We are living in an era where privacy has become less and less of a given: the default is now surveillance. From doorbell cameras to smart assistants, TikTok to Google calendar, we’re constantly being monitored and tracked. However, there are some groups who are afforded more privacy—who can buy more privacy—than the rest of the population. On the flip side, there are also groups who are at a privacy disadvantage. Socioeconomic standing factors into access to private spaces (both online and in the real-world).
This is particularly relevant to students. Students have less income than the average population, and therefore are more vulnerable to predatory tactics from companies. However, students often come from households with higher household incomes than the average population.
This post will focus on the interactions between surveillance and poverty, with an emphasis on the technologies used in physical spaces (as opposed to online surveillance) and their correlation with poverty. This is the first half of a two-part post. In the next post, we will explore how surveillance in online spaces increases with poverty, concluding by asking whether the surveillance will continue to largely target underprivileged groups—or if it is now affecting everyone.
Video Surveillance
Video surveillance is becoming ever-pervasive. The amount of security cameras in cities is already staggering, and only continuing to rise. Exemplifying just how often we are on camera, one artist created a project in which he used open security cameras to find the moment when people captured photos for Instagram. On top of this, the purchasing of privately-owned security cameras is on the rise. In 2021 alone, Amazon’s Ring sold more than 1.7 million units. As income decreases, so does control of surveillance. Costing around $50-$100+, the target demographic of security cameras is middle class consumers. While they are accessible to underprivileged groups as well, there is also an infrastructure needed to set up these security systems (wifi, a phone, etc). This means that there is a greater likelihood of these devices being present in middle- and upper-class areas.Security cameras in low income neighbourhoods are likely to be owned by businesses, government, and law enforcement, instead of private citizens.
Control of surveillance does not equate to privacy, but there is a salient difference between being surveilled by your own camera, and being surveilled by someone else’s. As the owner of, say, a Ring doorbell or security camera, you have the ability to keep footage, delete footage, review and share footage, or even remove the camera entirely. If you are being surveilled, you have no agency in the surveillance process: you are a passive object on camera. Human rights activist groups have been sounding the alarm bell on video surveillance for years. An article published by the ACLU in 2002 outlined the potential for misuse and abuse of surveillance footage. The worries they raised are even more palpable today—the issues we are facing have the potential to reinforce, and intensify, socioeconomic and racial power imbalances that have persisted for decades.
Workplace Surveillance
Employee surveillance is increasing across different employment sectors. This is particularly evident in lower paying jobs.
Many of us have read about the 1984-esque conditions that Amazon workers are subjected to on the job. Everything—from time-off-task to the length of their bathroom breaks—is monitored. This has been one of the contributing factors to the unionisation efforts at many amazon fulfilment centres. Warehouse employees are monitored with AI video cameras that make sure workers stay six feet apart at all times. Drivers are monitored “100% of the time” with a four-camera AI system called Driveri—reportedly used in other transport trucks across the country. This experience is not unique to Amazon employees.
Truckers are another example—they are chronically underpaid, overworked, and highly surveilled. Trucking is viewed by some as a means of escaping poverty, but many truckers sacrifice family lives, health, and privacy for a living wage. Trucks are equipped with a range of sensors, from cameras tracking eye movements to sensors monitoring the braking patterns of drivers. This is partially an effort to increase the safety of the drivers and those on the road around them, but the question should be raised: is the tradeoff of privacy for safety worth it?
Even working from home doesn’t necessarily mean a worker is safe from surveillance. For example, call centre employees in Colombia reported being forced to sign contracts that allowed their company to install security cameras in their home workspace—which sometimes amounts to putting security cameras in their bedroom.
Poverty plays a significant role in the way one is surveilled—not only the frequency of surveillance, but also the nature of surveillance. In this sense, privacy is becoming a commodity that is acquired through socioeconomic standing. This is present through video surveillance of everyday life, as well as surveillance of workers in job settings. This is also present in online spaces, which is the focus of the second part of this article (being posted Friday, October 21st).
Further Considerations:
- How do you think control of surveillance changes the impacts of surveillance? Do you think there is a power imbalance between the surveiller and the surveilled? Who should be considered the surveiller—the owner of the camera or the company that sells it?
- How do you think surveillance reinforces the cycle of poverty?
- Are there ethical implications to surveillance? Does it change if it is by individuals, universities, companies, or law enforcement?
Written by: Eden Solarik
Edited by: Lucas Wright
Featured Image: Photo by Andrew Stickelman on Unsplash
People said…