|
|
@@ -1 +1,15 @@
|
|
|
\section{A New Perspective}
|
|
|
+I think that we can go beyond the setting exposed by Rachels, and in doing this I'll base my discussion on the work \cite{cccvideo} presented by Charleyne Biondi at the 33th Chaos Communication Congress, which I attended in the last December.
|
|
|
+The title "The High priests of the digital age" is someway itself suggestive. Biondi tries to make a comparison between the campaign instaured in the 18th century against onanism and the current digital global surveillance state.
|
|
|
+She starts by identifying the three main actors that concurred in the campaing against masturbation, and by identifying the main actors in that scenario. The first actor is the category of doctors from which all the crusade started. All started from a study that tried to demonstrate what devastating effects onanism has on the body of a person.
|
|
|
+The second actor is represented by the priests or more in general by the clergy members that took this studies and contributed in enhancing the campaign, by enlightening all the moral corruption that those sinfull behaviors brought. It is thanks to the support of this actor that the campaign against onanism has been possible, thanks to the power that the clergy organizations had on the society.
|
|
|
+The last actor is composed by the family members that should prevent such behaviours in particular by \textit{supervisioning} the kids that were the category more likely to indulge in such acts.
|
|
|
+The next step is to map three actors involved in global surveillance on the previous three, and try to find the similarities between the two phenomena.
|
|
|
+We can start from the state, and we can notice that it has been the first to reclaim the right to enhances policies that permitted to invade the individual privacy in order to guarantee a greater good, the security of our society. The parallelism is made with the doctors of the previous settings, that as said were the first to initiate the crusade by invoking a greater good that in that case was the health of the population.
|
|
|
+Then there are the privates, or in other words the big internet corporations, that make the surveillance possible by enacting the data survaillance over our communciations and personal data. This category is of course mapped on the priests, thus the name of the presentation itself.
|
|
|
+The last actor is identified with the society itself, and is naturally mapped with the family in the previous case. It is thanks to this last actor, that is possible to realize and to impose the surveillance culture, thanks to which the systems sustains itself, being feed with all the data provided by ourself.
|
|
|
+This concludes the mapping of actors between the two scenario. We can see that, even by not agreeing completely with the point of view and the passages of Biondi, the similarities are very well highlighted. The conclusions that the presenter draws are more radical, and I'll briefly talk about them since, even not being essential for the following of the analysis, can help in understanding the previous mapping.
|
|
|
+Biondi says that in some studies have been enlighted that the birth of capitalism brought with itself the concept of the body seen as a \textbf{tool of performance}, and this also concurred in the crusade against onanism, since the possibility of behaviours that in some way could intact the abilities of the body to perform were seen much more in a negative way.
|
|
|
+Capitalism also in some way brings the idea that private vice is transformed in public good or virtue through commerce. And in the digital age we may withdraw the conclusion that opposing to the free circulation of information can be destructive for the good of the society and stop this creation of public virtue, or, written in another way, public security. This ultimately brings us to the commodification of everything, even private and social aspects of our lives.
|
|
|
+This last point of view seems to be based on a too huge leap. Personally, looking at our society I don't think that these conclusions are so unreasonables, but for sure they need another type of discussion and they also touch other big and debated ethical issues, that can't be discussed here. As said before these last conclusions are not essentials to the following of the discussion, probably Biondi tried to sketch some possible discussion points for further analysis and discussions.
|
|
|
+What I think is important to keep from this section is the comparison between two at first sight completely different scenarios, and the problem that in this kind of surveillance culture we are giving up some rights over our privacy like that could affect our relationships as highlighted by Rachels \cite{privacyimportant}, and in the next section we'll try to go further and try to sketch some other implications and issues.
|
