The Fight for an Alternative Imaginary: Understanding Activism Through A Qualitative Discourse Analysis of Activists’ Perception of Surveillance by Corporations

(1)

The Fight for an Alternative Imaginary: Understanding

Activism Through A Qualitative Discourse Analysis of

Activists’ Perception of Surveillance by Corporations

New Media and Digital Culture Supervisor: Stefania Milan Second Reader: Alex Gekker 29th_{June 2018}

(2)

Abstract

In the world of activism, activists are subject to many practices that restrict their ability to protest. One such method is corporations using surveillance which includes tactics such as using private investigators, infiltrating activist networks and using digital technologies to establish an activist’s social graph. This study examined activists’ perception of acts of surveillance to understand how their perception of surveillance altered how they approached times of protest. By taking the activist’s perspective this thesis investigates how even perceived surveillance can affect public discourse and how in the digital age surveillance is becoming more invisible and more pervasive.

(3)

In 2012, London hosted the Olympic games and the world watched as the greatest global athletes competed for gold medals. The athletes demonstrated passion, determination and ingenuity as world records were broken and sporting moments were etched in the memories of people that will last forever. The Olympics were deemed a success on and off the track as the Olympic spirit spread throughout the United Kingdom (UK) (Randhawa).

The London Olympics had a potential global audience of 4.8 billion viewers and, consequently, many companies aspired to be associated with an event that leads to such positive global sentiment (Olympics Global Broadcast Report). One such company was BP, formerly British Petroleum and now Beyond Petroleum, BP’s Global Marketing Director Luc Bardin declared that “it was simply the right thing to do” in sponsoring the London Olympics as “BP was founded in London” and “part of the social and economic fabric of the UK” (Vigar 9). Meanwhile, Jess Worth, a British activist, claims that BP hired a “corporate intelligence gatherer” to follow her and the activist network she was involved with (Worth). Worth, by her own admission, had been earlier engaged in intense protests against BP initiatives (Worth). For all Bardin’s assertions that BP was part of the social fabric of the UK, Worth seems to expose a contradiction as she highlights BP implementing intelligence tactics against citizens who, it appears, just opposed BP’s policies. Worth recounts that after submitting a Subject Access Request, a UK law that allows citizens to request companies to release all data they have on an individual, BP declared her as an “individual of note” and in an alternative email referred to Worth as one of “our regular activists” (Worth). Worth’s experience is just one example of corporations using surveillance on activists to enhance their image and diffuse public conflict. Although a victim of surveillance, Worth did not seem unenthused by the information she received as she concludes “we’re doing the opposite of going away. I look forward to seeing you [BP] soon!” (Worth).

Worth’s enduring commitment to campaigning against BP should not diminish the effects acts of surveillance can have on freedom of thought. Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor turned whistle-blower, highlights that once our behaviour is monitored, we begin to act less naturally; emphasising how surveillance can be used by powerful actors to oppress individuals (Snowden). Corporations understand that carrying out surveillance on activists can

(5)

influence activists’ willingness to protest even if comments can be as innocuous as “our regular activists” (Worth).

Research in this thesis will explore how activists perceive surveillance, how they counter acts of surveillance and the effects surveillance can have in stifling discourse rather than focusing on if surveillance on activists is commonplace. I will summarise these concerns in the following research question: How do activists perceive acts of surveillance used upon them by corporations? To answer this research question, I will adopt a qualitative approach consisting of in-depth interviews with prominent actors in the field.

The relevance of this thesis is rooted in how hegemonic powers utilise technology to attempt to modify behaviour and affect the power imbalance between corporations and activists. Talking about acts of surveillance on activists is of particular relevance today because a lot of surveillance has grown exponentially in the age of social media. The particular affordances of social media expose activists to surveillance by dominant institutions through revealing a person’s social graph and tracking (Nadir). Activists, on the other hand, can utilise social media platforms to highlight corporations’ errors to a considerable audience with relative ease. There is a constant battle for publicity as activists utilise social media platforms to publicly shame corporations into reversing initiatives activists deem controversial (Gardiner). Social media platforms play a crucial role for both activists and corporations and afford both parties opportunities to engage with each other through various strategies (Helmond 2). Corporations exploit social media platforms to increase their knowledge of activist networks and through studying such platforms can gain specific personal detail about individuals as well as observing future plans to protest, for example, through Facebook curated events (Uldam 41). The differing use of social media by both activists and corporations demonstrates the power relations in scenarios of activism against corporations. The invisibility of corporations’ actions conveys how hard it is to hold corporations to account for their actions and demonstrates why it is necessary to hear activists’ perception of such practices (Uldam 45).

As shown by Bardin’s response to BP’s sponsorship of the Olympics, corporations devote vast amounts of time and money to curate a positive public image for their company (Vigar 9). To protect their business interests, corporations now engage in a policy of anticipation and containment as they utilise surveillance techniques to gain a greater insight into the activists that plan to protest, what methods they plan to use and when they are planning to protest (Uldam 50).

Judging from Worth’s recollection of events corporations engaging in acts of surveillance demonstrates an approach to business that values profits over people, as corporations disregard individuals’ civil liberties. By carrying out practices that are more associated with espionage agencies

(6)

corporations highlight their priorities are more aligned with increasing profits than “for the public”, as Bardin stated (Vigar 9). Corporations’ links to the intelligence community emphasises an understanding that their policies may not be well received by the public and stresses why corporations put so much effort to silence public conflict created by activists (Lubbers 129). Corporations’ devotion of resources to halting activists’ protests highlights how significant corporations view public activism. By implementing policies of surveillance on activists, corporations illustrate that an investigatory project into activists’ perceptions of such surveillance could have a significant impact in displaying how corporations attempt to silence public discourse, the effects surveillance has on activists and on public discourse.

This thesis takes the activists’ perspective and explores how acts of surveillance can effect their ability to protest. Edward Snowden highlights that when monitored, “we act less free”, and as such broaches the topic of the ‘Chilling Effect’ (Snowden). The chilling effect suggests that individuals might choose to self-censor because of the fear of state authorities or because of the influence of economic or social actors (Byeon et. al 139). Jonathon Penney, a law scholar, demonstrates that the chilling effect has been present in American society from the birth of the republican movement and more modern notions of the chilling effect emerged in the Cold War Era (Penney 3). Whilst some contest the impact of the chilling effect Schauer, writing in 1978, states that the chilling effect has developed from an “emotive argument” to a “major component” of the United States of America’s first amendment, an amendment that establishes freedom of speech as a constitutional right (685). Concerns surrounding ‘chilling effects’ have not just surfaced in the United States but have risen in many countries and resulted in revisions to laws in countries such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom (Penney 3). Penney stresses that the risks of being labelled as “non-conformists, deviants or criminals” create a societal context that facilitates self-censorship and emphasises power imbalances (Penney 126-127).

This investigation examines whether acts of surveillance carried out by corporations on activists result in activists self-censoring and, whether they think self-censorship is apparent in their activist networks and what this could mean for social protests in the future. If surveillance by corporations on activists does have a chilling effect it would display that surveillance can be used as a method to control activists. Surveillance as a method to control is most widely known in popular culture through English novelist George Orwell’s book, 1984, where citizens are subject to omnipresent governmental surveillance through a “telescreen” in each home (Orwell 1). In Orwell’s novel, citizens’ transgressive thoughts were wiped, and citizens were forced to think analogously with the government’s ideals (Orwell 2). Whilst Orwell’s book is fiction, there are similar themes in it

(7)

on how powerful actors attempt to use surveillance as a method to control and how surveillance can be used to suppress public discourse.

This thesis is organised into 5 remaining chapters: (2) literature review (3) methodology (4) research findings (5) discussion (6) conclusion. The literature review critically reads literature involving topics engaged with acts of surveillance carried out by corporations. To carry out a comprehensive examination of activists’ perception of corporate surveillance this thesis will consider literature from various academic fields such as media studies, sociology and surveillance studies.

After the literature review, the methodology chapter will explain my decision to carry out in-depth interviews to answer the research question. As a research method in-in-depth interviews are used to understand the intricacies of a subject’s daily world from their perspective (Kvale and Plas 27). By placing the significance of this research on the activist’s perception of surveillance, in-depth interviews will be an effective tool to answer the research question as they give the respondents ample opportunity to express their views. (Della Porta 230). The selection of in-depth interviews as the research approach results in detailed accounts from the personal perspectives on the issues that activists are faced with when in contact with corporations.

Following the methodology is the research findings chapter where I examine the results of the interviews. This chapter will include the most valuable aspects of the empirical work carried out. In the next chapter, I will move on to the discussion which contains a critical interpretation of the results and their significance in relation to my research question and to the literature surrounding acts of corporate surveillance on activists. By analysing the results of the empirical work, I will explain how, through extensive study of literature and empirical work, my understanding of how activists perceive acts of corporate surveillance has developed. The final chapter will be the conclusion where I will summarise the results of the research work, demonstrate the academic and social relevance of my study and evaluate possible future research directions individuals could carry out to develop the topic of surveillance carried out by corporations on activists.

(8)

2. Literature Review

Acts of surveillance on activists by corporations is a topic worthy of study as it highlights disparity in power relations, contrasting attitudes to privacy and the interspersing of public policing and private policing. To fully comprehend acts of surveillance by corporations it is necessary to remind that the discussion on surveillance is not binary and broaches many issues such as privacy concerns, public versus private policing and surveillance as a mechanism for control.

This literature review is split into 4 sections: (1) understanding surveillance (2) corporate behaviour (3) corporations and public perception (4) corporations and the establishment. And each section is divided into more concise sub-sections which give a comprehensive insight into the social, ethical and theoretical questions raised by acts of surveillance on activists by corporations. The literature that follows includes Julie Uldam’s exploration, Social Media Visibility: Challenges to Activism, which gave vivid insight into how the internet facilitates, not only individuals’ common activities, but also governmental or corporate powers’ ability to spy on non-conforming actors (43). Whereas, David Lyon’s study, Surveillance, Snowden, and Big Data: Capacities, Consequences, Critique, illustrates how hegemonic powers exploit technology and big data to carry out surveillance on individuals. Lyon illustrates that big data can be used in a benign fashion, however, when used as a tool for surveillance it can gather specific detail that many would consider a breach of privacy (2). Lastly, Eveline Lubbers’ book, Battling Big Business: Countering Greenwash, Infiltration, and other forms of Corporate Bullying, revealed how corporations, in the United Kingdom, have close relationships with state authorities. Lubbers illustrates that close links with state authorities has now led to activists being viewed as against social stability, therefore, legitimatising activists as targets for prosecution (130).

Most sources I cite have been written in the last 15 years, however, to gain a historical perspective on surveillance and to understand its perception throughout time there are sources from before that period.

2.1 Understanding Surveillance

In this section I will examine surveillance as an economic transaction, how surveillance affects free thought and how surveillance should be considered as multi-faceted.

To understand corporations’ acts of surveillance on activists it is necessary to define surveillance and to comprehend what corporations seek to gain from such tactics. Surveillance can

(9)

be interpreted in various approaches in modern society, it is ambiguous with positive and negative effects on the public. David Lyon, director of the Surveillance Studies Centre and professor at Queens University, Ontario, describes surveillance as “the focused, systematic and routine attention to personal details for purposes of influence, management, protection or direction” (14). Lyon’s definition highlights that the purpose of surveillance is to control and is an explicit tactic to monitor networks and control public discourse (14). Additionally, with the rapid growth of technologies, surveillance techniques are evolving to digitised systems rather than physical watching, this leads the observer to gather perpetual reports of chosen targets with the degree of data able to be probed at an extreme level (Lyon 1).

It is necessary to understand surveillance in modern culture can have constructive effects while still hinting at its precarious implications. Companies justify monitoring their workforce as it improves productivity but the premise of being monitored without having transgressed can be problematic. Lyon highlights that surveillance always has “two faces” so, negative aspects of surveillance can be countered with the beneficial impacts it may have while also emphasising acceptance of surveillance differs culturally (4). Surveillance is loosely defined, with different cultures accepting different levels of surveillance. Bauman and Lyon describe surveillance as “fluid” and coined the phrase “liquid surveillance”, which highlights how surveillance has evolved with modernity (6).

Surveillance has become an economic transaction; corporations understand that by persuading customers to willingly hand over personal information they will be able to use the data to extrapolate patterns that will hold customers for an extensive period. Corporations’ initiatives, where customers will be offered reduced rates if they agree to be monitored in some fashion, highlight how privacy has been manipulated to be an accepted concession for a minor gain (Richards 1940). Initiatives that reduce privacy as a return for reduced rates highlight the unequitable relationship between corporations’ and individual’s privacy. Corporations can mine such data to gather a comprehensive picture of an individual’s life compared with insignificant savings for the customer (Richards 1941).

Customarily, surveillance is thought of being carried out by the state but, as seen through close links between private companies and the intelligence community as well as the power of transnational corporations (TNCs), surveillance has become a practice used by many as a tactic to protect their interests.

Richards illustrates that surveillance harms what he calls “intellectual privacy” (1946). Intellectual privacy theorises that innovative concepts can flourish when absent from the gaze of the

(10)

public eye and that meaningful privacy is an essential component of a free society (Richards 1946). Richards’ suggestion that surveillance harms intellectual privacy is corroborated with evidence that journalists engaged in self-censorship after the Edward Snowden revelations in 2013 (PEN 3). Interviews with activists, carried out by Lina Dencik and her colleagues (media scholars at Cardiff University), identified that activists censor their social media updates as they know that corporations will be monitoring their activity, one activist says, “they’re obviously keeping tabs on our Facebook activities but then that’s public, so you totally expect that” (6). Dencik’s and her colleagues’ work conveys that Richards’ notion is creditable and demonstrates why corporations utilise acts of surveillance on activist as part of their risk management policy.

Surveillance can be used in ways that improve one’s life through, for example, traffic safety applications or fitness applications but to have even monotonous information in the hand of profit-driven companies or third parties enables corporations to use their power to influence their customers (Richards 1953). Surveillance enhanced by Big Data, large data sets that can be evaluated to visualise trends, gives corporations omnipresent power and outweighs any such conflict that activists would be able to mount against corporations (Richards 1957).

To understand surveillance as a singular entity carried out by state actors with intentions in the public interest would be unwise. Surveillance must be understood as a practice that when used by actors with unethical goals can restrict civil liberties and damages the foundations of a free society (Richards 1946). Richards demonstrates that “public scrutiny” can restrict surveillance and that surveillance requires “legal process” (Richards 1960-61). This indicates, because of surveillance’s efficacy, corporations often knowingly gather data beyond what is acceptable by the public. Corporations know that public outrage is forthcoming but accept it as factor that must be borne to engage in practices that are essential to their business model.

2.1.1 Surveillance as a Mechanism to Control

To understand why corporations engage in acts of surveillance it is necessary to establish the effect of control surveillance can have on the victims. This section will discuss how surveillance can have controlling effects on activists, how monitoring activists can create a chilling effect and how corporations use surveillance to solidify their control.

Corporations use of surveillance as a mechanism for control conveys an unequal power balance between corporations and individuals. The flows of power move from the top-down and corporations exploit their power through unequal resources and the invisibility of their actions (Cohen and Wellman 1; Uldam 41). Corporations aim to control the narrative surrounding their company while also aspiring to supress any messages they deem as negative (Uldam 50). In contrast,

(11)

activists’ goals are not based on control, they aim to reduce power structures by publicising their knowledge of a corporation’s behaviour (Lubbers 341).

Corporations can exert their control in various ways, such as through global contacts or through utilising surveillance as part of their business models. The geopolitical power of corporations has been increasing steadily and it is now commonplace for governments to consult with TNCs on economic and foreign policy as corporations’ workforce develop internationally (Mackinnon 25). As globalisation matures the conventional power of politics is disrupted by the corporations’ global reach (Mackinnon 26). Through corporations’ influence in geopolitics, corporations can manipulate policy to suit their business interests. Surveillance as a technique for control is considered to be a central dimension of business models and if companies can predict activist behaviour through the mechanism of surveillance they will be able to solidify their position of power (Campbell and Carlson 587).

Alan Westin, an American law scholar, states that privacy is a “claim” rather than a right which portrays a similar sentiment to that of corporations. Westin’s view that once trust is established from a company then information should be allowed to be collected for economic benefits demonstrates a naïve attitude to the practices of corporations who have almost exponential power (8). As seen through BP’s observation of activists engaged in protesting other companies, a policy of ‘actionable intelligence’ is being carried out where surveillance moves from targeted to mass monitoring that can be used to boost a company’s strategic position. Actionable intelligence highlights how surveillance has moved from a form of discipline to control (Gandy 125; Deleuze 5).

As shown through case studies involving McDonalds, Nestle and Shell, corporations have used surveillance as a tactic for control for several years, but it is their ability to use online services that further widens the gap between corporations and activists (Lubbers 340). The emancipatory effects that social media can have for activists leads corporations to control the narrative surrounding their company using various techniques. While activists use the immediacy of social media to convey their message to the public, corporations use their online presence to direct their narrative while at the same time using social media to collect intelligence on critics (Uldam 204). Lyon states that surveillance is now “more efficient, more widespread, and simultaneously less visible” which illustrates why corporations choose to use such tactics to control public discourse (40). Corporations have the resources to gather data on activists in an almost untraceable manner which highlights how the invisible nature of acts of surveillance give corporations a disproportionate ability to strengthen their power and weaken their opposition (Uldam 45). In addition, Rita Raley, a digital media academic, states openness online has become a commodity and corporations have utilised social

(12)

media to control their visibility through tactics such as greenwashing, a term used to describe when a company promotes environmentally friendly initiatives to suggest it is more eco-conscious than it really is (123). Corporations consider risk management departments as necessary and Lubbers highlights how corporations hired cybersurveillance firms to investigate online activist campaigns, disillusioned employees and criticism from experts (Lubbers 342). Risk management techniques convey that corporations desire for control outweighs their desire to listen to the issues that stakeholders have with their policies.

Control has been established as a key component of why corporations use acts of surveillance on activists. It enables corporations to modify activist behaviour, especially in the public sphere, which eliminates risk to the company’s reputation and demonstrates that corporations use of surveillance is to ascertain dominance.

2.1.2 Surveillance Capitalism

Shoshana Zuboff, a social psychologist at Harvard Business School, defines surveillance capitalism as a concept that “aims to predict and modify human behaviour” through observing data to increase profits and gain control over the prospective markets (75). Zuboff states that use of surveillance capitalism or big data shows an apathy to individuals and declares the process as “opaque intellectual territory” (76). Corporations’ use of personal information to gain knowledge upon a prospective customer’s behavioural habits demonstrates that surveillance in several forms is being recognised as a resourceful element of their business model.

Surveillance capitalism alters the traditional method of transaction; the customer choosing to buy a product from the seller. Instead, surveillance capitalism exercises its control over a customer and manipulates what a customer wants and how frequently they choose to buy (Zuboff 82). This operational control over individuals displays an absence of risk that corporations aspire for and such an attitude corresponds with their attitude to activists, where corporations go to vast lengths to forecast future activist protests to protect their financial interests.

Companies that use surveillance capitalism in their business model have exploited a lack of awareness by the public in how they use big data for profit. Technology’s rapid progression has meant that public understanding and regulation of the industry has been considerably surpassed. Zuboff states corporations are content with a gap of knowledge between themselves and the society as an asymmetrical balance of knowledge enforces their hegemonic power (83). Zuboff discusses anticipatory conformity in relation to surveillance capitalism, in the aim of avoiding sanctions and concealing oneself in society individuals will choose to conform without being fully aware of their actions (82). To live without objects that can track your activity is challenging and Zuboff stresses that

(13)

conformity was once an act of submission, but it is now unavoidable; it is a mechanical process that corporations have exploited to direct us on a path shaped for their financial purposes (Zuboff 82).

Advocates for using surveillance capitalism suggest that customers are rewarded for using these processes as they receive advertising personalised to their interests (Varian 5). With the pervasiveness of surveillance today individuals are given only two options, a choice between transparency and secrecy (Zuboff 83). In modern times, just as transparency can be lauded, privacy should be coveted, not be disregarded as commodity for the powerful to exploit for their financial gain.

Surveillance capitalism may be an established form of how businesses execute their duties, but it is reasonable to question why these practices are left unchecked. Respected occupations that deal with sensitive subjects are regulated on a much higher level, such as medical professionals or attorneys. Surveillance capitalists can gather much more omnipresent information with disputed ethics and are not required to adhere to similar levels of regulation (Zuboff 83). Zuboff states that corporations now use privacy rights as a legitimation to keep their surveillance tactics opaque (83). They believe that if they revealed how they collected the data then it would lead to more breaches of personal data.

Technology used by corporations should be analysed appropriately. Kranzberg states that technology is not neutral, platforms such as Facebook or Twitter have been constructed to aide their employees in data collection (545). When corporations, such as BP, use social media platforms to spy on activists their motives are comparable to that of the platforms and is another example of how surveillance tactics, whether it be used explicitly to gain target prospective customers or to monitor supposed opponents, are prevalent strategies in eyes of the corporate world.

2.1.3 Commodification of Privacy

One aspect of surveillance that illustrates how it has become a core issue in modern society is the commodification of privacy. As corporations use personal information as crucial elements of their financial business model, it highlights corporations’ asymmetrical relationship with privacy. This section will highlight corporations’ apathy to public concern surrounding privacy, how privacy is viewed across different cultures and whether activists can rely on platforms that are profit-driven.

Etzioni declares that strengthening privacy to strengthen a functioning democracy is a liberal ideal and that many who react sharply to privacy questions want confidentiality on their own terms (253). Etzioni mentions examples such as credit card use (instead of cash) and whether the public should be aware that people in positions of responsibility could have criminal records (253). This

(14)

viewpoint on privacy presents a perspective that giving up some aspects of privacy can lead to a more straightforward society where safety and convenience are equitable rewards. Etzioni’s examples are people with public responsibility such as police forces, health professionals and airline security - he fails to mention corporations using personal data as methods to increase profits. As Etzioni states, many innocent civilians are willingly subjected to searches every day and these are not considered breaches of their privacy. However, as corporations use personal information purely to target customers with adverts then the reward for giving up aspects of their privacy are inconsequential. Etzioni presents an idealistic view and fails to recognise that privacy has become a tool for capitalist means rather than a tool to keep civilians safe.

As seen through BP’s pro-active surveillance of activists, used to prevent reputational damage rather than react to criticism, I sense that corporations aspire for a pervasive level of scrutiny upon their opposition, and through the affordances of Facebook and similar platforms, companies can gather data in such a way that creates opportunities for profiling that are unparalleled in scope (Tufekci 10).

Users’ willing participation in platforms’ monetisation of their personal data presents a question of whether people are concerned about private information being available to corporations. Conversely when surveyed, over 70 percent of Americans stated that when introduced to three common techniques that marketers use to gather data they would be in opposition to such methods (Turow et al. 3). If companies persist in using such techniques whilst individuals emphatically oppose them, then it suggests commodifying a user’s online activity is more valued by companies than acting in an approach that the user would appreciate. Marketing techniques that track your behaviour online are now conventional methods and if companies are using these ploys to target advertising, using similar approaches to avoid public criticism through surveillance could be viewed as a logical step to protect their assets.

To understand the disparity between the public’s desire for privacy and corporations’ disregard for their thoughts it is important to recognise how privacy is viewed in various cultures. In the United States of America privacy is viewed as a commodity whereas there are few possibilities to economise personal data in Europe (Sevignani 736). Thus, if privacy is viewed as a commodity then the ways in which corporations exploit such privacy could be deemed irrelevant. Habermas examines how power relations are affected by clear difference of opinions and highlights that when polarisation between the state and society occurs on economic issues the public sphere can be affected (28). This conveys that not all views are equally represented and are able to shape public policy, so while there may be empirical proof that data collection may be against the wishes of the

(15)

people, politically powerful players will still be able to influence policy to benefit their economic goals (Sevignani 733).

Due to commodifying privacy being an integral part to a platform’s success, a platform’s function as somewhere to mobilise support for activism is dubious. There has been an effort by some activists to migrate from platforms that are profit-driven to independent open-source platforms, that are better equipped to fight companies who issue take down notices to content they disagree with (Uldam 54). If corporations monitor activists’ behaviour online while also using their status to obstruct the visibility of criticism it illustrates how they only value privacy when it suits their interests.

Lyon highlights how data collection can take many forms and that not all should be considered in the context of eroding human dignity, but the techniques that corporations use for targeted advertising, how they engage in surveillance tactics (and using close links to the intelligence community) and their clashes with any oppositional groups highlights a hypocritical relationship with privacy (2).

The literature on privacy highlights that corporations have a vastly different opinion on privacy rights than those of citizens and that using people’s activity, especially online, is a fundamental part of their business model. So far, I have discussed surveillance as an object of study, surveillance as a mechanism to control, surveillance capitalism and the commodification of privacy. I will now analyse the ethics of corporations using surveillance against activists.

2.2 Corporate Behaviour

2.2.1 Ethics of Corporate Surveillance

In this section I will look at the ethics of corporate surveillance from the perspective of citizens. It is vital to investigate the principles that corporations expect of themselves and, in turn, individuals expect of companies. This section discusses why corporations engage in acts of surveillance, the significance of a company’s reputation, social media’s effects on activists and corporations and whether profit-driven companies should be engaging in practices of surveillance on activists.

For several years corporations have introduced risk assessment policies into their companies to monitor their brand online and offline (Lubbers 341). Among other strategies, risk assessment policies have been viewed as an effective tool in reducing threats of corporate activists as agencies can be proactive and forecast any supposed risk to a company’s reputation (Uldam 210). Corporations’ plans to manage visibility of their brand can be viewed through anticipation and

(16)

containment tactics with both tactics aiming to remove any sense of conflict from the public discourse (Uldam 50). By corporations engaging in policies of anticipation, many actors who, seemingly, just oppose globalist policies of corporations are becoming victims of surveillance (Lubbers 132). This raises issues of ethics as whether corporations have the right to carry out these practices, especially against people who might have committed no crime. Corporations place such importance on preventing any reputational harm to their company that acts of surveillance can lead to observing certain groups rather than social movements which reinforces that it is not the issue, per se, that activists may have with a corporation but rather the notion of opposition that displeases the corporations (Uldam 210).

Continued monitoring of activists can have a harmful effect on public discourse which may create a chilling effect amongst activists. Michel Foucault, a French philosopher, indicated that when people are aware of surveillance, however indefinite, they will choose to modify their behaviour to fit the status quo and this illustrates the extensive ethical questions that monitoring non-violent protest groups raises (Foucault 200). Can corporations legitimately monitor groups who are not engaging in criminal behaviour towards their company and to what extent does their monitoring of activists reduce contrasting beliefs in public discourse?

Corporations’ resources are typically more substantial than that of activists and the surveillance practices that both engage in are asymmetrical. This leads to lop-sided methods being carried out as corporations can observe personal social media accounts where they can identify networks amongst the activist groups whereas the invisibility of a corporation’s actions means that personal data is much harder to accrue (Uldam 202). Social media can affect change of public opinion by highlighting aspects of corporation policy that is harmful, but its emancipatory qualities may be inflated as corporations are now able to collect more detailed data upon activists than at any time previously (Uldam 203). Social media brings companies added visibility and they must now manage that added visibility. However, rather than changing policies aligned with public opinion, they engage in greenwashing while still implementing policies of surveillance upon actors who oppose them (Hansen and Uldam 153, 158).

Governments and corporations have close links together and through leaks by Edward Snowden, there is evidence that showed governments carrying out mass surveillance of civilians and big technology companies (Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft) helping circumvent their privacy controls (Lyon 2). The revelations of widespread data collection by intelligence agencies in 2013 highlighted the vast data collection practices that governments, and therefore corporations, utilise (Lyon 3). While the public may be more accepting of security agencies carrying out these practices,

(17)

corporations instigating similar tactics raises fundamental ethical questions on corporate behaviour. Corporations’ primary motivation for acts of surveillance is a pursuit of profits with little regard for the morality of their actions (Lubbers 339).

To further understand corporations and ethics it is important to consider how corporations want their employees to behave. Many corporations have implemented codes of ethics for their employees to promote behaviour in line with the company’s ethos. These codes are considered as tools to maintain ethical behaviour even when the rewards for good performance are very high (Finegan and Theriault 709). Corporations want their employees to behave in a way that mirrors their image but, in reality, codes of ethics are viewed as public relations (PR) documents that very few employees ever adhere to (Murphy 85). Murphy illustrates a contradiction that corporations are more concerned with their self-image rather than initiatives that they instigate that cause environmental damage. Through Murphy’s work, corporations seem to care more about being viewed as socially responsible than their actions convey (85).

It is clear that surveillance in the corporate world is considered a conventional tactic to prevent damage to a company’s reputation but whether the public deem that such acts are suitable is contentious as corporations engaging in these practices have no legal oversight over activists or members of the public.

2.2.2 Public Image v Actions

To understand fully how corporations can engage in acts of surveillance upon activists while continuing to garner public support it is imperative to discuss how a corporation’s public image differs from its actions. This section will discuss CSR initiatives (CSR initiatives can help to improve corporations’ reputations by managing their visibility, particularly after scandals) and how they paint corporations in a positive light; how corporations are concerned with conflict online and how corporations engage in militaristic tactics to protect their reputation.

Many companies use CSR initiatives to portray themselves in a positive light with potential customers using buzzwords such as “enabling people…promoting ideas and encouraging creativity” (BP). Furthermore, Lubbers illustrates that corporations have hired PR firms to observe activists and manage their reputation to neutralise news and eliminate online activists which displays an inconsistency between their public image and their actions (342). Some environmental actors contest the motives behind CSR initiatives and argue CSR initiatives are put in place to legitimise a company’s position in the eye of the public rather than to achieve tangible success, such initiatives create smokescreens for corporations to behave as they have in the past with the continued support of the public (BP; De Vries et al. 143). If the public agree that there is a contradiction between corporations’

(18)

social and environmental sustainability programmes and the corporations’ actions, then activists’ highlighting of such greenwashing should be heralded rather than demonised (Uldam 204).

Corporations worry that their reputation will be damaged and engage in corporate surveillance to avoid “reputational risks” (Uldam 42). BP, after the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010 engaged in CSR initiatives. The Deepwater Horizon spill was an explosion on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that at its peak leaked 60,000 barrels of oil a day into the ocean (Pallardy). BP’s CSR initiatives after the spill included conferences relating to climate change, educational enterprises and sports programmes to attempt to amend their reputation as one for social good rather than the cause of one of the largest industrial disasters in the world (Uldam 47). CSR initiatives do have many benefits and are not without good intentions, but civil society groups view the initiatives as false solutions to deflect from corporations’ past misdemeanours and defend their actions in the future (Uldam 48). Corporations’ public image can be wholly different to their actions as they carry out policies of anticipation and containment aiming to “eliminate the visibility of conflict from the public sphere” (Uldam 50). Uldam indicates that corporations are more concerned with eliminating conflict than from changing the behaviour that leads to risk to their reputation (Uldam 159). Corporations tend to ignore many aspects of discourse online to reduce the visibility of conflict online. If an article contains negative details, it is better for organisations to hope it is lost in an information overload than to engage with and increase its profile (Uldam 159). By attempting to avoid negative online stories through an information overload, it emphasises that corporations are more concerned with managing their reputation than affecting positive change regarding their environmental policies.

Nyilasy and his colleagues undertook research that presents a view that customers are waking up to greenwashing as they discovered that green advertising or greenwashing can have negative effects on a corporation’s brand even if a corporation’s environmental actions are progressive (693). Customers are becoming more aware of the inconsistencies between companies’ public messages and their actions. According to Nyilasy and his colleagues, corporations are conscious of this transformation and have changed their message to “corporate-focused ads” that highlight their economic strength rather than concentrate on progressive environmental initiatives (693). Although a greater awareness of greenwashing will have a positive impact, Nyilasy’s and his colleagues’ research displays a worrying trend as it suggests that corporations may not even attempt to be environmentally friendly if attitudes to their brand continue to decline. If corporations produce messages that emphasise their environmental achievements it can lead to more scrutiny from consumers and competitors which will damage the corporation to a much greater extent if they are embroiled in a scandal (Easterling et. al 20). The use of social media by activists to ‘shame’

(19)

companies into action on the environment may end up having the opposite effect as companies choose not to bother with CSR initiatives.

Corporations identify various techniques to stifle opposition and their use of, almost, militaristic tactics such as “divide and conquer” to portray activism negatively highlights lengths they will go to protect their interests (Lubbers 340). Monsanto, an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology firm, has been involved in controversies surrounding issues such as genetically modified crops and a careless approach to environmental issues (Domenec 53). Lubbers reveals Monsanto created “online identities”, creating fake spokespeople, specially to counter negative discourse surrounding genetic engineering online (342). Monsanto choosing to create personalities to manipulate debates suggests a recognition that their initiatives are opposed to that of public opinion and are not in line with their public image.

Corporations’ manipulation of their public image to gain positive public support is an effective method to divert attention away from policies that harm the environment. By engaging in such tactics corporations can increase their profitability and perception without having to alter their behaviour.

2.3 Corporations and Public Perception

2.3.1 Visibility

In this section I will discuss Thompson’s concept of new visibility and how it can be applied to modern corporations.

To understand the reasons behind acts of surveillance on activists by corporations it is important to recognise the value that corporations place on their reputation. A respected brand can gain competitive edges, increase customer loyalty and add value to company products (Buil et al. 4). Consequently, Uldam highlights that in BP’s monitoring of activists there was a policy of containment where the aim was to eliminate visible conflict which demonstrates the significance BP place on their reputation (50).

John Thompson’s theory on new visibility illustrates how powerful actors can appear to the public in different forms. Corporations have utilised the affordances of the internet to transform their visibility and consolidate power imbalances between dominant powers and those who oppose them (Thompson 32). Corporations’ use of social media to instantly communicate their message is just one example of how corporations use affordances of technology to manage their visibility. Thompson highlights that powerful actors in the past used communication to fabricate a manufactured identity that could be empathised within distant lands which establishes that mediated visibility is not a

(20)

contemporary issue but rather a traditional method used by hegemonic actors with the aim to deceive (36). Corporations use of CSR initiatives, regarded by activists as greenwashing, is an explicit strategy to frame their brand in a respectable manner and example of how corporations use mediated visibility to achieve their goals (Thompson 31).

Thompson demonstrates that technology advancements have altered how powers mediate their visibility and indicates that spatial proximity has become less significant as instantaneous communication becomes the prevalent method used to communicate (Thompson 32). Through use of the internet, corporations can subvert traditional methods of communication which leads to them gaining more control of their narrative (Thompson 32). Corporations can use their official social media accounts or press releases to control the narrative surrounding their company.

To understand new visibility, it is important to understand that communication works differently whether someone is conversing face-to-face, posting a press release on an official website or by invisibly monitoring an activist’s social media activity. Communication in the media is shaped by social and technical considerations that establish power imbalances by facilitating interaction not restricted by a spatial-temporal framework such as social media and official photographs (Thompson 35-36). A two-way of flow communication such as a face-to-face communication invites dialogue. Two-way flows can lead to divergence from the original message so as corporations utilise one-way flows of communication they control the context of the communication which protects their visibility (Thompson 32). If the communication is one-way the context of the message is controlled by the sender and permits the sender to regulate the narrative which, in the case of CSR initiatives, aims to deflect from less ethical practices that corporations carry out (Thompson 32). As seen through BP’s aim to eliminate conflict in the public sphere by monitoring activists, one-way communication empowers corporations to highlight positive aspects of their company while carrying out surveillance tactics that are ethically questionable.

Citizens’ opportunity to use non-traditional media platforms, such as social media websites, enables individuals to gain “non-local knowledge” which empowers them to think critically about powerful actors and affects a corporation’s mediated visibility (Thompson 34). Individuals’ use of social media platforms means they can challenge corporations when there is a contradiction between a company’s messages and its activities. Individual’s challenges can produce public scandals and diminish power imbalances as they present how corporations have altered their visibility to seem environmentally conscious (Thompson 38). A corporation’s message is shown to be undependable and the control they seek through their mediated visibility is damaged.

(21)

Oliver Leistert broaches the subject of social media’s affordances and describes how “a process of economisation and monetisation” is used to prolong a “trajectory of control and alienation” (Leistert). Leistert’s statement reinforces the idea that digital visibility of a citizen’s social life can be much more beneficial to a corporation than to those who are attempting to create an equilibrium. Ross affirms Leistert’s view on the affordances of digital technologies by stating:

“The social platforms, Web crawlers, personalized algorithms, and other data mining techniques of the recent years are engineered to suck valuable, or monetizable, information out of almost every one of our online activities” (15).

Ross’s and Leistert’s stance on visibility and technology contradicts Thompson’s view on what social media can afford activists in their fight against dominant powers as they reiterate that corporations are able to use technologies to gather vast amounts of pervasive data on activists.

Visibility in the media greatly affects a company’s public image and Thompson informs the reader how powerful actors’ use of media has evolved over time. When speakers had to use their voice to project their story they used “fiery language” to gain a response whereas, as technologies progressed, a form of “mediated intimacy” has risen to prominence where corporations endeavour to build relationships with their proposed customers (Thompson 38). As communication has evolved from a two-way flow of communication to one-way communication controlled by the sender it has mediated intimacy which enabled corporations to disclose carefully constructed snippets of personable information to seem socially responsible while withholding substantial information that would harm their reputation (Thompson 38). Thompson describes this as the “society of self-disclosure” and its aim is to reduce barriers between the individual and corporations through presenting their policies as the wishes of people rather than profit-driven objectives of TNCs (Thompson 38).

Corporations’ use of CSR initiatives indicates that they value traits of corporate social responsibility as necessary to be viewed in a positive frame by individuals. Corporations’ willingness to highlight their ethically sound behaviour can have ill-effects as stakeholders expect their activity to be consistent, thus, as corporations contradict CSR initiatives with damaging policies, it is their new visibility that damages their reputation (Thompson 44). Thompson demonstrates that new visibility can be a double-edged sword as dominant powers are exposed when their messages are revealed to be contradicting their actions (47).

Visibility has been manufactured by corporations from a technique used to highlight an issue, to powerful actors using visibility to manipulate public discourse. Corporations and activists

(22)

have used the affordances of social media to further their goals which demonstrates that in the battle for visibility digital technologies are crucial components for corporations and activists.

2.3.2 Transparency

So far, I have discussed surveillance, surveillance as a mechanism for control, surveillance capitalism, the commodification of privacy, the ethics of corporate surveillance, a corporation’s public image versus its private actions and visibility. I will now discuss transparency and its evolution as an integral idea in society.

Transparency in modern society is a cherished concept but a demanding term to clearly define. Companies or governments hope that being transparent will have political benefits and have positive effects on their public image but, as society becomes more accustomed to how transparency is misused by powerful actors it raises questions on whether it should be such a cherished concept (Brucato 39).

Ben Brucato states that transparency is visibility with the ability to influence the morality of individuals or organisations (40). In that regard, transparency can be used as an instrument for an egalitarian society and elucidate “vertical inequality” between dominant organisations and individuals (Machin 107). In a similar vein, corporations can use social media to establish transparency and Van Dijck declares that social media platforms are “not transmitters” but rather “producers of sociality” which demonstrates that social media platforms are not neutral when it comes to presenting narratives (57). Equally, Gillespie describes social media platforms as “curators of public discourse” which identifies how corporations use the affordances of social media to portray a sense of transparency to the public (347). Corporations can leverage the affordances of social media to inform the public of their transparency which reinforces the idea that corporate social media platforms are not neutral (Donovan and Terranova 308).

Corporations can use contrived transparency to garner positive public support and deflect attention from their policies that harm the environment. Brucato describes transparency as an almost sacred belief as it represents the height of openness in society and leads people to be accountable for their actions which restricts transgression (40). When used in the right way transparency can be used as a vehicle for positive change in civic society which suggests that if authoritative organisations were open and accountable this would then be reflected in society’s behaviour.

Transparency has different affordances for different groups of people as for an individual, transparency is a virtue not easily detected to others, whereas, transparency for corporations is a promoted asset to highlight their standing as responsible corporate actors. Corporations’

(23)

manipulation of transparency is most evident in greenwashing tactics and exemplifies how corporations wish to be perceived one way but refuse to change their damaging activities (Brucato 40). However, corporations using transparency as an important asset enables activists to use the inconsistencies in their public image against them (Brucato 40).

Brucato highlights that influential organisations use transparency as a tool for legitimacy to demonstrate their authenticity as it validates their status as trustworthy companies (41). This legitimacy is earned through being viewed as accountable for their actions. As legitimacy is earned through accountability it explains why corporations go to extensive lengths to protect their reputation as if the public knew about a corporation’s damaging initiatives their legitimacy would be eroded (41). As per Eveline Lubbers work on surveillance by corporations, BP’s hiring of Manfred Schlickenrieder, a German spy working for an English intelligence firm, to infiltrate environmental groups highlights how corporations strive for perceived transparency but act in manners that are in total contradiction to their public desires (126).

Tyler and Fagan state that people assess the legitimacy of the police on how fairly the police treat their community and this can be mirrored with a corporation’s relationship with activists (264). Corporations have shown that their objectives are shaped exclusively by profits with little regard to how their policies affect the environment and, thus, an absence of trust exists when CSR initiatives are implemented.

Brucato highlights that when hegemonic organisations demonstrate their opacity civil unrest is common as it is an overt statement that the individual’s belief is not valued and demonstrates the power inequality between the two parties (42). This highlights transparency’s cruciality in democratic society as it establishes trust between individuals and authoritative powers.

One aspect of transparency that has changed with technology development is that corporations are able to generate a new sense of self through social media use that can enhance their reputation and manipulate the public discourse surrounding them (Milan 3). Legitimacy is a vital element of how corporations build transparency as it is earned through a customer trusting a corporation’s activity but as the public become more aware of how corporations manipulate transparency for public goodwill transparency’s status is devalued (Brucato 41). Corporations’ use of social media for surveillance of activists displays how use of highly opaque tools reinforces their supposed transparency as corporations hide behind the invisibility of a platform’s tools to gain an understanding of an activist’s social graph (Leistert 40). Correspondingly, as corporations strive to control the discourse surrounding their company, Leistert emphasises that users of social media are restricted by a platform’s algorithm (41). Algorithm’s define what is deemed important to the users

(24)

and can have a direct impact on the public sphere which illustrates that corporations have to alter their transparency to suit the platform and boldens Gillespie’s view that platforms are “curators of public discourse” (347).

As technologies develop, transparency’s effectiveness also progresses. Transparency before digital technologies was bi-directional, both parties were visible to the other whereas now, through surveillance expertise, organisations can utilise activists’ transparency online to their benefit (Brucato 42). Brucato’s consideration that transparency is not bi-directional highlights how transparency has evolved from a tool to legitimise an organisation through supposed openness to a tool that corporations use to widen power imbalances. Due to the development of technologies, transparency has changed to become a durable object, an activist’s or corporation’s transparency can be analysed, its ephemeral characteristic has diminished therefore activists can use the permanency of modern technology to highlight contradictory actions from corporations (Brucato 42).

Birchall disputes the effectiveness of transparency as a force for good in civic society declaring that it is a “political movement with moral imperatives” which reduces the opportunity for “social, direct or radical democracy” and suggests that secrets must be rehabilitated so all forms of democracy can thrive (62-63). Birchall states that the Left (people who lean to the left on the political spectrum) place transparency on a pedestal it does not deserve, and opaqueness can be beneficial. Birchall expresses that while transparency may have been introduced as a vital societal ideal, it can result in obsessive government classifications and self-censorship (64). Birchall’s views on transparency has substance as corporations have manipulated transparency to increase their profits but gaining legitimacy through openness is still an ideal worth cherishing.

2.4 Corporations and The Establishment

2.4.1 Public vs Private Policing

One aspect of corporations engaging in acts of surveillance that is illuminating is their close connections with the intelligence community and how private companies and public policing are intertwined. This section will cover historical examples of corporations working with intelligence agencies, oil companies assimilating with establishment figures in the UK and how globalisation has affected public policy.

Eveline Lubbers, an independent investigator with privacy advocate groups in Europe, demonstrates how corporations engaged in unethical practices is not a contemporary issue: for example, during the Great Depression employers in the US hired public relations professionals to defend their acts of violence and covert operations (339). In the UK, the government and

(25)

organisations used propaganda to safeguard their interests. The Economic League was a project with close links to British intelligence agencies set up by industrialists which had “a secret blacklist” that identified potentially troublesome employees (Lubbers 339). Industrialists created The Economic League to protect corporate interests and gave information to companies that would restrict employment opportunities to those who opposed their mandates (Lubbers 340).

As corporations engage in acts of surveillance a concept of public policing versus private policing emerges. Lubbers displays the ambiguous relationship corporations have with intelligence services as she highlights the case of Hakluyt & Company Ltd., a London business intelligence bureau, founded by two former members of the British foreign service (Lubbers 129). Hakluyt is one example of how corporations, in this case the oil industry, integrate with the intelligence community to incorporate their company within the establishment and to carry out acts of surveillance. Hakluyt had Sir William Purves, CEO of Shell Transport, Sir Peter Holmes, former deputy chairman of Shell and former deputy chairman of BP Sir Peter Cazalet on their management board (Lubbers 129). Shell have established connections with Hakluyt as they can use the board members’ expertise to monitor activists. While there is no question of illegality it highlights that corporations understand surveillance as a vital means to eradicating discontent and shows that members of the intelligence community to be supportive of unregulated bodies implementing such tactics.

Close links between corporations and intelligence agencies illustrates how corporations have legitimised surveillance against activists with Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom accusing MI6, the foreign intelligence service of the UK government, of using Hakluyt as a front to observe law-biding environmental activists (Lubbers 126). This form of surveillance is referenced as “grey

intelligence” because intelligence agents are not directly employed by an espionage agency but still

use their contacts to gather information in their new role (Lubbers 343).

Judging from Lubbers’ work corporations view antagonism from activists as ‘probable cause’ to carry out surveillance on activists. Lubbers’ work demonstrates that corporations act on what someone might do rather than what they have done, and this outlook is like that of BP’s, who engaged in a policy of anticipation before the London Olympics (Uldam 50). The ritual of observing people before they have committed a crime exhibits that public intelligence and acts of surveillance derive from the same circumstances but represent a difference in social acceptance (Lubbers 340).

Close links between corporations and security forces are also evident in the United States as the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States of America built a secret room in AT&T’s San Francisco facility and carried out mass surveillance on law-biding American citizens (Mackinnon 83). Mackinnon explains that through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act employers are immune

(26)

from being sued by customers when they comply with illegal government surveillance requests (83). If lawmakers are prepared to pass laws that protects illegal acts of surveillance by corporations it suggests a shifting of a privacy related ‘Overton Window’, a concept that depicts the range of ideas that are tolerated in public discourse (Ross 370; Mackinnon 86). If corporations are opaque, unaccountable and wield such influence in governments then the premise of democracy will be harmed.

To further emphasise corporations’ relationship with powerful institutions, Mackinnon reports it is commonplace for powerful governments to consult with TNCs regarding public policy (26). Once close links with corporations are revealed it demonstrates a necessity for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to highlight the environmental issues that corporations’ policies initiate. Governments and corporations having direct relationships regarding surveillance conveys why corporations’ viewpoints on privacy and acts of surveillance may differ from that of the public. Governments attempts to guide debate surrounding their close relationship with corporations through buzzwords such as “collaborative governance” or “privatised governance” suggests an acceptance that governments relations with corporations raises dubious ethical connotations (Hansen and Uldam 154).

It is clear to see that corporations have unique links with intelligence agencies and corporations’ approaches to surveillance are shaped by links to establishment figures. Corporations’ associations with public police forces demonstrates an assurance that their activity is an accepted element of business procedure and suggests that corporations misjudge their role in society. I now look forward to considering the focus of surveillance and questioning why activists are viewed as legitimate targets.

2.4.2 Who are the Targets?

A major issue in the topic of surveillance that needs to be addressed is, what has enabled corporations to target activists in this manner? How have individuals who oppose certain ideals been allowed to have this imposed upon them? This section will discuss corporations influencing public discourse to alter people’s perceptions of activists, why governments align themselves with corporations in such instances and the extensive tactics corporations use to monitor activists.

As activists grow to expect and accept surveillance as a normative practice it is important to examine how it has become so normalised (Dencik et. al 6). Close relationships between corporations and state police forces convey why activists opposing globalist systems are identified as targets. Ferree suggests that labelling dissent as an action that obstructs civil society is a trigger for surveillance and establishes that corporations choose to manipulate discourse surrounding activism

The Fight for an Alternative Imaginary: Understanding Activism Through A Qualitative Discourse Analysis of Activists’ Perception of Surveillance by Corporations