Lifestreaming as Self-surveillance (draft)

Jessica Mullen

11-19-09

INF 390N.1

Page 1 of 11
 Abstract

Lifestreaming is a form of self-surveillance afforded to us by digital and

networked technologies. By extracting digital artifacts from our lives and

publishing them into one aggregated representation of ourselves online, we

can begin to visualize our lives as data, more easily measure the

quantifiable, manage our patterns, behaviors, and reputations, and archive

our lives to supplement the human memory.

Self-surveillance may be all-encompassing and have the internally panoptic

effect of splitting the self into two: the observed and observing. This

struggle for power within the self may lead to breakdowns in mental health,

but also to spontaneous bursts of creativity and change. Lifestreaming

creates additional issues with privacy, information oversharing, complexity in

implementation and potential conformity.

A look at governmental studies and how they can be applied to the concept

of 'goal-oriented' lifestreaming is appropriate. In governmental studies,

focus is placed on evaluating "how particular systems of visibility are

deployed in the context of specific governmental ambitions" (Haggerty,

2006). In goal-oriented lifestreaming, an individual's goal is identified and

self-surveillance is specifically directed towards the monitoring and

accomplishing of the goal. As goals are accomplished, an archive of

authentic, experiential knowledge is published in real-time to share and

assist others in their journeys.

Page 2 of 11
Lifelogging is an inevitability (Kevin Kelly, lifestream camera). Self-tracking

allows one's life to be turned into hard data that can be analyzed and

qualified in an objective manner. Lifestreaming is the publishing of one's

experiential information and data online, in an aggregated format. It can be

passive and automated, like sending exercise information automatically from

a Nike+ shoe, or setting up webcams that monitor everything. Or it can be a

very active editing and curating of experience for publication. The important

things to remember about lifestreaming are that it is shared with the public,

aggregates one's online presence into a cohesive 'data double' (Los, 2006:

77) or digital representation of oneself, and it can be viewed chronologically

to display narrative. This digital self is observed and evaluated publicly to

maintain self-control, recognize and monitor patterns, and to prevent

undesirable behavior; when performed exhaustively, lifestreaming might be

detrimental to mental health, but when undertaken for specific purposes,

affords the lifestreamer a great agency and shared knowledge at the

intersection of life and technology.

We must be concerned about this level of intrusion into privacy and the

willingness of people to trade so much privacy for things afforded by

lifestreaming: convenience for memory, data visualization and analysis, and

archiving. Lifestreaming is self-surveillance–tracking one's data and

information and collecting it in one place to monitor patterns, objectify

subjective human memory, provide evidence of experience, and it is a

method of controlling and disciplining the self.

On the other hand, lifestreaming is done by choice, and one is aware of

being observed. Since it is self observing self, it splits the person into two

Page 3 of 11
parts: the observed and observer. Though lifestreaming is a conscious

choice, one cannot escape the observing self and thus surveillance becomes

an appropriate term for description. It is done for the self's benefit, as in

medical surveillance for disease. But there is a disciplinary element that

evokes a vision of an 'internal panopticon'. Additionally, making one's self-

tracking data public submits the lifestreamer to public scrutiny–giving

voluntary self-surveillance a layer of accountability to others.

LIT REVIEW

Lifestreaming can be seen as the 'data double':

"It may be predicted that 'taking care' of our virtual double(s) will develop

into a major preoccupation, de-centering the earlier focus on the Self and its

images in the eyes of others. [ . . . ] Indeed, the whole notion of working on

our real selves to achieve ethically/socially desirable results is becoming

pointless as our care is refocused on a virtual sphere populated by our

potential clones"(Los, 90).

A panoptic view of surveillance may be useful in some ways in thinking

about lifestreaming (cite Lyon).

Lifestreaming is a concrete example of the rhizome-type surveillance

through leveling of surveillance hierarchy (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000?).

Potentially, lifestreamers may capture and aggregate the same data

collected about them by third parties and the government, thus giving the

lifestreamer the same opportunity to capitalize on their own data. A group of

Page 4 of 11
lifestreamers may collate their data to find patterns to benefit their own

community, as opposed to third parties doing the same for more effective

marketing.

Self-publishing for agency (Koskela).

EXISTING POLICY INSTRUMENTS?

KEY ISSUES

The underlying assumptions about lifestreaming are that it is a self-absorbed

or vain performance, that it provides too much information (as in

oversharing), that it is an invasion of privacy, and that it is too complex or

time-consuming to comprehend or implement. (requires elaboration)

Stakeholders

There are many stakeholders in the self-surveillance of lifestreaming. First,

the lifestreamer herself. The lifestreamer self-tracks for many reasons, some

of them being: extraction and visualization of experience into digital artifact,

measuring of quantifiable data, management of goals, patterns, reputation

and community involvement, and an archiving of experience for future

reference and for sharing with the world. A seemingly very selfish enterprise

can be seen as quite altruistic when one considers the vast amount of data a

lifestreamer may contribute to the wealth of information available online.

With lifestreaming comes those who wish to profit on the data provided at

Page 5 of 11
no cost by lifestreamers and enable an easier sharing of data with products

and services. These stakeholders are companies that host, curate and

manipulate data, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter. Also invested are

manufacturers of physical hardware and equipment that makes the

digitization of experience possible. These companies create products that

streamline the digitization process and advance archiving and sharing

possibilities. Apple, Dell, and other electronics and computer manufacturers

are examples. A third category of entity that profits from lifestreaming is the

infrastructure sector. The cable companies, the phone companies, and

internet service providers all have a vested interest in being the conduit for

one's data to charge for usage.

The third category of stakeholder in lifestreaming is the public. These are the

viewers of one's lifestream, whether intentionally or not. They are one's

Facebook friends, Linkedin connections, blog readers, Twitter followers, or

Google searchers. They are strangers, friends, family, employers, children,

coworkers, colleagues, students, babysitters, or the government. The public

wants valuable data, or at least entertainment. The public wishes to gain a

voyeuristic view, education, and camaraderie. Other portions of the public

may seek out victims or vulnerabilities in lifestreams. And let us not forget

the figure who might take most interest in one's lifestream: one's mother.

Conflicts among key values

Lifestreaming can develop as too rigid of a system, like an internalized

panopticon with self split into two: observed and observing. In the

panopticon, "Among other things, she observes prisoners engaged in self-

Page 6 of 11
mutilation – one that deliberately and repeatedly hits his hands on a stone

wall in an exercise yard, causing laceration and bleeding – and in faeces-

throwing and smearing within and beyond their cells. Such prisoners are

diagnosed as 'behaviorally disturbed' but Rhodes examines their 'behaviors'

as means of diagnosing the panopticon. The technology of power intended to

produce a 'calculated manipulation' of the body (Foucault 1979: 202)

actually produces more than this. As she says, the 'perfection' of the

mechanism actually calls forth its opposite (1998: 286). This resistance may

not be liberatory – indeed, it invites further control – but it calls in question

both the panopticon and our representations of it." (Lyon, 7)

In some ways, the acting out of one under too much surveillance can be

seen as creatively productive. Could this be an argument for high self-

surveillance? Lifestreaming may lend power to the observing self over the

observed self, thus forcing one to be more disciplined and future-minded.

However, the rebellion of the observed self against the observing may

displace that power temporarily, enabling bursts of creative and spontaneous

action. Is it a method for living 'healthier' yet to further extremes?

Lifestreaming may lead to conformity and loss of self:

"Paradoxically, then, the sharp end of the panoptic spectrum may

generate moments of refusal and resistance that militate against the

production of docile bodies, whereas the soft end seems to seduce

participants into a stunning conformity of which some seem scarcely

conscious. Either way, so far from displacing the spectacle with self-

discipline, the spectacle returns decisively, once more parading the

Page 7 of 11
 body before audiences. But the audiences differ, as well. While in the

supermax the display is catalysed by the presence of the audience; in

reality TV the audience is retained by a careful manipulation of the

display. At both ends of the spectrum, too, human creativity,

spontaneity and autonomy – beyond bare life – are at stake. At the

sharp end these are asserted through desperate acts, while at the soft

end they are subverted through disingenuous art." (Lyon, 8)

Los gives us insight into loss of self: "Moreover, once the hollowed-out self

becomes virtually a mirror for surveillance, the social is consumed by

whatever system rationality shapes and fuels that surveillance" (Los, 2006:

91) Lifestreaming may try to change or edit too much of the self at one

time, leading to little sense of intrinsic characteristics or personality.

Lifestreaming generates too much noise...

There is a loss of privacy in lifestreaming...

It takes considerable amounts of time to lifestream...

CONCLUSION

Lifestreaming, when approached like governmental studies (Haggerty, 2006)

as in goal-oriented lifestreaming, may be a solution for circumventing issues

of privacy, oversharing, and noise in a lifestream. It might also reduce the

internal panoptic effects of 'too much' lifestreaming by only observing areas

Page 8 of 11
applicable to the specific goal or problem, as in governmental projects:

"Studies of governance also avoid sweeping declarations about the

nature of governance characteristic of an entire state or society.

Instead, they focus on the particularities of governmental projects,

each of which involves characteristic efforts to pattern the behaviour of

people in prescribed directions. Each governmental project [think goal-

oriented lifestream] can, in turn, be analyzed in terms of its specific

rationalities and technologies. Governmental rationalities consist of the

conscious reflections on the aims and ambitions of governing – how

governance is understood from the position of governing agencies.

Governmental technologies are the assorted tools used to achieve those

governmental ambitions, and can include such varied phenomena as

architectural forms, accounting formulas, and surveys" (Haggerty,

2006: 40).

"While governance inevitably involves efforts to persuade, entice,

coerce, or cajole subjects to modify their behaviour in particular

directions, the targets of governance are understood to be a locus of

freedom, although this freedom is inevitably bounded by various

constraints. Nonetheless, the emphasis on subjects as active agents

suggests that all governmental projects entail opportunities for

resistance, avoidance or subversion" (Haggerty, 2006: 40).

"One of the the most important connections relates to the fact that the

practice of governance is knowledge dependent. Governing a specific

population requires an intricate knowledge of its particularities,

Page 9 of 11
 tendencies and inclinations. This emphasis on the operation of

knowledge, along with an understanding of the importance of different

technologies for conceptualizing and executing governmental ambitions,

places practices of visibility at the forefront of governmental practices"

(Haggerty, 2006: 40).

"The emphasis on particular governmental projects also restrains any

desire to conceptualize surveillance tout court in favour of examining

how particular systems of visibility are deployed in the context of

specific governmental ambitions. It allows for a focused consideration of

the aims, dynamics and rationalizations of particular surveillance

projects. Such a focus can also mitigate the tendency towards forms of

dystopian technological determinism that are often apparent in the

surveillance studies literature. Combining a normatively ambivalent

stance with a focus on particular governmental projects allows for the

development of a more refined normative stance towards surveillance.

Surveillance is neither good nor bad. We can only develop a meaningful

normative position towards surveillance projects that are coordinated

and calibrated in light of particular governmental ambitions. Such an

ephasis also allows for analysis of the complexities and dynamics of

contemporary surveillance politics, as citizens typically do not oppose or

resist surveillance in the abstract, but express concerns about concrete

manifestations or imaginings of how surveillance is or will be deployed

for very specific purposes by particular institutions" (Haggerty 2006:

41).

If we replace surveillance with the term 'self-surveillance', or even the word

Page 10 of 11
lifestreaming in the above paragraph, the connections between

governmental studies and 'goal-oriented lifestreaming' become a little more

clear. Goal-oriented lifestreaming is (1) choosing a goal to work towards, (2)

visualizaing and contributing all relevant digital artifacts to a specific

lifestream technology (a Wordpress, Posterous, and Twitter aggregation

website, for example), and (3) taking deliberate action to track goal-related

data, monitor patterns and goal progress, receive critical community

feedback, and adjust behavior accordingly. Data submitted is entirely

voluntary, and the chosen goal can be assumed publicly valuable enough to

remove importance of privacy to the lifestreamer. Private lifestreams

become personal lifelogs, as they do not benefit from the eyes and voices of

the observing community.

References:

Kevin Kelly: http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2007/02/

lifelogging_an.php

Weber Shandwick Lifestream Whitepaper: http://bit.ly/fashM

Los

Lyon

Koskela

Haggerty

Haggerty & Ericson

Ball

Page 11 of 11