The Logic of Surveillance Capitalism

Philosophical Disquisitions: The Logic of Surveillance Capitalism
More
http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-logic-of-...
Next Blog
Create Blog
Sign In
Philosophical Disquisitions
Things hid and barr'd from common sense
Home
About
Best Of
Academic Papers
Media
T h u r s d a y, J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 1 5
About Me
John Danaher
The Logic of Surveillance Capitalism

Tweet
Follow
373
Academic with
interests in the
philosophy of technology,
religion, ethics and law. Blogs at
http://
philosophicaldisquisitions.
blogspot.com
View my complete profile
Follow me!
On Twitter
On Academia.edu
On Philpapers
On Google Plus
On Facebook
Search This Blog
Search
You have probably noticed it already. There is a strange logic at the heart of the modern
tech industry. The goal of many new tech startups is not to produce products or services
for which consumers are willing to pay. Instead, the goal is create a digital platform or hub
that will capture information from as many users as possible to grab as many eyeballs
as you can. This information can then be analysed, repackaged and monetised in various
ways. The appetite for this information-capture and analysis seems to be insatiable, with
ever increasing volumes of information being extracted and analysed from an
ever-expanding array of data-monitoring technologies.
The famous Harvard business theorist Shoshana Zuboff refers to this phenomenon as
surveillance capitalism and she believes that it has its own internal logic that we need to
carefully and critically assess. The word logic is somewhat obscure in this context. To me,
logic is the study of the rules of inference and argumentation. To Zuboff, it means
something more like the structural requirements and underlying principles of a particular
social institution in this instance the institutions of surveillance capitalism. But theres
no sense in getting hung up about the word. The important thing is to understand the
phenomenon.
And thats what I want to do in this post. I want to analyse Zuboffs characterisation and
assessment of the logic of surveillance capitalism. That assessment is almost entirely
negative in nature, occasionally hyperbolically so, but contains some genuinely provocative
insights. This is marred by the fact that Zuboffs writings are esoteric and not always
enjoyable to read. This is largely due to her opaque use of language. Im going to try to
1 of 8
Amazon Store
Link
This work by John Danaher is

licensed under a Creative
Commons AttributionNonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0
Unported License.
Blog Archive
2015 (90)
December (3)
November (8)
October (9)
September (7)
August (10)
July (10)
June (8)
Technological
12/12/15, 2:15 PM
Unemployment and
Personal Well-being...
simplify and repackage what she has to say here.

Zuboff identifies four key features in the logic of surveillance capitalism. In doing so, she
explicitly follows the four key features identified by Googles chief economist, Hal Varian.
These four features are: (i) the drive toward more and more data extraction and analysis;
(ii) the development of new contractual forms using computer-monitoring and automation;
(iii) the desire to personalise and customise the services offered to users of digital
platforms; and (iv) the use of the technological infrastructure to carry out continual
experiments on its users and consumers.
The Logic of Surveillance

Capitalism
Drunken Consent to Sex
and Personal
Responsibility...
How might algorithms rule
our lives? Mapping the
l...
Four Concepts of Consent
and their Relevance to
Se...
Voluntary Intoxication and
Responsibility
Intoxicated Consent to
Sexual Relations: A Map
of ...
Hume's Argument Against
Miracles (Part Two)
May (7)
April (8)
March (4)
February (7)
January (9)
2014 (118)
2013 (100)
2012 (100)
2011 (133)
2010 (188)
Each of these four features has important social repercussions. Lets look at them in more
depth.
2009 (31)
Blogroll
1. Data Extraction and Analysis

The first feature of surveillance capitalism is probably the most obvious. It is the insatiable
appetite for data extraction and analysis. This what many refer to under the rubric of big
data and what people worry about when they worry about data protection and privacy.
Zuboff says that there are two things you need to understand about this aspect of
surveillance capitalism.
First, you need to understand the sources of the data, i.e. what it is that makes it fair to
refer to this as the era of big data. There are several such sources, all of which feed into
ever-increasing datasets, that are far beyond the ability of a human being to comprehend.
The most obvious source of data is the data from computer-mediated transactions. The
infrastructure of modern computing is such that every computer-mediated transaction is
recorded and logged. This means that there is rich set of transaction-related data to be
mined. In addition to this, there is the rise of the so-called internet of things, or internet
of everything. This is the world being inaugurated by the creation of smart devices that
can be attached to every physical object in the world, and can be used to record and
upload data from those objects. Think about the computers in cars, lawnmowers,
thermostats, wristwatches, washing machines and so on. Each one of these devices
represents an opportunity for more data to be fed to the institutions of surveillance
capitalism. On top of that there are the large datasets kept by governments and other
bureaucratic agencies that have been digitised and linked to the internet, and the vast
array of private and personal surveillance equipment. Virtually everything can now be used
as a datasource for surveillance capitalism. Whats more, the ubiquity of data-monitoring is
2 of 8
Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy
Social Minimum
18 hours ago
Public Reason
CFP: The Values of Liberal
Democracy: Themes of
Joseph Razs Political
Philosophy
1 day ago
Sprachlogik
Vote Sprachlogik at
3QuarksDaily
1 day ago
Notre Dame Philosophical

Reviews // News
Introduction to Non-Marxism
1 day ago
Stephen Law
3 days ago
Practical Ethics
Announcement: Future of
Humanity Institute advertises
four research positions
3 days ago
ex-apologist
12/12/15, 2:15 PM
often deliberately hidden or hidden in plain sight. People simply do not realise how
often, or how easy it is, for their personal data to be collected by the institutions of
surveillance capitalism.
Second, you need to understand the relationship between the data-extracting companies,
like Google, and the users of their services. The relationship is asymmetric and
characterised by formal indifference and functional independence. Each of these features
needs to be unpacked. The asymmetry in the relationship is obvious. The data is often
extracted in the absence of any formal consent or dialogue. Indeed, companies like Google
seem to have adopted an extract first, ask later attitude. The full extent of data
extraction is often not revealed until there is some scandal or leak. This was certainly true
of the personal data about wi-fi networks extracted by Googles Street View project. The
formal indifference in the relationship concerns Googles attitude toward the content of
the data it extracts. Google isnt particularly discriminating in what it collects: it collects
everything it can and finds out uses for it later. Finally, the functional independence arises
from the economic use to which the extracted data is put. Big data companies like Google
typically do not rely on their users for money. Rather, they use the information extracted
as a commodity they can sell to advertisers. The users are the product, not the customers.
It is worth dwelling on this functional independence for a moment. As Zuboff sees it, this
feature of surveillance capitalism constitutes an interesting break from the model of the
20th century corporation. As set out in the work of economists like Berle and Means, the
20th century firm was characterised by a number of mutual interdependencies between its
employees, its shareholders and its customers. Zuboff uses the example of the
car-manufacturing businesses that dominated American in the mid-20th century. These
companies relied on large and stable networks of employees and consumers (often one and
the same people) for their profitability and functionality. As a result, they worked hard to
establish durable careers for their employees and long-term relationships with their
customers. It is not clear that surveillance companies like Google are doing the same thing.
They do not rely on their primary users for profitability and often do not rely on human
workers to manage their core services. Zuboff thinks that this is reflected in the fact that
the leading tech companies are far more profitable than the car-manufacturers ever were,
while employing far fewer people.
For what its worth, I fear that Zuboff may be glorifying the reality of the 20th century
firm, and ignoring the fact that many of Googles customers (and Facebooks and Twitters)
are also primary users. So there are some interdependencies at play. But it might be fair to
say that the interdependencies have been severely attenuated by the infrastructure of
surveillance capitalism. Companies really do require fewer employees, with less stable
careers; and there is not the same one-to-one relationship between service users and
customers.
One final point about data extraction and analysis. There is an interesting contrast to be
made between the type of market envisaged by Varian, and made possible by surveillance
capitalism, and the market that was beloved by the libertarian free-marketeers of the 20th
century. Hayeks classic defence of the free market, and attack on the centrally-planned
market, was premised on the notion that the information needed to make sensible
economic decisions was too localised and diffuse. It could not be known by any single
organisation or institution. In a sense, the totality of the market was unknowable. But
surveillance capitalism casts this into doubt. The totality of the market may be knowable.
The implications of this for the management of the economy could be quite interesting.
6 days ago
Mind Hacks
A temporary blindness during
a wrongful conviction
1 week ago
Ethics Etc
Schedule for Speculative
Ethics Forum at St Johns
1 week ago
PEA Soup
The Marc Sanders Prize in
Metaethics
1 week ago
Philosophy, et cetera
Lichtenberg on Effective
Altruism
1 week ago
New APPS: Art, Politics,

Philosophy, Science
Celebrating women in
philosophy at UC Davis and
elsewhere
1 week ago
Nick Byrd
Philosophers Reasoning,
Errors, & Beliefs
3 weeks ago
Words, Ideas, and Things

Relatively Easy Data Entry for
a MySQL Database
10 months ago
Flickers of Freedom
Back to Basics This Month-Except for the Zombies
10 months ago
The Prosblogion
Call for Papers-Logos 2015:
Religious Experience
1 year ago
Evolving Thoughts
2 years ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Counter
Disqus for Philosophical

Disquisitions
2. New Contractual Forms

Whereas data extraction and analysis are obvious features of surveillance capitalism, the
other three features are slightly less so. The first of these, and arguably the most
interesting, is the new forms of contractual monitoring and enforcement that are made
possible by the infrastructures of surveillance capitalism.
These infrastructures allow for real-time monitoring of contractual performance. They also
3 of 8
12/12/15, 2:15 PM
allow for real-time enforcement. You will no longer need to go to court to enforce the
terms of a contract or terminate a contract due to breach of terms. The technology allows
you to do that directly and immediately. Varian himself gives some startling examples (Im
here quoting Zuboff describing Varians ideas):
New Contractual Monitoring and Enforcement: If someone stops making

monthly car payments, lenders can instruct the vehicular monitoring system not
to allow the car to be started and to signal the location where it can be picked
up. Insurance companies, he suggests, can rely on similar monitoring systems to
check if customers are driving safely and thus determine whether or not to
maintain their insurance or pay claims.
(Zuboff 2015, 81)
I can imagine similar scenarios. My health insurance company could use the monitoring
technology in my smartwatch to check to see whether I have been doing my 10,000 steps a
day. If I have not, they could refuse to pay for my medical care. All sorts of social values
could be embedded into these new contractual forms. The threat of withdrawing key
services or disabling products will be ever-present.
Zuboff argues that if such a system of contractual monitoring and enforcement becomes
the norm it will represent a radical restructuring of our current political and legal order.
Indeed, she argues that it would represent an a-contractual form of social organisation.
Contract, as conceived by the classic liberal writers, is a social institution built upon a
foundation of trust, solidarity and rule of law. We know that we cannot monitor and
intervene in another persons life whenever we wish, thus when we rely on them for goods
and services, we trust that they will fulfil their promises. We have recourse to the law if
they do not. But this recourse to the law is in explicit recognition of the absence of perfect
control.
Things are very different in Varians imagined world. With perpetual contractual
monitoring and enforcement, there is no real need for social solidarity and trust. Nor is
there any real need for the residual coercive authority of the law. This is because there is
the prospect of perfect control. The state need no longer be a central mediator and
residual enforcer of promises. Indeed, there is no real need for the act of promising
anymore: you either conform and receive the good/service; or you dont and have it
withdrawn/disabled. Your promise to conform is irrelevant.
This new contractual world has one other important social repercussion. According to
Zuboff, under the traditional contractual model there was a phenomenon of anticipatory
conformity. People conformed to their contractual obligations, when they were otherwise
unwilling to do so, because they wished to avoid the coercive sanction of the law. In other
words, they anticipated an unpleasant outcome if they failed to conform. She believes that
Varians model of contractual monitoring and enforcement will give rise to a distinct
phenomenon of automatic conformity. The reality of perpetual monitoring and immediate
enforcement will cause people will instinctively and habitually conform. They will no
longer choose to conform; they will do so automatically. The scope of human agency will
be limited.
This is all interesting and provocative stuff. I certainly share some of Zuboffs concerns
about the type of monitoring and intervention being envisaged by the likes of Varian. And I
agree that it could inaugurate a radical restructuring of the political-legal order. But it may
not come to that. Just because the current technology enables this type of monitoring and
intervention doesnt necessarily mean that we will allow it do so. The existing political
legal order still dominates and has a way of (eventually) applying its principles and
protections to all areas of social life. And there is still some scope for human agency to
shape the contents of those principles and protections. These combined forces may make it
difficult for insurance companies to set-up the kind of contractual system Varian is
imagining. That said, I recognise the countervailing social forces that desire that kind of
4 of 8
12/12/15, 2:15 PM
system too. The desire to control and minimise risk being one of them. There is a battle of
ideas to be fought here.
3. Personalisation and Customisation of Services

The third structural feature of surveillance capitalism is its move towards the
customisation and personalisation of services. Google collects as much personal data as it
can in order to tailor what kinds of searches and ads you see when you use its services.
Other companies do the same. Amazon tries to collect information about my book
preferences; Netflix tries to collect information about my viewing habits. Both do so in an
effort to customise the experience I have when I use their services, recommending
particular products to me on the basis of what they think I like.
Zuboff thinks that there is something of a Faustian pact at the heart of all this. People
trade personal information for the benefits of the personal service. As a result, they have
given up privacy for an economic good. Varian thinks that there is nothing sinister or
worrisome in this. He uses the analogy of the doctor-patient or lawyer-client relationships.
In both cases, the users of services share highly personal information in exchange for the
benefits of the personal service, and no one thinks there is anything wrong about this.
Indeed, it is typically viewed as a social good. Giving people the option of trading privacy
for these personalised services can improve the quality of their lives.
But Zuboff resists this analogy. She argues that something like the doctor-patient
relationship is characterised by mutual interdependencies (i.e. the doctor relies on the
patient for a living; the patient relies on the doctor to stay alive) and are protected and
grounded in the rule of law. The disclosures made by are limited, and subject to an explicit
consensual dialogue between the service user and service provider. The relationship
between Google and its users is not like this. The attempts at consensual dialogue are
minimal (and routinely ignored). It is not characterised by mutual interdependencies; it
often operates in a legal vacuum (extract first, ask questions later); and there are no
intrinsic limits to the extent of the information being collected. In fact, the explicit goal of
companies like Google is to collect so much personal information that they know us better
than we know ourselves.
The Faustian pact at the heart of all this is that users of these digital services are often
unaware of what they have given up. As Zuboff (and others) put it: surveillance capitalism
has given rise to a massive redistribution of privacy rights, from private citizens to
5 of 8
12/12/15, 2:15 PM
surveillance companies like Google. Privacy rights are, in effect, decision rights: they
confer an entitlement to choose where on the spectrum between complete privacy and
total transparency people should lie. Surveillance capitalism has allowed large companies
to exercise more and more control over these kinds of decisions. They collect the
information and they decide what to do with it.
That said, Zuboff thinks people may be waking up to the reality of this Faustian pact. In
the aftermath of the Snowden leak, and other data-related scandals, people have become
more sensitive to the loss of privacy. Legal regimes (particularly in Europe) seem to be
resisting the redistribution of privacy rights. And some companies (like Apple in recent
times) seem to be positioning themselves as pro-privacy.
4. Continual Experimentation
The final feature of surveillance capitalism is perhaps the most novel. It is the fact that
technological infrastructure allows for continual experimentation and intervention into the
lives of its users. It is easy to test different digital services using control groups. This is due
to the information collected from user profiles, geographical locations, and so on. There
are some famous examples of this too. Facebooks attempt to manipulate the moods of its
users being the most widely-known and discussed.
Varian argues that continual experimentation of this sort is necessary. Most methods of big
data analytics do not allow companies to work out relationships of cause and effect.
Instead, they only allow them to identify correlational patterns. Experimental intervention
is needed in order to tease apart the causal relationships. This information is useful to
companies in their effort to personalise, customise and generally improve the services they
are offering.
Zuboff gets a little bit mystical at this stage in her analysis. She argues that this sort of
continual intervention and experimentation gives rise to reality mining. This is distinct
from data-mining. With continual experimentation, all the objects, persons and events in
the real world can be captured and altered by the technological infrastructure. Indeed, the
distinction between the infrastructure and the external world starts to breakdown. As she
puts it herself:
Data about the behaviors of bodies, minds and things take their place in a
universal real-time dynamic index of smart objects within an infinite global
domain of wired things. This new phenomenon produces the possibility of
modifying the behaviors of persons and things for profit and control. In the logic
of surveillance capitalism there are no individuals, only the world-spanning
organism and all the tiniest elements within it.
(Zuboff 2015, 85)
Im not sure what Zuboff means by an infinite domain of wired things. But setting that
aside, it seems to me that, in this quote, with its mention of the world-spanning
organism, Zuboff is claiming that the apotheosis of surveillance capitalism is the
construction of a Borg-like society, i.e. a single collective organism that consumes reality
with its technological appendages. The possibility and desirability of such a society is
something I discussed in an earlier post.
5. Conclusion
To sum up, Zuboff thinks that there are four key structural features to surveillance
capitalism. These four features constitute its internal logic. Each of the features has
important social and political implications.
The first feature is the trend toward ever-greater levels of data extraction and analysis.
The goal of companies like Google is to extract as much data from you as possible and
6 of 8
12/12/15, 2:15 PM
convert it into a commodity that can be bought and sold. This extractive relationship is
asymmetrical and devoid of the mutual interdependencies that characterised 20th century
corporations like General Motors.
The second feature is the possibility of new forms of contractual monitoring and
enforcement. The infrastructure of surveillance capitalism allows for contracts to be
monitored and enforced in real-time, without the need for legal recourse. This would
constitute a radical break with the classic liberal model of contractual relationship. There
would be no need for trust, solidarity and rule of law.
The third feature is the desire to personalise and customise digital services, based on the
data being extracted from users. Though there may be some benefits to these personal
services, the infrastructure that enables them has facilitated a considerable redistribution
of privacy rights from ordinary citizens to surveillance capitalist firms like Google and
Facebook.
The fourth, and final feature, is the capacity for continual experimentation and
intervention into the lives of the service users. This gives rise to what Zuboff calls realitymining, which in its most extreme form will lead to the construction of a world-spanning
organism.
Posted by John Danaher at 12:27 PM
1 Comment
+6 Recommend this on Google
1 Comment
Recommend
1
!
Philosophical Disquisitions
Share
Login
Sort by Best
Join the discussion

Paul-Olivier Dehaye
6 months ago
Quinn Norton has also written about the "reality mining", and the shaping of the real world by the
infrastructure in https://medium.com/message/the...
Reply Share
WHAT'S THIS?
ALSO ON PHILOSOPHICAL DISQUISITIONS
Why haven't robots taken our jobs? The

Complementarity Argument
Assessing the Philosophical Apologetics of

William Lane Craig (Series Index)
3 comments 3 months ago
ClarenceDarrow The Complementary Eect
Freyr Myrddin And in this moment, you are
seems comically class-blind. Clearly the burden

of re-education will fall, as it always has, on
euphoric.
Beginning to Exist and the Kalam

Cosmological Argument
On the Limitations of General Skeptical

Theism
John Danaher Ah now, you're being too
John Danaher The fawn example wasn't meant
modest. You are already an excellent blogger on

these topics.
to be compelling; it was meant to illustrate the

methodological point. You are quite right that
Subscribe
Add Disqus to your site
Newer Post
Privacy
Home
Older Post
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
CC Licence
7 of 8
12/12/15, 2:15 PM
This work by John Danaher is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Simple template. Powered by Blogger.
8 of 8
12/12/15, 2:15 PM

The Logic of Surveillance Capitalism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Logic of Surveillance Capitalism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philosophical Disquisitions: The Logic of Surveillance Capitalism