Role Models of Defiance

Today, it is again the fifth of November. A day during which I like to consider my place in society and society's place within myself. In previous years, I've used this day to prompt discussions regarding privacy, surveillance, control, and even a bit about setting boundaries. This year, I'd like to discuss the importance of questioning established systems.

I've written before about the costs and concepts of tradition and complacency before, emphasizing the benefits of critical thinking and asking "Why?".

You would not devour a meal before minimally evaluating its edibility, therefore I also encourage you to carefully consider what intellectually digest before you risk poisoning your reason and wisdom.

The same sentiments can be applied toward establishments of authority and organization. In fact, a number of psychological studies imply the challenges encountered when one does not have a healthy counter-balance for authority. One particularly famous (or infamous) study is the Milgram experiment [Wikipedia]. In these studies, Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram measured an individual's willingness to obey the orders of an external authority and inflict perceived harm upon another person, even as inflicted that harm was contrary to their personal ethic. (Hank Green does a great job of summarizing this experiment in "Social Influence: Crash Course Psychology #38" [YouTube])

Of the results summarized by Hank, one significantly caught my attention: "Subjects are more likely to comply with orders if they didn't see anyone else disobeying, no role models of defiance." (You'll notice that it was Hank's words within that video which inspired this article's title and prompted its contents.) When I first heard those words a couple years ago, the gears began turning in my mind. What does it mean to be a "role model of defiance"? Do we have any or many in our society which stand in such a role?


(Please read footnote ¹ regarding this image.)

Privacy and Social Media

Remember, remember the fifth of November.

Three years ago, I wrote about "Privacy and Control", discussing topics of privacy in a world driven by data-collection and how "our gadgets have or will be taking on qualities commonly associated with gods: omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence". Today, I'd like to remember and reflect on those topics and check-in with how privacy is holding up under the current surveillance of our technology, most especially social media.

Photo: GETTY IMAGES, found here.

The maelstrom of data and information has grown in strength as technology develops. New venues for self-promotional social media pop-up everywhere; we have networks for where you go, what you're doing, what you're reading, what you're watching, who you're with, who might be nearby that you might want to meet, there are even services that enable you view and share the "as-it-happens" actions and location of your pets. For some, this is an exciting exploration of new territory. For others, it's a decent into terror.

The relentless march of technology presents society with an unending series of thin red lines, boundaries beyond which the future of our familiar comforts are uncertain. We seem well aware that data is being gathered. Since publishing my initial article on this subject, there have been a number of controversies, revelations, and even revolutions having to do with privacy and data (e.g. PRISM, Vodafone report, RSA encryption backdoor). Have these events changed our view of technology and privacy? I think the events have certainly made more people aware of a long-existent situation. That awareness has sparked a new surge in privacy-positive actions and services, but I posit that the arms-race of information and privacy is nothing new. The previous surge, on the opposite side, was made in 2001 when the public feared terrorism more than surveillance (e.g. PATRIOT Act, TSA).

The digital and physical worlds continue to blend. New "smart technology" brings more convenience to our households. Some people shy away from these new developments, preferring the safety of familiarity. Personally, I enjoy the forward progress of technology. In fact, my opinion about privacy and technology remains much the same as it was three years ago:

I am unafraid of the omnipresence of technology because I am more than the facts and data amassed. I choose not to attempt to hide the cataloging of my data because I try to never act without intention. Let me be entirely clear about another opinion I have of data and surveillance as it relates to freedom. There are those who would choose to use the gathering of data as a way to prevent others from having the freedom to act of their own will. This is never OK. In my opinion, a person should be allowed to act however they choose; as long as those actions do not prevent another person from making their own -- possibly opposing -- choice.

Social media presents us all with a challenges to our current paradigms. Where do we draw our own personal lines? How much is too much information? Each of us must establish the boundaries of our individual comfort zones [INDY Blog: "Experience the Challenge"]. Much like the differing opinions on personal space within societies around the world, communities may find themselves interacting with individuals with differing social media "personal bubbles". While I often find myself comfortable with a very large social media bubble, you might be inclined to be more private.

Today is the day that you define your boundaries and understand the lines which you are uncomfortable having others cross, whether governmental or social. Once you find those lines, stand up for them firmly. I respect your right to make your own choices. My choices might be different than yours, but I will still advocate for yours as long as they don't impede on the rights of others. Remember, remember the fifth of November.

Privacy and control

Technology is everywhere, always watching, always tracking, and always within reach. Meaning, our gadgets have or will be taking on qualities commonly associated with gods: omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. In the 2006 film V for Vendetta, a man wearing a Guy Fawkes mask fought against the control of an oppressive system. As a result of that film, "the use of stylised Guy Fawkes masks, with moustache and pointed beard, has become widespread internationally among groups protesting against politicians, banks and financial institutions. The masks both conceal the identity of individuals and demonstrate their commitment to a shared cause." [Guy Fawkes Mask - Wikipedia]

Amazon.com: V For Vendetta Mask

Some people view the rise of our god-like technology with terror; should we thus all dawn Guy Fawkes' masks and attempt to hide from our digital overlords? Or should we accept and embrace this fact and attempt to mold it?

I recently watched the TED talk "FBI, here I am!" by Hasan Elahi, an Associate Professor at the University of Maryland and an interdisciplinary media artist.
In the talk, Hasan articulates his opinion -- with which I agree -- on data, privacy, and control:

"I've come to the conclusion that the way you protect your privacy -- particularly in an era where everything is catalogued and everything is archived and evething is recorded -- there's no need to delete information anymore. So, what do you do when everything is out there? Well, you have to take control of it. If I give you this information directly, it's a very different type of identity than if you were to try and go through a get bits and pieces."

I welcome the discerning consumption of information, as I discussed in my previous article touching on the subject of "A Hierarchy to Understanding". So, as the omnipresent technology logs my words, locations, and activities, it gathers a glimpse of my identity, but what you see is not the whole of what makes me who I am. To echo some of Hasan's words, "In this barrage of noise that I'm putting out, I actually live an incredibly anonymous and private life; you know very little about me, actually."

Consider this: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How. These are the beginnings of how we gather data; the investigative questions we all learn at an early age.
An outside observer can only gather some data through their own perspective: Who, What, When, Where, and How. You'll notice though that a fundamental question cannot be answered with dry data: Why. If you've been reading recently, you'll know that the "Why" is of highest importance when it comes to understanding and actualization. The "Why" is what is formed individually. It is the "Why" that creates our psychology, personality, opinions, motivations, cravings, and connections.

I am unafraid of the omnipresence of technology because I am more than the facts and data amassed. I choose not to attempt to hide the cataloging of my data because I try to never act without intention. Let me be entirely clear about another opinion I have of data and surveillance as it relates to freedom. There are those who would choose to use the gathering of data as a way to prevent others from having the freedom to act of their own will. This is never OK. In my opinion, a person should be allowed to act however they choose; as long as those actions do not prevent another person from making their own -- possibly opposing -- choice.

I also acknowledge the courage of those who choose to exercise their own freedoms even if those choices result in consequences born of ill-conceived systems of control. (Again, I reiterate that the initial choice must not hinder the freedoms of others.) For example, it is currently illegal (meaning, there is a law on the books) to drive a black car on Sundays in Denver, Colorado. In my opinion, choosing to drive a black car on Sunday does not take away the freedom of others. Therefore, I respect those individuals who choose to ignore such a strange law and drive their vehicle of choice on Sunday. Let it also be said that I greatly respect the law enforcement officers who choose to ignore the law and therefore do not enforce the legal penalty currently dictated by the system.

In this technology-dominated world, true privacy is a result of control and intention. Some may choose to disseminate the details of their every bathroom visit, others may choose to disclose nothing, but the nature of self is not in what you do and who is aware of it; it is in why you do it and how you define yourself as a result. In actuality, I know no more about the "Shitter Twitter" [Urban Dictionary] than I do about the man hiding behind the figurative curtain, what I do know is how they have chosen to present themselves to me. The beauty of freedom is that you may choose to disagree with me on any and all of this and I respect your choice to do so.