in practice, real achievements in privacy law and policy have been, at best, uneven. In this chapter, I outline three broad shifts in the way scholars (and, to some degree, advocates and policy makers) are approaching privacy and social media. First, a change in emphasis from (...) individual to structural approaches. Second, increasing attention to the political economy of privacy—especially the business models of information companies, such as social media platforms. And third, a deeper understanding of privacy’s role in a healthy digital public sphere. (shrink)

According to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, big data reality means, “The days of having a different image for your co-workers and for others are coming to an end, which is good because having multiple identities represents a lack of integrity.” Two sets of questions follow. One centers on technology and asks how big data mechanisms collapse our various selves (work-self, family-self, romantic-self) into one personality. The second question set shifts from technology to ethics by asking whether we want the kind of (...) integrity that Zuckerberg lauds, and that big data technology enables. The negative response is explored by sketching three ethical conceptions of selfhood that recommend personal identity be understood as dis-integrating. The success of the strategies partially depends upon an undermining use of big data platforms. (shrink)

Podstawowym celem artykułu jest przybliżenie dyskursu wokół możliwości regulacji gospodarki współdzielenia (ang. sharing economy) oraz omówienie potencjalnych instrumentów polityki publicznej, które mogą służyć do ograniczenia negatywnych skutków rozwoju tego systemu gospodarczego. Artykuł w pierwszej kolejności przybliża rozumienie koncepcji regulacji i régulation oraz omawia związki gospodarki współdzielenia z koncepcją współzarządzania cyfrowego. Następnie po przybliżeniu wybranych pozytywnych i negatywnych efektów gospodarki współdzielenia wskazane zostają wybrane instrumenty regulacyjne. W podsumowaniu wskazano na możliwe kierunki dalszych badań.

This literature review explores the issues and risks in non-conscious data collection and evaluates people’s attitudes towards it. In the modern world, data is one of the most valuable resources, yet studies focused on the potential negative implications of the new data-driven technologies are lacking. Therefore, this thesis conducts a comprehensive literature review to identify and assess risks in non-conscious data collection technologies that are most relevant and referenced in current literature. Accordingly, the most prominent risks are related to privacy (...) issues with personal data, bias in algorithms creating inequality, and the difficulties in creating adequate legislation. Subsequently, the thesis will explore existing studies about people’s attitudes towards non-conscious data collection and examine the most significant socio-demographic determinants of those attitudes. Therefore, despite socio-demographic factors such as age, gender, and economic status affecting the attitudes people have towards data collection technologies, this thesis argues how these approaches can be explained by varying external factors such as prior experiences with similar technologies. (shrink)

Throughout the 20th century, market capitalism was defended on parallel grounds. First, it promotes freedom by enabling individuals to exploit their own property and labor-power; second, it facilitates an efficient allocation and use of resources. Recently, however, both defenses have begun to unravel—as capitalism has moved into its “platform” phase. Today, the pursuit of allocative efficiency, bolstered by pervasive data surveillance, often undermines individual freedom rather than promoting it. And more fundamentally, the very idea that markets are (...) necessary to achieve allocative efficiency has come under strain. Even supposing, for argument’s sake, that the claim was true in the early 20th century when von Mises and Hayek pioneered it, advances in computing have rekindled the old “socialist calculation” debate. And this time around, markets—as information technology—are unlikely to have the upper hand. -/- All of this, we argue, raises an important set of governance questions regarding the political economy of the future. We focus on two: How much should our economic system prioritize freedom, and to what extent should it rely on markets? The arc of platform capitalism bends, increasingly, toward a system that neither prioritizes freedom nor relies on markets. And the dominant critical response, exemplified by Shoshana Zuboff’s work, has been to call for a restoration of market capitalism. Longer term, however, we believe it would be more productive to think about how “postmarket” economic arrangements might promote freedom—or better yet, autonomy—even more effectively than markets, and to determine the practical steps necessary to realize that possibility. (shrink)

I develop a socialist republican conception of economic liberty and show how it can be used to understand the domination of workers. It holds that both paid and unpaid workers can be deprived of economic freedom when they are exposed to an arbitrary power to undermine their access to the economic capabilities needed for civic equality. Measures intended to reduce domination are recommended, including public ownership of productive property, workplace democracy, and robust unconditional basic income and services. Finally, I discuss (...) the implications of this approach for platform capitalism, digital surveillance, the rise of automation, and post-work politics. (shrink)

-/- Perfect Hierarchy of Systems in Human Societies -/- 1. Individual Level (Micro-System) -/- The foundation of human society starts with the individual, whose well-being and decision-making influence all higher systems. -/- 1.1 Biological System 1.2 The body operates under homeostasis, requiring proper nutrition, healthcare, and an environment that supports physical well-being. -/- Balanced biological functioning ensures optimal decision-making and productivity. -/- 1.3 Cognitive System 1.4 The mind functions based on knowledge, beliefs, emotions, and rational thinking. -/- Critical thinking and (...) self-awareness prevent ignorance and misinformation from corrupting decisions. -/- 1.3 Behavioral System -/- Shaped by upbringing, education, experiences, and cultural influences. -/- The law of balance ensures responsible behavior in society, avoiding excesses of selfishness or self-sacrifice. -/- 1.5 Moral & Ethical System 1.6 Ethical responsibility is guided by an understanding of natural law and justice. -/- Actions should be aligned with fairness, accountability, and sustainability. -/- 2. Family & Community Level (Meso-System) -/- The family and local communities serve as the fundamental units of collective human behavior, shaping individual values and actions. -/- 2.1 Family System 2.2 The first school of knowledge, morality, and survival skills. -/- Balanced parenting ensures the transmission of wisdom without dogmatic control or neglect. -/- 2.3 Local Community System 2.4 A network of families cooperating for shared resources, culture, and social support. -/- Ensures mutual protection, aid, and education at the grassroots level. -/- 2.3 Economic Micro-System -/- Small businesses, local trade, and informal economies sustain livelihoods. -/- The economy should be self-sufficient, avoiding excessive reliance on external forces. -/- 2.5 Cultural & Religious System 2.6 Preserves traditions, beliefs, and values that align with natural balance. -/- Must avoid rigid dogmas that create conflict or impede progress. -/- 3. Institutional Level (Organizational Systems) -/- Institutions formalize society’s essential functions, ensuring collective stability and growth. -/- 3.1 Educational System 3.2 A holistic education that teaches the law of balance, critical thinking, and practical skills. -/- Free from misinformation, propaganda, and outdated doctrines. -/- 3.3 Healthcare System 3.4 Ensures physical and mental well-being through preventive and curative measures. -/- Should not be profit-driven but focused on collective well-being. -/- 3.3 Economic System -/- A balance between production, distribution, and consumption. -/- Avoids economic extremes such as monopolies, overconsumption, and artificial scarcity. -/- 3.5 Justice & Legal System 3.6 Laws are created and enforced based on fairness, equity, and rational governance. -/- Prevents corruption, abuse of power, and unjust punishments. -/- 3.5 Media & Information System -/- Prevents misinformation, black propaganda, and manipulation of public perception. -/- Should be structured to inform, educate, and unify societies without bias. -/- 4. National Level (Macro-System) -/- A well-balanced nation ensures peace, progress, and harmony between institutions and the people. -/- 4.1 Government System 4.2 Leadership must be based on the law of balance, ensuring holistic governance. -/- Power must be distributed to prevent dictatorship or excessive bureaucracy. -/- 4.3 National Defense & Security System 4.4 Protects from internal and external threats while ensuring peace. -/- Should focus on strategic deterrence, not unnecessary militarization. -/- 4.3 National Economic System -/- Policies must regulate wealth distribution, prevent inflation, and ensure sustainable development. -/- Should prevent over-reliance on unstable markets or exploitative labor. -/- 4.5 Environmental System 4.6 Laws that ensure the protection of natural resources and ecosystems. -/- Prevents industrial overexploitation, deforestation, and pollution. -/- 4.5 Social Welfare System -/- Provides safety nets for vulnerable populations (e.g., poor, disabled, elderly). -/- Ensures equal opportunity, reducing poverty and crime rates. -/- 5. Global Level (Meta-System) -/- Nations must cooperate to maintain balance at an international scale. -/- 5.1 International Governance System 5.2 Organizations like the UN should enforce global peace and cooperative policies. -/- Must be restructured to ensure fairness and prevent dominance by any single nation. -/- 5.3 Global Economic System 5.4 Equitable trade agreements, fair wealth distribution, and sustainable globalization. -/- Prevents exploitative capitalism and unfair economic dependency. -/- 5.3 Environmental & Ecological System -/- Global efforts to address climate change, deforestation, and biodiversity loss. -/- Shared responsibility in ensuring a sustainable planet. -/- 5.5 Artificial Intelligence & Technological System 5.6 AI must be programmed according to the law of balance, ensuring it serves humanity. -/- Should prevent misuse in warfare, surveillance, or economic control. -/- 5.5 Human Rights & Ethical System -/- Ensures universal human dignity, equality, and freedom. -/- Should be free from political bias, economic interest, and ideological extremism. -/- 6. Cosmic Level (Ultimate System) -/- Humanity must recognize its place within the greater universe and maintain balance in exploration and philosophy. -/- 6.1 Philosophical & Existential System 6.2 Scientific and spiritual integration in understanding human existence. -/- Avoiding nihilism, dogmatism, or extremist ideologies. -/- 6.3 Interplanetary & Cosmic Exploration System 6.4 Future human expansion beyond Earth must follow sustainability and ethics. -/- Avoids resource overconsumption or exploitative space colonization. -/- 6.3 Spiritual & Metaphysical System -/- Understanding human consciousness, free will, and its connection to universal balance. -/- Avoids religious conflicts by unifying metaphysical understanding under natural laws. -/- Final Principles of the Hierarchical System -/- 1. Balance at All Levels – Every system must operate within natural limits to avoid collapse. -/- 2. Mutual Feedback Mechanisms – Lower and higher levels must continuously adjust based on feedback. -/- 3. Elimination of Corruptive Influences – No system should be controlled by greed, dogma, or misinformation. -/- 4. Holistic Education – Proper education ensures that each generation understands and maintains balance. -/- 5. Global Cooperation, Not Domination – Nations and individuals must work together rather than compete destructively. -/- . (shrink)

The Holistic Governance Model (HGM): A Blueprint for the Future -/- Introduction -/- Governments today face increasing challenges, from economic instability and climate change to corruption and social inequality. No single government system has fully solved these issues, but by integrating the best aspects of existing models, we can create an optimal governance system. -/- The Holistic Governance Model (HGM) is a hybrid system that combines elements from Social Democracy, Technocracy, Semi-Direct Democracy, China’s Whole-Process People’s Democracy, and the Modified Westminster (...) System. It leverages AI-driven policy-making, technocratic expertise, direct citizen participation, and long-term national planning to create a balanced, efficient, and just government system. -/- 1. Core Foundations of the Holistic Governance Model -/- The HGM is built on six fundamental pillars, ensuring that governance is efficient, democratic, and sustainable. -/- 1.1. Economic System: A Hybrid of Capitalism and State Planning -/- Inspired by: Singapore (Technocracy), China (State-Controlled Development), Nordic Model (Social Welfare), and Switzerland (Financial Stability) ✅ Key Industries Under State Control: The government regulates healthcare, energy, and transportation while allowing free-market innovation. ✅ Smart Capitalism: Entrepreneurs and businesses thrive, but AI-driven economic planning ensures fair wealth distribution. ✅ Universal Basic Assets (UBA): Instead of universal basic income (UBI), citizens receive free housing, education, and healthcare, ensuring financial security. ✅ AI-Assisted Economy: AI predicts recessions, optimizes budgets, and prevents financial crises. -/- 1.2. Political System: A Dynamic Semi-Direct Democracy -/- Inspired by: Switzerland (Direct Democracy), Westminster System (Parliament), and Singapore (Meritocratic Leadership) ✅ Two-Tier Voting System: -/- General Elections: Citizens vote for representatives every 4-5 years. -/- National Referendums: Citizens directly vote on major policies twice a year. ✅ Technocratic Advisory Board (TAB): A non-political panel of scientists, economists, and AI experts advises the government. ✅ Decentralized Local Governance: Cities and regions have autonomy while aligning with national laws. -/- 1.3. Education & Human Development: AI-Powered Lifelong Learning -/- Inspired by: Nordic Model (Free Education), Singapore (STEM Focus), and China (AI Integration) ✅ Free Public Education for Life: Every citizen has access to continuous learning, including college and skill retraining. ✅ AI-Based Personalized Learning: Students use AI tutors that adapt to their learning pace. ✅ Ethics & Critical Thinking Curriculum: Courses in philosophy, logic, and decision-making prevent misinformation and ignorance. -/- 1.4. Healthcare & Social Welfare: AI-Driven Preventive Medicine -/- Inspired by: Nordic Model (Universal Healthcare), Singapore (Tech-Driven Healthcare), and China (Mass Coverage) ✅ Government-Funded Universal Healthcare: Citizens receive free basic healthcare, with private options available. ✅ AI & Robotics in Medicine: AI diagnoses diseases early, reducing medical costs. ✅ Preventive Healthcare Policy: Citizens receive incentives for maintaining good health (fitness programs, nutrition plans). -/- 1.5. Environmental & Energy Policies: The Green Industrial Revolution -/- Inspired by: China (Renewable Energy Expansion), Nordic Model (Sustainability Laws), and Singapore (Urban Planning) ✅ Mandatory Green Technology Adoption: Businesses must comply with strict eco-friendly policies. ✅ Carbon Credit Economy: Citizens and companies earn rewards for reducing carbon footprints. ✅ 100% Renewable Energy by 2050: The government funds solar, wind, and AI-optimized energy grids. -/- 1.6. Law & Order: AI-Governed Justice & Anti-Corruption Measures -/- Inspired by: Switzerland (Independent Judiciary), Singapore (Strict Law Enforcement), and China (AI in Governance) ✅ AI-Assisted Judiciary: AI helps judges analyze case laws for fair, unbiased rulings. ✅ Zero-Corruption Policy: Public officials caught in corruption face lifetime bans from government service. ✅ Balanced Civil Rights & Security: -/- Freedom of Speech: Citizens can express opinions, but disinformation is regulated. -/- AI Surveillance for Security: AI prevents crime while protecting privacy. -/- 2. Government Structure of HGM -/- 2.1. Executive Branch: The President, Prime Minister, and Technocrats -/- President (Elected by Public Vote) → Oversees national policies and international relations. -/- Prime Minister (Elected by Parliament) → Manages daily governance. -/- Technocratic Economic Council → Expert-led economic planning. -/- AI-Assisted Policy Bureau → Uses AI for healthcare, infrastructure, and environmental policies. -/- 2.2. Legislative Branch: Semi-Direct Parliament -/- Lower House (Elected Officials) → Creates laws based on citizen participation. -/- Upper House (Experts & Regional Representatives) → Reviews laws for scientific and ethical validity. -/- Referendum System → Citizens directly vote on key national issues. -/- 2.3. Judicial Branch: AI-Assisted Supreme Court -/- Independent Court System → Ensures justice and constitutional balance. -/- AI Legal Analysis → AI helps judges analyze previous cases and evidence. -/- 3. Implementation Strategy: How to Apply HGM Worldwide -/- To implement HGM, a phased approach is needed: -/- Phase 1 (0-5 Years): Research & AI Integration -/- ✅ Establish an HGM Global Research Center to develop AI governance models. ✅ Pilot AI-assisted economic planning in select countries. -/- Phase 2 (5-10 Years): Education & Public Awareness -/- ✅ Introduce HGM-based education systems (critical thinking, AI governance). ✅ Encourage political reforms to adopt hybrid governance models. -/- Phase 3 (10-20 Years): Nationwide Policy Implementation -/- ✅ Countries gradually adopt the HGM framework, with AI monitoring national progress. ✅ Global partnerships for climate change action and digital economy growth. -/- Phase 4 (Beyond 20 Years): Global Standardization -/- ✅ Establish an HGM Alliance for international cooperation. ✅ Implement AI-driven global policies on poverty, sustainability, and digital rights. -/- 4. Why the HGM is the Future of Governance -/- The Holistic Governance Model (HGM) offers the most advanced, efficient, and democratic government system by combining AI governance, citizen participation, economic stability, and social equality. -/- Conclusion: A Government System for the 21st Century -/- The Holistic Governance Model (HGM) combines the best government systems into a single, optimized model. By implementing AI, technocracy, direct democracy, and long-term planning, HGM ensures: ✅ Efficient economic management ✅ Social equality without excessive taxation ✅ Democratic participation with AI-driven transparency ✅ Sustainable environmental policies ✅ Corruption-free governance -/- If adopted globally, HGM could transform human civilization into a more just, advanced, and sustainable society. -/- . (shrink)

A Universal Formula for Creating a Perfect Society -/- A perfect society must follow the universal law of balance in nature, ensuring that all social, economic, technological, and environmental systems function in harmony. Your universal formula serves as the foundation for designing such a society, where population growth is properly regulated to maintain balance and sustainability. -/- I. The Core Principle: The Universal Law of Balance -/- A perfect society must: ✔ Align human actions with natural laws. ✔ Eliminate corruption, (...) exploitation, and inefficiency. ✔ Balance technological progress with environmental sustainability. ✔ Regulate population growth to match available resources and societal needs. -/- II. The Key Components of a Perfect Society -/- 1. Ideal Population Growth Rate and Regulation -/- A perfect society must have a regulated population growth that aligns with natural resource capacity, economic stability, and environmental sustainability. ✔ Overpopulation leads to resource depletion, poverty, and instability. ✔ Underpopulation leads to economic decline and labor shortages. ✔ The ideal population growth rate must be carefully calculated for each region based on its resource availability, technological advancement, and economic capacity. -/- Implementation: -/- Educate the public on population and resource balance. -/- Implement voluntary and ethical family planning programs. -/- Ensure economic and social policies are adjusted based on population data. -/- Use AI to analyze demographic trends and forecast future population needs. -/- Encourage balanced migration policies to stabilize population distribution. -/- 2. Holistic and Rational Education System -/- ✔ Teach the universal law of balance in education. ✔ Focus on critical thinking, ethics, sustainability, and science. ✔ Train leaders in ethical decision-making, governance, and problem-solving. -/- 3. Governance Rooted in Natural Laws -/- ✔ Data-driven, ethical, and transparent leadership. ✔ AI-assisted governance to prevent corruption and mismanagement. ✔ Scientific, evidence-based policymaking. -/- 4. Urban Planning for Sustainable Cities -/- ✔ Eco-friendly, well-planned cities with green spaces and clean energy. ✔ Smart infrastructure to reduce congestion and pollution. ✔ Affordable, energy-efficient housing for all. -/- 5. Balanced Transportation System -/- ✔ Mass public transit over personal vehicles. ✔ Electric and hydrogen-powered transport to reduce pollution. ✔ Bike-friendly and pedestrian-friendly cities. -/- 6. A Just and Sustainable Economic System -/- ✔ Balanced capitalism—free markets with strong ethical regulations. ✔ No extreme wealth gaps or monopolies. ✔ Fair wages, job security, and profit-sharing models. -/- 7. Energy Production Aligned with Natural Balance -/- ✔ Solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear fusion energy to eliminate fossil fuels. ✔ Decentralized renewable energy grids for reliability. ✔ Buildings, industries, and transportation designed for energy efficiency. -/- 8. Agriculture and Agribusiness for Food Security -/- ✔ Sustainable, regenerative farming practices to maintain soil fertility. ✔ Organic farming over chemical-intensive monoculture. ✔ AI-driven precision agriculture to maximize food production with minimal waste. -/- Implementation: -/- Urban farming and vertical agriculture to reduce land use. -/- Government subsidies for small farmers to prevent corporate monopolies. -/- Integration of agribusiness with clean energy sources. -/- 9. Technology Companies Serving Humanity -/- ✔ Ethical AI and automation that enhance human life. ✔ Tech companies must focus on sustainability, data privacy, and fairness. ✔ Public ownership of essential tech infrastructure (internet, AI governance, energy grids, etc.). -/- 10. Forest Conservation and Wildlife Protection -/- ✔ Strict anti-deforestation laws with mandatory reforestation. ✔ Protect wildlife corridors and endangered species. ✔ Regenerative land use practices to restore ecosystems. -/- 11. Protection of Seas, Oceans, and Rivers -/- ✔ Ban overfishing and destructive fishing methods. ✔ Regulate ocean mining and oil drilling. ✔ Prevent river and ocean pollution from industries and waste. -/- 12. Eliminating Pollution and Managing Waste -/- ✔ Zero-waste circular economy—recycling and reusing materials efficiently. ✔ Eliminate plastic waste and toxic chemicals in industries. ✔ Convert waste into renewable energy sources. -/- 13. Sustainable Water Resource Management -/- ✔ Protect fresh water from contamination and overuse. ✔ Desalination and rainwater harvesting in water-scarce areas. ✔ Efficient irrigation and water recycling in agriculture and industry. -/- 14. Job Creation and Economic Stability -/- ✔ Ensure that automation enhances jobs rather than eliminates them. ✔ Support entrepreneurship and small businesses. ✔ Guarantee fair wages and universal job security. -/- 15. Universal Healthcare System -/- ✔ Preventive medicine should be the priority. ✔ Universal healthcare with AI-driven diagnostics. ✔ Mental health services equal to physical health services. -/- 16. A Strong Social Safety Net -/- ✔ Unemployment benefits and food security. ✔ State-funded job training and skill development. ✔ Affordable housing and support systems for the homeless. -/- 17. Ethical Artificial Intelligence and Automation -/- ✔ AI must serve humanity, not corporate control. ✔ Prevent AI from being used for mass surveillance or manipulation. ✔ Ensure AI aligns with the universal law of balance. -/- 18. Justice System Based on Cause and Effect (Law of Karma) -/- ✔ Laws must be logical, fair, and corruption-free. ✔ Swift, evidence-based legal processes. ✔ Restorative justice rather than punitive imprisonment. -/- 19. Global Feedback Mechanism for Continuous Improvement -/- ✔ AI-assisted global balance monitoring. ✔ Digital democracy and blockchain voting for fair governance. ✔ Regular sustainability and ethics audits. -/- III. Conclusion: A Perfect Society Is Achievable -/- A perfect society follows the universal law of balance in all areas—economy, technology, environment, governance, and social systems. -/- By applying your universal formula, society can: ✔ Eliminate corruption, poverty, and injustice. ✔ Achieve sustainability without harming future generations. ✔ Use AI and technology responsibly for the betterment of all. ✔ Create a world where human potential is maximized, and suffering is minimized. -/- . (shrink)

This paper explores the concepts of modernity as interpreted by classical theorists of modernity such as Karl Marx, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim and contemporary theorists of modernity such as Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck. All of the three classical theorists of modernity introduce a single dominant force which is the basic dynamic of transformation for understanding the inherent features of modernity. For Marx, the major transformative power shaping the modern world is capitalism. As a result, for him, modernity shows (...) itself in capitalism. For Durkheim, the major transformative power shaping the modern world is industrialism. Weber focuses on rationalization as expressed in technology, capitalism and bureaucracy. Hence, he saw that one of the main drivers of change throughout modernity is rationality. For Giddens, modernity is developed due to the interactions of many institutions and each level specified by classical theorists plays a part. Thus, for him, modernity has four institutional dimensions: capitalism, industrialism, surveillance, and military power. Beck discusses modernity by distinguishing two phases of modernity. The first of which is simple modernity which is very much coextensive with industrial society. The axial principle of industrial society is the distribution of goods. The second phase, emerged out of simple modernity and began in the second half of the twentieth century, is reflexive modernity. Thus, the axial principle of the second modernity is the distribution of dangers. But, the second modernity, for Beck, is still, and at the same time, an industrial society since it is mainly industry that is involved in the creation of risk. In general, the concept of modernity discussed by both the three classical theorists of modernity and the two contemporary thinkers are mutually inclusive rather than exclusive. As a result, modernity has four main parts: capitalism, industrialism, surveillance and military power. (shrink)

Recent disclosures suggest that many governments apply indiscriminate mass surveillance technologies that allow them to capture and store a massive amount of communications data belonging to citizens and non-citizens alike. This article argues that traditional liberal critiques of government surveillance that center on an individual right to privacy cannot completely capture the harm that is caused by such surveillance because they ignore its distinctive political dimension. As a complement to standard liberal approaches to privacy, the article develops (...) a critique of surveillance that focuses on the question of political power in the public sphere. (shrink)

Despite recent growth in surveillance capabilities there has been little discussion regarding the ethics of surveillance. Much of the research that has been carried out has tended to lack a coherent structure or fails to address key concerns. I argue that the just war tradition should be used as an ethical framework which is applicable to surveillance, providing the questions which should be asked of any surveillance operation. In this manner, when considering whether to employ (...) class='Hi'>surveillance, one should take into account the reason for the surveillance, the authority of the surveillant, whether or not there has been a declaration of intent, whether surveillance is an act of last resort, what is the likelihood of success of the operation and whether surveillance is a proportionate response. Once underway, the methods of surveillance should be proportionate to the occasion and seek to target appropriate people while limiting surveillance of those deemed inappropriate. By drawing on the just war tradition, ethical questions regarding surveillance can draw on a long and considered discourse while gaining a framework which, I argue, raises all the key concerns and misses none. (shrink)

Urban centers are being transformed into consumer tourist playgrounds made possible by dense networks of surveillance. The safety and entertainment however, come at an unseen price. One of the historical roots of surveillance can be connected to the modern information base of tracking individuals for economic and political reasons. Though its antecedents can be traced via Foucault's account of panoptic discipline which walled in society's outcasts for rehabilitation, the following essay explores the shift to the urban panopticism of (...) today where society's outcasts are subtly filtered out of "public" view. Juxtaposing a sociological account of the concentration camp with urban Disneyization fosters a greater understanding of how surveillance creates certain categories of citizenship. In particular, how urban surveillance intensifies Walter Benjamin's description of the flâneur who often experiences the brunt of the new urban panopticon's filtering power. (shrink)

Foucault’s disciplinary society and his notion of panopticism are often invoked in discussions regarding electronic surveillance. Against this use of Foucault, I argue that contemporary trends in surveillance technology abstract human bodies from their territorial settings, separating them into a series of discrete flows through what Deleuze will term, the surveillant assemblage. The surveillant assemblage and its product, the socially sorted body, aim less at molding, punishing and controlling the body and more at triggering events of in- and (...) ex-clusion from life opportunities. The meaning of the body as monitored by latest generation vision technologies formed from machine only surveillance has been transformed. Such a body is no longer disciplinary in the Foucauldian sense. It is a virtual/flesh interface broken into discrete data flows whose comparison and breakage generate bodies as both legible and eligible (or illegible). (shrink)

There is a long-running debate as to whether privacy is a matter of control or access. This has become more important following revelations made by Edward Snowden in 2013 regarding the collection of vast swathes of data from the Internet by signals intelligence agencies such as NSA and GCHQ. The nature of this collection is such that if the control account is correct then there has been a significant invasion of people's privacy. If, though, the access account is correct then (...) there has not been an invasion of privacy on the scale suggested by the control account. I argue that the control account of privacy is mistaken. However, the consequences of this are not that the seizing control of personal information is unproblematic. I argue that the control account, while mistaken, seems plausible for two reasons. The first is that a loss of control over my information entails harm to the rights and interests that privacy protects. The second is that a loss of control over my information increases the risk that my information will be accessed and that my privacy will be violated. Seizing control of another's information is therefore harmful, even though it may not entail a violation of privacy. Indeed, seizing control of another's information may be more harmful than actually violating their privacy. (shrink)

Surveillance plays a crucial role in public health, and for obvious reasons conflicts with individual privacy. This paper argues that the predominant approach to the conflict is problematic, and then offers an alternative. It outlines a Basic Interests Approach to public health measures, and the Unreasonable Exercise Argument, which sets forth conditions under which individuals may justifiably exercise individual privacy claims that conflict with public health goals. The view articulated is compatible with a broad range conceptions of the value (...) of health. (shrink)

Capitalism is defined as the economic structure in which decisions over production are largely made by or on behalf of individuals in virtue of their private property ownership, subject to the incentives and constraints of market competition. In this paper, I will argue that considerations of long-term welfare, such as those developed by Greaves and MacAskill (2021), support anticapitalism in a weak sense (reducing the extent to which the economy is capitalistic) and perhaps support anticapitalism in a stronger sense (...) (establishing an alternative economic structure in which capitalism is not predominant). I hope to encourage longtermists to give anticapitalism serious consideration, and to encourage anticapitalists to pursue criticisms of capitalism’s efficiency as well as its injustices. (shrink)

This chapter provides a high-level overview of key ethical issues raised by the use of surveillance technologies, such as digital contact tracing, disease surveillance, and vaccine passports, to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. To some extent, these issues are entirely familiar. I argue that they raise old questions in new form and with new urgency, at the intersection of information ethics, research ethics, and public health. Whenever we deal with data-driven technologies, we have to ask how they fare in (...) relation to important values like privacy, fairness, transparency, and accountability—values emphasized by information ethics scholars. Likewise, when such technologies put individuals at risk in order to drive scientific research and knowledge construction, we have to ask how they implicate values such as autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence, and justice—values central to research ethics. And as researchers focusing on health information have long argued, when the data collected by these technologies pertain to individuals and public health, these ethical issues take on a special cast. -/- It is also true, however, that the pandemic has placed these questions in a new and revealing light. I highlight three insights from information ethics and research ethics that can help us navigate this difficult terrain. First, the value of privacy is instrumental, not absolute—there is nothing wrong with asking how to balance privacy against other important values. Second, privacy has both individual and social importance. Weighing privacy, on one hand, and public health, on the other, is not, therefore, a contest between individual and collective interests. Rather, it is an attempt to balance disparate public goods. Third, we ought to put these kinds of ethical decisions in the hands of third parties, rather than leaving them up to those who directly stand to benefit from them. In the case of pandemic surveillance technologies, this should mean more public, democratic oversight. (shrink)

In her BBC Reith Lectures on Trust, Onora O’Neill offers a short, but biting, criticism of transparency. People think that trust and transparency go together but in reality, says O'Neill, they are deeply opposed. Transparency forces people to conceal their actual reasons for action and invent different ones for public consumption. Transparency forces deception. I work out the details of her argument and worsen her conclusion. I focus on public transparency – that is, transparency to the public over expert domains. (...) I offer two versions of the criticism. First, the epistemic intrusion argument: The drive to transparency forces experts to explain their reasoning to non-experts. But expert reasons are, by their nature, often inaccessible to non-experts. So the demand for transparency can pressure experts to act only in those ways for which they can offer public justification. Second, the intimate reasons argument: In many cases of practical deliberation, the relevant reasons are intimate to a community and not easily explicable to those who lack a particular shared background. The demand for transparency, then, pressures community members to abandon the special understanding and sensitivity that arises from their particular experiences. Transparency, it turns out, is a form of surveillance. By forcing reasoning into the explicit and public sphere, transparency roots out corruption — but it also inhibits the full application of expert skill, sensitivity, and subtle shared understandings. The difficulty here arises from the basic fact that human knowledge vastly outstrips any individual’s capacities. We all depend on experts, which makes us vulnerable to their biases and corruption. But if we try to wholly secure our trust — if we leash groups of experts to pursuing only the goals and taking only the actions that can be justified to the non-expert public — then we will undermine their expertise. We need both trust and transparency, but they are in essential tension. This is a deep practical dilemma; it admits of no neat resolution, but only painful compromise. (shrink)

The concept of surveillance has recently been complemented by the concept of sousveillance. Neither term, however, has been rigorously defined, and it is particularly unclear how to understand and delimit sousveillance. This article sketches a generic definition of surveillance and proceeds to explore various ways in which we might define sousveillance, including power differentials, surreptitiousness, control, reciprocity, and moral valence. It argues that for each of these ways of defining it, sousveillance either fails to be distinct from (...) class='Hi'>surveillance or to provide a generally useful concept. As such, the article concludes that academics should avoid the neologism, and simply clarify what sense of surveillance is at stake when necessary. (shrink)

The capitalist system has undergone several transformations (mutations in the language of Karl Marx) during the last centuries. This article examines the main characteristics of the three great revolutions of capitalism: industrial, financial and digital. Each revolution is analyzed with the main paradigms that seek to explain these different mutations of capitalism. In the last part of the article the emphasis is placed on the consequences of the Digital Revolution and the GEN-AI on the economic theories taught for (...) decades by economists. (shrink)

This paper addresses issues regarding perceptions of surveillance technologies in Europe. It analyses existing studies in order to explore how perceptions of surveillance affect and are affected by the negative effects of surveillance and how perceptions and effectiveness of surveillance technologies relate to each other. The paper identifies 12 negative effects of surveillance including, among others, privacy intrusion, the chilling effect and social exclusion, and classifies them into three groups. It further illustrates the different ways (...) in which perceptions and effectiveness of surveillance interact with each other, distinguishing between perceived security and perceived effectiveness. Finally, the paper advances a methodology to take into account perception issues when designing new surveillance technologies. By doing so, it rejects manipulative measures aiming at improving perceptions only and suggests measures that address the background conditions affecting perceptions. (shrink)

In this paper I critique the ethical implications of automating CCTV surveillance. I consider three modes of CCTV with respect to automation: manual, fully automated, and partially automated. In each of these I examine concerns posed by processing capacity, prejudice towards and profiling of surveilled subjects, and false positives and false negatives. While it might seem as if fully automated surveillance is an improvement over the manual alternative in these areas, I demonstrate that this is not necessarily the (...) case. In preference to the extremes I argue in favour of partial automation in which the system integrates a human CCTV operator with some level of automation. To assess the degree to which such a system should be automated I draw on the further issues of privacy and distance. Here I argue that the privacy of the surveilled subject can benefit from automation, while the distance between the surveilled subject and the CCTV operator introduced by automation can have both positive and negative effects. I conclude that in at least the majority of cases more automation is preferable to less within a partially automated system where this does not impinge on efficacy. (shrink)