Social Media cloaking

Overheard. Friend no.1,

'I never joined Facebook cos I actually want to see my friends'

So claimed a non-Facebook friend. This all began one evening in the pub as another friend (Friend no.2) was berating his 'inaction' re. a Friend Request she had sent him.

Which sparked the following...

As social technologies continue to arrive cloaked in rhetoric's of openness, of trust - all the main components for friendship. We appear, in effect, in control of 'our' Web. The very construct of O'Reilly's 'Web 2.0' fosters sharing & caring; participation & reciprocation. Together these obscure how never before have we volunteered up so much personal information.

Thus, as we move from finding what's on the 'web of information' to a series of networks as a 'web of people' (Social Web) the output of all of this social participation is boundless and can be arranged as seemingly comprehensible information dossiers on individuals (everything pulled together from social network profile/s, photos, location, status updates, searches and so on and so forth.).

At the heart of this pulling of social and 'out there' data lies a loss of control over personal information. Take for example MIT's Project Gaydar - set to 'spot' your sexual preference by the social ties on Facebook with various checks accumulated from tagged 'shares', quizes etc. all making very personally identifiable information available (AND quantifiable £s as it is sold on) to third parties.

Amidst such complicit social action/s, one starts to wonder if Friend no.1 has a point. Not because being on the web and/or joining Facebook means that you see less of friends, but rather there are very real social risks that arise from the 'giving away' such personal aspects of yourself.
All rather disconcerting. Until Friend no.2 countered with,

'Well we're all being CCTV surveilled right now! (in the pub) and everywhere else anyway, so what's a few clicks between friends'

And so the above, I find, is more or less exactly how people have decided that it is OK to volunteer up so many aspects of themselves. This is because such social participation has been gradual. Slowly our personal offerings lend themselves to a radical shift in one direction of increasing social exposure - a by-product of wanting to be a constant part of what's going on and open as a link to others.

Besides, as Friend no.1 and no.2 manage to agree before closing time,

'...We are programmed to receive.
You can checkout any time you like,
But you can never leave!'

This may have had more to do with the Eagles on the juke box, rather than any real profound thought as to the social state of surveillance and the web though...

The Click Have Eyes

We live in the most surveilled part of Europe. Filmed an average of 300 times when we choose to leave our homes. Feel sorry then for the people of Stratford-upon-Avon as the amount of footage is about to increase. Tony Morgan, James Woodward and David Steele have launched Internet Eyes. The site gives opportunity for those behind the eyes to reap the rewards against crime. No, not 'Them', but You. In the same week when football fans were forced to pay-per-view for a match online, at the same time viewers could choose to watch streamed CCTV footage and if you 'spot a crime' - it's a GOAL!

Alongside the Government plans for ID cards it appears that we are to live as part of increasingly 'inclusive' series of surveillance recordings as we literally zoom in and out of view. The forthcoming nationwide launch of Internet Eyes could be a profitable business. It represents the taking of a virtual journey to uncover criminal incidences just click away. For viewers this means they feel warm and fluffy having uncovered criminal situation/s (Poirot has nothing on these CCTV viewing couch surfing detectives).

Some key points
1. Should such surveillance not be in the hands of professionals and not the public
2. This can only ever work as a 'gesture' in the fight against criminal activity. And I doubt that we'll be allowed to view the CCTV footage inside bank boardrooms.
3. Internet Eyes could represent the next round for reality tv. A pay-per-view which would accumulate as a cash prize for those Spotter's of the crims. There could even be T-shirts.

So there you have it, a business proposition that profits on 'rising crime rate', social surveillance, a bit of public fear and status given to the 'eyes of good' to bring crime rates down and, in principle, convictions up.

Convinced? You could buy the T-Shirt, pay-per-view and find out.

A more exciting and unique use of CCTV has been muscially ascribed by The Get Out Clause. Watch and enjoy viewers. Best of all, no crime.