Campbell, J. E., Carlson, M. (2002). Panopticon.com: Online surveillance and the commodification of privacy.

From Digital Culture & Society

Campbell, J. E., Carlson, M. (2002). Panopticon. com: Online surveillance and the commodification of privacy. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(4), 586-606. [1]

Danielle Fenton

The article, Panopticon.com: Online Surveillance and the Commodification of Privacy, is the works written by John Edward Campbell and Matt Carlson to explore how certain marketing imperatives shape the employment of information technologies for the surveillance of individuals online (p.586). Campbell and Carlson analyze marketing models of the internet, specifically, the internet ad servers Bluestreak and DoubleClick as well as infomediaries in an effort to understand the social implications surrounding online corporate surveillance. The theoretical point of view is drawn from the work of Focault and how we can utilize his metaphorical Panopticon model to further explain contemporary surveillance and power relations in the World Wide Web. The article argues that we, as consumers, submit ourselves to panoptic surveillance (self-surveillance) in order to exchange privacy for participation with goods and services in the marketplace. By exploring how marketers utilize online surveillance to increase the efficiency of their advertisements, Campbell and Carlson help us understand how surveillance techniques are employed and economically driven by practices of data gathering and assessment. A particular strength in this study is the researchers’ ability to tie theoretical constructs of panoptic surveillance to two different marketing models- the Internet ad server and the infomediary model.

Campbell and Carlson speak of the introduction of the Panopticon by Jeremy Bentham in 1971. As explained, the Panopticon was a new and innovative prison design to control criminals. From a centralized tower, a single guard had the ability to monitor any prisoner, in any cell, at any time- this single prison authority becomes, in effect, all seeing (p.589). Borrowed from Bentham, Focault applies this model to modern institutions and their surveillance plans. Focault argues that the effective invisibility of authority; the unverifiable surveillance- obliges the subject to engage in “self-surveillance” by inducing the state of conscious and permanent visibility assuring the automatic functioning of power (p.589). Internet ad servers allow marketing firms the opportunity to personalize advertisements to consumers by compiling personal information of users into economic profiles to target the right people with the right message. Through the systematic efforts of identifying, categorizing and assessment, the article ties both the Panopticon and Internet ad servers’ corporate data-gathering to a common technique- surveillance (p. 587). The article is not so much concerned with Big Brother as with what Big Brother’s corporate cousins are doing with their personal information (p.588). This article shifts the focus away from consequences of state supervision and brings attention to the economic imperatives driving advertising and marketing companies to expand the techniques and technologies of surveillance (p.588).

Campbell and Carlson pose the question regarding why individuals provide personal information (gender, sexuality, race, age, education, household income) to corporations when such information is not necessary to complete a commercial transaction. That being said, consumers are in the dark about where their personal information will be used by the corporations but still choose to participate. The article explains the consumerist Panopticon as a reason behind this inequitable power relationship between consumers and suppliers. According to the article, we provide personal information about ourselves in the belief that we will ultimately benefit from such disclosure through convenient access to goods and/or services (p.592). An interesting explanation of a consumers engagement in self-disclosure is to avoid being “punished by exclusion” from the rewards of the marketplace. The writers state that “In essence, marketers employ a very subtle threat of coercion by cultivating in the consumer a sense of “losing out” if they do not willingly submit to panoptic surveillance” (p.592). A study also indicated that young internet users view online “tracking: as an advantageous tool- users choose to participate in commercial surveillance in return for economic benefits. Such economic benefits involve the company sending offers of products or services reflecting a person's particular interests. However, Campbell and Carlson highlight an important fact that this “partnership” is actually just a carefully constructed illusion. Although the means of surveillance are visible and superficially consensual- we as consumers never know where this collected data is going and therefore, we participate without understanding exactly what we are participating in (p.593). Therefore, it can be said that the fundamental function of panoptic surveillance for identification and assessment remains relevant and an issue to be further explored.

Campbell and Carlson go on to explain how the Panopticon has been integrated into a consumptive model through the obsessive 'data mining' of our personal lives. Surveillance remains present online through Internet ad servers. The writers explain how the functions of the tower and the guards in the Panoptic model have been incorporated into the codes of Internet ad servers- to visit a site affiliated with such servers is to be under surveillance (p.594). The article draws a parallel between the business models of internet ad servers and Gandy's model of corporate surveillance otherwise known as the “panoptic sort”- a discriminatory technology linked with information technology used to manipulate mass consumption in the marketplace (p.595). Information technologies such as ad servers take our personal information and transform that data into intelligence that is used to assist marketers in their attempt to predict and direct consumer behaviour. Campbell and Carlson inform us that data are used to perform three specific functions: identification, classification and assessment. A strength of this article is the writers' ability to fully explain each of these functions in a way that resonates with any internet user and their experiences online. Identification is the process of capturing identifying information such as your name, address, telephone number, social security or mother's maiden name. This explains why internet users are asked to provide such information- so that a corporation can establish a consumer record. Classification is the process where an internet users' personal information is used to assign an individual to a group or “type” of consumer based on their shared characteristics (p.596). One's personal information is now a way for a supplier to appraise a person's value as a target- we become an economic marker and our value is reflected within a commercial society. The article states that with identification and classification a marketing firm can precisely pinpoint individuals as potential consumers and therefore can predict and manipulate ones consumptive behaviour.

A strength of the article is the incorporation of real software marketing corporations to explain how they utilize the process of identification, classification and assessment in their business models. The writers highlight DoubleClick- a corporation that compiles demographic information of millions of internet users, develops targeting technologies allowing marketers to construct profiles of potential consumers. DoubleClick DART- a software and network technology that tracks individuals online is a great example provided by Campbell and Carlson to break down the processes of internet ad servers. They explain that when we visit a website, that website assigns a “cookie” on our hard drive without our knowledge. These “cookies” are computer code markers of identifying information (username, password, preference settings) used to facilitate online activities. Ad servers, such as Doubleclick places these cookies on users' computers during initial visits to partnered websites in order to track the online activities of those individuals across the numerous websites the ad server is affiliated with (p.597). This example helps us understand why an ad might “speak to us” or provide a background to our shock when we feel like a product is directed specifically to us. The processes of Doubleclick allow for advertisers to use the collected data to make strategic alterations in their promotions in order to target specific individuals. Therefore, any information we provide about ourselves is never anonymous- it is used to chart market trends and assess consumer targets who are of greatest value to the corporation.

Similar to DoubleClick, the article uses another example to highlight the effectiveness of online tracking technologies through the corporation Bluestreak. Through Bluestreak's “BlueEyes Optimization Technology” uses a number of variables to optimize ad performances by placing the right ad in the right place at the right time (p.598). By providing this example, the writers give depth to how ad servers necessitate advanced surveillance technology by sorting and storing our personal information to classify us as either economically desirable or undesirable consumers. Campbell and Carlson indicate the economic advantage of collecting personal information on internet users that is shared by ad servers like Bluestreak- by tracking customers individually each can be classified as unique and therefore firms can take advantage of the fact that some customers are simply worth more economically (p.598).

Throughout the article, it is evident that marketers cultivate the conceptions of privacy as a readily exchanged commodity- the consumer is no longer compelled into self-surveillance through threats, but rather impelled through enticement (p.599). The article provides a background to further explain this so called enticement through the works of an infomediary- specifically Lumeria. An informediary persuades internet users to surrender all personal information to the infomediary site- in return it protects users from releasing such information to unauthorized sites and personalizes ads matched to the users interests. The commodification of privacy underlies Lumeria's mission: “Lumeria believes that consumers will ultimately demand control over their private information and refuse to surrender it without and adequate assurance of privacy protection and value exchange. The SuperProfile system provides a win for both buyers and sellers by allowing trusted agents, brokers, and auditors to share profile information, at the request of the individual consumer, with marketers, merchants, content providers, or other consumers” (p.601). The writers believe that infomediary companies have the right environment to flourish compared to Internet ad servers like DoubleClick and Bluesteak. This is because, as the article explains, infomediaries have a better understanding of users through voluntary surrendering of personal information and more comprehensive online tracking (p.602). In turn, informediaries use the extensive information to construct more accurate consumer classifications making the information gathered even more valuable to advertisers seeking precise marketing segments (p.602). This new economic model of online marketing is tied back to the Panopticon model. Campbell and Carlson suggest that Infomediaries complicate the conventional understanding of the Panopticon because in the case of the Infomediary model, the guard in the tower is seen as a beneficial partner- subjects willingly offer themselves to the guard's inspection, and this guard is always watching (p.602).

Panopticon.com: Online Surveillance and the Commodification of Privacy contends that we, as internet users, are under constant electronic surveillance. We cannot decide simply not to participate because that decision is made in an environment that is shaped by inequalities of power. The article points out exactly why we participate in self-disclosure- since we see ourselves at some inherent disadvantage, we come to see the benefits gained by exchanging our personal information as advantageous acts that will somehow grant us an edge in the economic (and even social) sphere (p.603). The agent of surveillance is not as obvious on the internet as it is in the Panopticon model. Although we are not being physically pressured into providing personal information to the marketer through their panoptic gaze, we are willing to give up our privacy in exchange for the benefits marketers and advertisers have to offer. Throughout the article, Campbell and Carlson express the dangers of the online Panopticon and our participatory involvement as objects of inspection. After reading the article, a particular quote stated by the authors is one that everyone should take into consideration next time they are faced with providing personal information online: “We may have feared the intrusion of Big Brother into our homes and private lives, but we open wide the door to his corporate cousins even as they reduce us to economic abstracts and marketing segments” (p.604).