Christina Fratschko

I was recently speaking with my Oma (grandmother in German) about her journey to Canada from Austria in 1950. She explained that my Opa had come two years prior to her and they communicated via letters. Moreover, that they both left their families and lives in Austria to start a new one in Canada. After this conversation and reading Surveillance and Technology: Contexts and Distinctions by Gary T. Marx, I realized that completely starting a new life for oneself is not as easy as it was in the post war era. We now live in what Marx coins the New Surveillance Society, in which third parties can take our private information illegitimately by technical extractment through cameras, computer monitoring, locational monitoring, and the list is endless. Furthermore, that surveillance can be applied to contexts, in so far as geographical places and spaces, particular time frames, and networks. Whereas my grandmother parted Austria on a ship destined for Montreal with only her family and my Opa knowing her whereabouts now, CSIS, the airline, the destined country of choice, know your whereabouts, your seat number, what wifi spot you just left, and what you ate for dinner at the airport. Furthermore, this can be defined as a transparent society, “in which the boundaries of time, distance, darkness, and physical barriers that traditionally protected information are weakened and pierced.” (Marx pg 51). In addition, this is a feature of Marx’s Maximum Security Society, which Marx argues surveillance methods typically found in high security military and prison settings are seeping into our society at a rapid pace. Additionally, Marx in in his surveillance studies has sought to create a conceptual map of new ways of collecting, analyzing, communication and using personal information. Furthermore, to have a solid explanation and evaluation, Marx believes it requires a common language for the identification and measurement of surveillance’s fundamental properties and contexts (http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/bio.html). This was shown in his article with his various terms and definitions of surveillance and its processes. For example, personal surveillance, in which an individual watches another individual, apart from an organizational role, otherwise known as “creeping” in the Facebook era (pg52). Also, in traditional surveillance, the line between the surveillance agent (watcher/observer/seeker) and the surveillance subject was visible whereas now, the line is blurred and may overlap, keep your friends close, but your enemies closer (pg 52). Marx in his article successfully demonstrates the common language for the identification and measurement of surveillance’s fundamental properties and contexts. More so, Marx demonstrated to me how important it is to understand that privacy and surveillance are two sides of the same coin and due to the rapid pace of technology, information that one thinks is private most certainly is not.

The Public Sphere, according to Jürgen Habermas, is an abstract realm of our social life, where information is brought and public opinion is created. The public sphere is the space between state and society, which grants freedom of speech, coming together, publishing and access of varying opinions. Habermas emphasizes that the seeds of the public sphere are rooted in communication, allowing for a democratic state to emerge. In this public sphere, citizens are free to confer in an “unrestricted” fashion, catalyzing opinion and freedom of thought. In lecture, our class discussed how in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, new ways of convening opinion and free discourse took place in coffeehouses, salons, and legal briefs, offering “hotbeds” of discussion. In my previous life at the University of Toronto, I studied history in which conversation surrounding the emergence of freedom of thought was always central to studying the emerging democratic states, specifically in Europe. This is how newspapers, ballads, and songs propelled the European populace to help change and disseminate information concerning politics and society. Additionally, innovations such as the printing press, acted as a catalyst for freedom of thought and opinion. However, today, these technological innovations are promoting the dismantling of the democratic public sphere, which can be illustrated in John Buschman’s paper, Libraries and the Decline of Public Purpose. Buschman argues that libraries are in a state of crisis. He demonstrates how libraries are a public institution, created to foster the dissemination of information and hold knowledge of any topic for any person. However, he shows how a shift has emerged in libraries towards a more technological approach, to keep up with “the demands of the world.” Is this an example of having too much of a good thing? Specifically, is having too much technology at one’s fingertips assisting the downfall of the library within the pubic sphere? With libraries now having to allocate their budgets to a new technology economy, they are being run more like a business than a community center. Buschman explains how one part of the work of libraries, that of books, is being let go to fund technologies, which are considered to be economically beneficial innovations. In addition, these new technological innovations have nurtured a new “…economic value of information and knowledge.” In order for patrons to obtain information and knowledge from technological resources, libraries are spending their little money on electronic databases and content to be able to disseminate information. Has technology really hindered people’s access to information, or is it because now we are accustomed to having computer access and Google a key-stroke away? Is this an illustration of society’s ever growing needs and wants finally imploding? Technology should never be a reason one does not receive information and knowledge. Moreover, it SHOULD be the reason people receive information and knowledge. It should not come at such a heavy cost which burdens the one public institution in which people collocate to broaden their mind and intellect. Technology should be a means to communicate your opinions and create ideas; it should not deter the ability to produce works of art. As Jürgen Habermas pointed out, the public sphere is a place where information is brought and public opinion created. The library as a public institution should adhere to those guidelines, and not be swayed by the allure of technological innovation. Habermas, Jurgen. "The public sphere: An encyclopedia article." New German Critique 3 (1974) Buschman, John. "Libraries and the Decline of Public Purposes." Public Library Quarterly 24 (2005): 1-12.

New- age Taylorism?

The Restricted Library in Hogwarts... Symbolic of eighteenth-century censorship in the victorian information society?

The symbolism behind the panopticon is all seeing, all knowing. Could this be symbolic of an omnipresent, omniscient God? A God who is present everywhere, knows all facts and nothing can be hidden from his knowledge. Or, does it symbolize the ability to monitor oneself actions and thoughts? The construction of the panopticon and hitherto most bureaucratic institutions illuminates how those in charge, be it a librarian, doctor or guard, have power and knowledge to watch and act like the eyes of Doctor. T.J. Eckleberg. However, if one is not doing any harm, then those eyes will focus elsewhere, leaving one to their own accord.