Janus face: Neutral definitions

‘One claim of neutral surveillance concepts is that there is a positive side of surveillance or that there is a negative as well as a positive side of surveillance’, (Fuchs, 2011, p. 112). This is essentially the same position taken by those adopting a negative definition. However, rather than focusing on the negative aspects, those adopting a neutral definition of surveillance include both consensual monitoring and surveillance in their considerations. These discussions present a view of surveillance as concerned not just with control and domination but also with maintaining social order, ensuring equitable access to goods and services and promoting the well-being of citizens. This broader approach is indicated by the use of more neutral terms such as ‘observation’ to ‘govern’:

• Surveillance involves the observation, recording and categorisation of information about people, processes and institutions (Ball & Webster, 2003, p.1).

• Surveillance involves the collection and analysis of information about populations in order to govern their activities (Haggerty & Ericson, 2006, p. 3).

Surveillance is viewed as an inherent characteristic, indeed a precondition, for the functioning of highly complex and organised societies: ‘In one form or another, it [surveillance] is a basic and ubiquitous social process, occurring in settings ranging from the family to state bureaucracies’ (Rule, 2007, p. 14). Authors point out that while the term surveillance often conjures up negative images, particularly since 9/11, when it became ‘popularly associated with crime and national security’ (Marx, 2005), the collection and use of personal information has long been a feature of society. Medical records, electoral rolls, credit cards, even library cards have been an integral part of daily life for many decades (Clarke, 2003; Fuchs, 2011; Lyon, 2002). These researchers argue that there are many positive benefits accruing from surveillance and note that in

39

most instances information gathering activities are neither covert nor detrimental and the vast majority of the population actively cooperate with and contribute to the collection of their personal information. Surveillance is therefore not inherently negative since ‘the same systems that may be feared for their power to keep track of personal lives are established to protect and enhance life-chances’ (Lyon, 2002, p. 4). However, while arguing that the collection and aggregation of personal data generally has positive benefits, or at the least is innocuous, these authors do acknowledge the ever-present potential for negative impacts (Clarke, 1998; Lyon, 2004; Peissl, 2003). Lyon summarises this perspective with his observation that the way in which data are used may have ‘genuine benefits and plausible rationales, but may also have palpable disadvantages. Surveillance is always Janus faced’ (Lyon, 2004, p. 164).

Approaching surveillance from this perspective highlights the complexities of information gathering practices. It points to the blurring of boundaries between consensual monitoring and non-consensual surveillance and the contextual aspect when determining the impact of many information gathering activities. Thus, the use of genetic material in the context of medical research may be considered appropriate, since it is perceived to have potential health benefits for individuals and the community. Yet collection of this information for genetic screening programs of new-born babies has been viewed as inappropriate and potentially harmful (Mariner, 2007). Similarly use of genetic material by the Western Australian police is accepted as appropriate by some, since it is being used in the interests of law enforcement and protection of the community, yet this same practice is viewed by others as inappropriate, an intrusion on civil liberties, and an example of function creep. For many, the use of genetic information by insurance companies or employers is inappropriate and potentially discriminatory yet it is currently legal in Australia for life insurers and employers to utilise this information, as long as they are able to justify their

40

actions. Highlighting this blurring of boundaries provides some insight into function creep, showing how consensual information gathering can move to surveillance almost unnoticed or uncontested.

These broad analyses of surveillance activities encourage a critique of consensual monitoring programs and practices. Applying this critical perspective to health environment identifies the potential for coercion and/or unintended consequences in programs ranging from genetic screening of newborns (Mariner, 2007), to proposed mental health checks on Australian three-year-olds (Butler, 2012), to calls for mandatory HIV tests for sex workers (Scarlet Alliance, 2007). Broad-ranging analyses also identify coercive practices embedded in ostensibly beneficial programs such as the 2010 Australian Bureau of Statistics health survey which aimed to establish benchmarks for future health strategies (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010). Individuals who refused to participate in this survey were liable for fines (Dunleavy, 2010). In another example the Federal Labor government proposed to link childhood immunisation to the Family Tax Benefit. Leake argues that, ‘children who already miss out by not being immunised may be further disadvantaged through economic disparities’ (cited in Sweet, 2011).

Neutral analyses of surveillance challenge the top-down, hierarchical model of power implied by the panoptic metaphor. Instead, they represent surveillance networks as decentralised, non-hierarchical and multi-directional. These discussions emphasise the existence of multiple goals, the potential for both reciprocal and non-reciprocal surveillance and the possibility for resistance to surveillance. Everyone has the opportunity to observe and the opportunity to participate in, or resist surveillance (Allmer, 2011; Lyon, 2004; Peissl, 2003; Staples, 2000). Studies of health monitoring systems illustrate these differentials. Home monitoring systems are designed to enable disabled, ill or ageing individuals to remain living independently. While some studies point to

41

these technologies being viewed as an intrusion into what has traditionally been considered the private sphere, others point to patients perceiving ongoing surveillance as empowering (Cantor, 2006; Essen, 2008; Hughes & Louw, 2002). Essen argues that these findings challenge the generally accepted roles ascribed to the agents and targets of surveillance (2008).

Despite the insights and research directions offered by this broad understanding of surveillance, the approach has been criticised. Critics argue it masks power differentials inherent in information gathering practices, focuses on technology to the detriment of social aspects of surveillance and normalises surveillance which potentially trivialising concerns. In seeking to counter the panoptic surveillance-as-domination representation of power, it is suggested that this more encompassing approach masks the asymmetrical distribution of power which can enable governments and corporations to more effectively achieve their goals while making it difficult for the less powerful to resist. In addition, incorporating monitoring and surveillance activities within the one definition paves the way for trivialising coercive forms of surveillance: ‘If everything is surveillance, it becomes difficult to criticize repressive forms of surveillance politically because surveillance is then a term that is used in everyday language’ (Fuchs, 2011, p. 126). In public health, the term surveillance is routinely used in discussions to describe a wide range of health-related monitoring activities. This has seen surveillance come to be associated with positive goals making the moves to non-consensual information gathering and surveillance appear less threatening, particularly when justified in positive terms. Allmer (2011) also suggests that this perspective focuses on technology and the technical aspects of personal information collection and surveillance. A focus on surveillance systems deflects attention from the ‘cultural circuitries in which surveillance systems are embedded’ (Smith, 2012). While these social dimensions are not ignored, they tend to be explored in the context of technical systems.

42

Notwithstanding these criticisms, this surveillance as neutral approach to exploring and understanding surveillance highlights the complexity of the health care environment with its multiple players and their complex, potentially competing goals and purposes for seeking access to information. Discussions acknowledge the positive benefits of information gathering while drawing attention to the possible dangers of some uses of personal information. The insights gained from this inclusive approach create an imperative for researchers to explore both positive and negative perceptions and experiences of surveillance.