On Twitter at https://twitter.com/Liberationtech, John Postill, Dan McQuillan, Sameer Padania, and Julian Oliver are having an interesting conversation on the following question:
What other solutions should we think about beyond technical and legal to address the problem of surveillance? Some like Dick Scott in the "new institutionalism" -- including psychologists, sociologists, economists, political scientists, and anthropologists working on it -- have suggested three pillars (see: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/56769_Chapter_3_Scott_Institutions_and_Organizations_4e.pdf): i) regulative (formal rules such as laws that reward or sanction); ii) normative (informal agreements people make, such as norms); and, iii) cultural-cognitive (ideas people have about the way the world works, such as technology). Others have suggested an affective pillar to encompass human emotions (see: http://www.amazon.com/Interaction-Princeton-Studies-Cultural-Sociology/dp/0691123896 ). Using this framework, it's clear that the media is focusing on the regulative (laws) and parts of the cultural-cognitive (tech), but ignoring the normative and affective, as Dan notes, including arts and humanities. If interested, you may want to check it out or continue the conversation in 140+ characters here. Best, Yosem
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at [email protected].
