Arne Hintz

Towards data justice? The ambiguity of anti-surveillance resistance in political activism

The Snowden leaks, first published in June 2013, provided unprecedented insights into the operations of state-corporate surveillance, highlighting the extent to which everyday communication is integrated into an extensive regime of control that relies on the ‘datafication’ of social life. Whilst such data-driven forms of governance have significant implications for citizenship and society, resistance to surveillance in the wake of the Snowden leaks has predominantly centred on techno-legal responses relating to the development and use of encryption and policy advocacy around privacy and data protection. Based on in-depth interviews with a range of social justice activists, we argue that there is a significant level of ambiguity around this kind of anti-surveillance resistance in relation to broader activist practices, and critical responses to the Snowden leaks have been confined within particular expert communities. Introducing the notion of ‘data justice’, we therefore go on to make the case that resistance to surveillance needs to be (re)conceptualized on terms that can address the implications of this data-driven form of governance in relation to broader social justice agendas. Such an approach is needed, we suggest, in light of a shift to surveillance capitalism in which the collection, use and analysis of our data increasingly comes to shape the opportunities and possibilities available to us and the kind of society we live in.

Dimensions of Modern Freedom of Expression: WikiLeaks, Policy Hacking, and Digital Freedoms

The recent history of Internet development can easily be interpreted as a constant expansion of free communication and citizen journalism. From the open-publishing experiments by the global Indymedia network (http://www.indymedia.org), to their emergence as a mass phenomenon through blogging and commercial social networking platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, to the incorporation of user-generated content by established media (e.g., CNN’s iReporter), to Wikipedia and similar projects, participating in the production of media messages, information, and knowledge has changed the ways in which understandings and interpretations about the world are created. The “people formerly known as the audience” (Rosen, 2006), i.e., the new generation of netizens, have applied the now-classic Indymedia slogan: “Don’t hate the media, be the media!”

Prediction, pre-emption and limits to dissent: social media and big data uses for policing protests in the United Kingdom

Social media and big data uses form part of a broader shift from ‘reactive’ to ‘proactive’ forms of governance in which state bodies engage in analysis to predict, pre-empt and respond in real time to a range of social problems. Drawing on research with British police, we contextualize these algorithmic processes within actual police practices, focusing on protest policing. Although aspects of algorithmic decision-making have become prominent in police practice, our research shows that they are embedded within a continuous human–computer negotiation that incorporates a rooted claim to ‘professional judgement’, an integrated intelligence context and a significant level of discretion. This context, we argue, transforms conceptions of threats. We focus particularly on three challenges: the inclusion of pre-existing biases and agendas, the prominence of marketing-driven software, and the interpretation of unpredictability. Such a contextualized analysis of data uses provides important insights for the shifting terrain of possibilities for dissent.

Introduction: Journalism, citizenship and surveillance

We live in a “surveillance society”—a society organised around the collection, recording, storage, analysis and application of data on individuals and groups by state and corporate actors (Lyon 2001, 2007). As Edward Snowden’s revelations about the extensive surveillance programmes of the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in the United Kingdom revealed, intelligence agencies routinely gather vast amounts of data about our activities. The programmes revealed by Snowden ranged from the interception of data shared on the internet to practices of hacking into computer systems and compromising security levels. They encompassed the bulk collection of everyone’s data as well as targeted surveillance of governments, companies and civil society organisations. Among other things, the revelations showed that the intelligence agencies had intercepted the metadata of billions of phone calls recorded by Verizon and other major phone companies. Through its PRISM programme, the NSA also accessed information gathered by Facebook, Google, Apple and other technology companies (e.g. Fidler 2015). The Snowden revelations thus put the spotlight on the forms of surveillance experienced by individuals in contemporary societies. These pervade every aspect of daily life, from our online shopping, browsing and social activities, to the ways we move through public spaces and transportation systems under the watchful eye of CCTV cameras. To Bauman and Lyon (2013), the nefarious nature of surveillance means that citizens increasingly come to accept its ubiquity and pervasiveness as part and parcel of everyday life. As they note,

The politics of surveillance policy: UK regulatory dynamics after Snowden

The revelations by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have illustrated the scale and extent of digital surveillance carried out by different security and intelligence agencies. The publications have led to a variety of concerns, public debate, and some diplomatic fallout regarding the legality of the surveillance, the extent of state interference in civic life, and the protection of civil rights in the context of security. Debates about the policy environment of surveillance emerged quickly after the leaks began, but actual policy change is only starting. In the UK, a draft law (Investigatory Powers Bill) has been proposed and is currently discussed. In this paper, we will trace the forces and dynamics that have shaped this particular policy response. Addressing surveillance policy as a site of struggle between different social forces and drawing on different fields across communication policy research, we suggest eight dynamics that, often in conflicting ways, have shaped the regulatory framework of surveillance policy in the UK since the Snowden leaks. These include the governmental context; national and international norms; court rulings; civil society advocacy; technical standards; private sector interventions; media coverage; and public opinion. We investigate how state surveillance has been met with criticism by parts of the technology industry and civil society, and that policy change was required as a result of legal challenges, review commissions and normative interventions. However a combination of specific government compositions, the strong role of security agendas and discourses, media justification and a muted reaction by the public have hindered a more fundamental review of surveillance practices so far and have moved policy debate towards the expansion, rather than the restriction, of surveillance in the aftermath of Snowden.

Restricting digital sites of dissent: commercial social media and free expression

ABSTRACT The widespread use of commercial social media platforms by protesters and activists has enhanced protest mobilisation and reporting but it has placed social media providers in the intermediary role as facilitators of dissent and has thereby created new challenges. Companies like Google and Facebook are increasingly restricting content that is published on or distributed through their platforms; they have been subject to obstruction by governments; and their services have been at the core of large-scale data collection and surveillance. This article analyses and categorises forms of infrastructure-based restrictions on free expression and dissent. It shows how private intermediaries have been incorporated into state-led content policies; how they set their own standards for legitimate online communication and intervene accordingly; and how state-based actions and commercial self-regulation intersect in the specific area of online surveillance. Based on a broad review of cases, it situates the role of social media in the wider trend of the privatisation of communications policy and the complex interplay between state-based regulation and commercial rule-making.

Towards community and non-profit media legislation in South America: challenging media power through citizen participation

A democratic system, according to late media scholar Edwin Baker, requires the ‘democratic distribution of communicative power’ (Baker 2006: 6). Media concentration — whether in the hands of government or business -assigns the power of interpreting our environment to a small group of actors and increases the risk that media align with the holders of political and social power. Thus, media reform involves the critical review (and, potentially, reduction) of monopolies and oligopolies in the newspaper, broadcast and telecommunications sector.

Amy Goodman in conversation with Julian Assange and Slavoj Žižek

The following is a shortened and edited transcript of a conversation between Julian Assange, editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, and Slavoj Žižek, Slovenian philosopher and cultural theorist. The conversation was moderated by journalist Amy Goodman from the TV news show Democracy Now! and sponsored by the Frontline Club. It took place in front of a live audience on July 2, 2011 at the Troxy, London, England.

Azione collettiva e governance della comunicazione globale: la sfida della partecipazione nei processi decisionali transnazionali

Social movements and global communication governance: the challenge of participation in transnational decision-making processes - New modes of governance increasingly go beyond the traditional intergovernmental approach to include business actors and sections of civil society. Multi-stakeholder processes claim to involve all relevant parties in decisionmaking. However, a closer look reveals that opportunities of participation are often limited to large professionalised NGOs, while grassroots movements are missing. This paper seeks to identify the challenges and obstacles for these actors to get further involved, but also the opportunities that have emerged in recent policy processes. It will suggest changes in governance systems to open up for wider participation. The paper looks at two multistakeholder processes: the UN World Summit on the Information Society (Wsis) and the Council of Europe 7th Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy. Both processes provide interesting case studies as they attracted a diversity of civil society actors, leading to different layers of intervention. We look specifically at activist media projects and community radio stations that usually do not focus on policy, do not have the financial and structural background of a larger organisation, and that chose to intervene in those processes outside the remit of larger advocacy organisations and coalitions. Drawing from the two cases, we identify internal challenges (which aspects of activist networks hinder their influence and how can these be tackled?), relations with other civil society actors (how can different tactics and strategies complement each other?) and structural changes in governance systems, in order to enable activist and grassroots networks to participate. Keywords: global governance; media policies; civil society; activists networks; participation.