big data: monitoring and shaping behaviors in the 4th industrial revolution
Surveillance has been transformed from an element of governance into governance itself. It is simultaneously government (system) and governability (self-awareness and cooperation, where the prisoner becomes the guardian of himself). In this sense, surveillance has become the new regulatory mechanism. The law has become its servant. And the state… is a (but not the only) node of the regulatory power of technology. In this sense, it is possible to speak of the “death” of the “state”… or the “death” of the distinction between private and public…
Larry Cata Backer, Global Panopticism: Surveillance Lawmaking by Corporations, States and Other Entities (2008)
The relationship between surveillance, power and technology is not one of those issues that concern citizens’ everyday lives. Nor is it such an issue the fundamental changes that are already taking place, since millions of such citizens promote them by serving them happily. If, for example, we point out to any user of so-called social media that they are destroying the distinction between private and public time and space in their own life, and that this destruction has consequences (not at all pleasant…) that they cannot even begin to imagine when they caress the touchscreen of their device, in the best of cases they will react with indifference.
However, this relationship (between surveillance, power, and technology) is not invisible. The transformations and new formations of this relationship happen right before our eyes. Big data, the new raw material for 21st-century capitalism, consists mostly (and as long as it doesn’t concern galaxies or microbes) of continuous momentary snapshots of citizens’ everyday lives—and the ongoing sequences of these snapshots.1 How many ignore that the least that is already happening for years through the processing of this (personal) data is the shaping of each individual’s “profile”? But profiling is not a static process, as many believe. A “momentary photograph” is practically useless if not accompanied by thousands of subsequent ones. The “momentary photograph” is just one frame from the continuous “video,” if we can call it that, of everyday life. Profiling is dynamic.
It is not a passive process either. If you can “know” someone’s characteristics, you also want to shape them. Here, in the field that until recently appeared to be one of “espionage,” power enters with entirely new forms! For example, the businessman who knows the dynamics of his customers’ “profiles” has no reason to rest on this “knowledge,” leaving the evolution (of these “profiles”) uncontrolled. He wants—and has many reasons—to shape this dynamic. The simplest reason? To retain his customers, so as not to lose them by leaving them free to choose a competitor. The key concept here is the shaping of behaviors. Insofar as we are talking about businesses, this involves shaping consumer behaviors; which, however, in times of generalized consumption, means shaping behaviors in a significant part of everyday life. The businessman who already has his customers’ data collected and processed can guide their behaviors (let’s say their consumer choices) by rewarding (in various ways) those that serve his own (not openly…) interests. The consumer who, manipulated by these “gifts,” follows the behavior pre-determined by the company (by companies…) considers himself a winner. In reality, he is lost; the only winner is the businessman. The worthless “gifts,” the “offers,” the “bonuses” are the bribes for submission to normalized behavior, as designed to serve the interests of business profitability. It is the realization of the truth that no one “gives” anything in the capitalist world, which reveals that the imprisoned becomes the guard of himself. However, the shaping and control of behaviors through (and thanks to) the generalized datafication of everyday life—which until recently was implemented mainly in the Western capitalist world as business strategies—is only the beginning. We already know the campaign to shape and control behaviors not in the sphere of commercial consumption but in that of “political” (electoral) behavior: Cambridge Analytica and its “successes” both in the Brexit referendum in the UK on June 23, 2016, and in the American elections in November of the same year, are fairly well known; though not correctly analyzed. 2 If businesses, as separate (and once competitive among themselves) capitalist processes, exercise their own power over customers, the possibility of a central management and control of behaviors—which means taking on this task by some form of “central authority”—is already technically very real. China’s social credit system is not some Chinese “peculiarity.” It is the holy grail toward which all Western “central authorities” aspire. The relevant initiative has already begun—from (where else?) the USA. (More in a separate report to follow: neurobehavioral signals: “health” instead of “defense”).
The ultimate delusion to which rejecting these developments can lead is that “this is not going to happen here, in Greece.” It will happen here too (it’s already happening…) primarily because the shaping and control of behaviors has become a fundamental tool of capitalist profitability. Below we indicate such a case, at first glance innocent, concerning an insurance company: “vehicle insurance and driving behavior” is the substantive name of the “application.” 3 We republish in full a (laudatory) report, because it includes those elements that make tangible, palpable, the way big data is exploited for surveillance and control.
ERGO Drive & Win. We tested the app and present it to you.
On March 27th we published a Press Release with the new application from ERGO – ERGO Drive & Win. An application created by the startup company O-Seven on behalf of ERGO, aiming to improve people’s driving behavior. Smart and modern. But is it also functional?
…
Curious about how useful and interesting this particular application is, I downloaded it on my mobile phone and tested it for a little over a month. I wanted to experience the user experience, to “test” my driving skills, and finally to gain an opinion on whether a driver would remain loyal to the application or simply take up space on their mobile phone after the first week (3.0 MB so far).
How does it work?
We won’t go into details about the technical part. What the app does, however, is impressive. After you download it to your mobile, accept the terms & conditions and enter some basic personal information, the app records your driving behavior and gives you a score at the end of the trip. All you have to do is keep your mobile in a fixed position – preferably at a specific point inside your car – and at the end of each trip, when you receive the notification, swipe left and declare the type of trip. Were you the driver or a passenger? Were you going to a personal destination or to work? Were you driving a car or a motorcycle?
All new drivers who download the app on their mobile start as “Nubies”. This means they have to complete 400 km or 40 trips until the system recognizes their driving pattern. Once this first step is completed, the app begins to function normally, giving the driver ERGO Stars and ERGO SafeMiles.
Personal experience
Overall, up to today 8/7/2019 I have driven 888 km, that is 81 trips. Driving occupies 5% of my time. The average distance per day I drive is 46.7 km, while an average driver drives 28.2 km. I drive quite a lot, indeed. Here’s something I didn’t know! My score? A disappointment. 37/100. However, how was this score formed? What does the application measure;
– how much you use your mobile phone while driving, – how abruptly you brake, – how abruptly you accelerate, – the speed you maintain while driving, as well as – the hours of the day you drive. (00.00 to 5.00 in the morning are considered hours with a high probability of fatigue).
Based on this data, the application configures your score.
Does it work? Or is it fictional?
It works because we tested it. On 7/7/2019 I did a test. I drove about one kilometer as a sample driver. I scored 100 points for speed, 100 points for not using a mobile phone, 79 points for braking with an “Average” aggressiveness rating, and 89 points for acceleration with a “Low” aggressiveness rating. Total points? 94/100. For this trip I also received an ERGO SafeMile.
On the contrary, I also reviewed the trip I made on 5/7/2019, which was the trip going to the office in the morning. I scored 96 points in speed, 20 points in not using my mobile phone (here we need to learn whether using the mobile phone on speaker mode counts the same as normal use), 59 points in braking with an “low” aggressiveness rating, and 62 points in acceleration with a “medium” aggressiveness rating. Total points? 64/100. Moreover, the app has also recorded how long I talked on the phone (3.38”) and gave me a relevant suggestion: “You had a low score in mobile phone use and low performance in sudden braking. Do not use your mobile phone while driving. It will help you avoid sudden braking in case of unexpected events”.
Finally, I also monitored a very poor trip I made on 3/7/2019 returning home in the afternoon. I scored 10 points for speeding, exceeding the speed limit for 3.21′, 30 points for not using my mobile phone as I was talking for 2.57′, 10 points for braking as I made 11 sudden brakes with an aggressiveness rating of “high”, and 10 points for acceleration as I made 8 sudden accelerations with an aggressiveness rating of “high”. Total points? 10/100. The notification for this drive was “This was a high-risk trip, with a low score. Check the map to understand your weak points.” Something that impressed me with the app, as it had recorded my route on the map, marking the points where I made sudden braking, sudden accelerations and excessive speeds.
Conclusion
The app works flawlessly! Not only does it have a very user-friendly experience, but it also keeps you engaged and interested. You want to drive better simply to avoid seeing “your mess” in the final assessment. On a personal level, the idea that an app records how I drive has made me more mindful and cautious while driving. Now my goal is to improve my score and reach 68/100, which is the average. Overall, the app is discreet and operates accurately. It even provides extra motivation to become a better driver, as by collecting SafeMiles & ERGO Stars you can receive discounts on your car insurance premiums (up to 20%), make donations for environmental protection, or participate in contests that are created periodically.
I didn’t expect to say this but the app can help you become a better driver. As long as you want it.
Instructions on how to become a good person
The basic elements of the topic are now gathered. Let’s examine / analyze them in order.
First of all, the description of how one becomes a “better driver” thanks to the app (that is, thanks to the data) is done in a playful, entertaining way. However, the paternalism of the app does not come from some “good father.” It comes from an insurance company. Which is interested in its balance sheets. In increasing its revenues and reducing its expenses. Therefore, the shaping of the behavior of the “good driver” and its monitoring (including the self-monitoring of the insurance customer) has one goal: the profits of the company.
How, then, does the insurance company define “driving kindness”? What are its criteria? What does it measure through data collection? What does it reward? Except for the use of a mobile phone while someone is driving, none of the company’s other “criteria” fall within what is called the “road traffic code,” that is, the state-defined legislation determining “safe driving.” Normally, whoever complies with the r.t.c. is sufficient as a driver; and from a legal perspective, they are not liable for a traffic violation, even if involved in an accident. The issue is serious. Until yesterday, the practice of insurance companies concerned compliance with the r.t.c. From an insurance perspective, “OK driving” coincided with adherence to the rules of the r.t.c. And when insurers urgently needed to reduce their expenses, they pursued and achieved supportive state legislation (as happened, for example, with the mandatory use of seat belts and helmets). Until yesterday, the norms emerged (even through “reductio ad absurdum”) from the narrowly defined state legislation. No longer: in the age of big data, both the norms and the mechanisms promoting them are expanding. The criteria of this specific insurance company, the specifications it itself sets to shape the behavior of the “good driver” upon which it builds its “rewards” (and in the future, “punishments”), lie beyond formal legislation.
This issue is far more significant than it appears at first glance. The insurance company legislates, not with the “validity” of the state (which formally still holds the monopoly on legislation), but with the “attractiveness” of its pedagogy. Going beyond the law, the insurance company shapes a much broader regularity of (social) behavior; but also a new regularity of acceptance / compliance with the specifications of corporate legislation. The projection via data and algorithms of the “rules of proper driving behavior” that serve the interests of the insurance company creates a mesh of digital legitimacy / real behavioral channeling. We have and say: Do you brake abruptly? Do you accelerate abruptly? Do you drive within, indeed, the legal speed limits but outside the (insurance / business) convenient limits? Do you drive at night? You are “problematic,” that is, a “bad driver.” The company is not obligated to provide explanations for its choice of criteria; and even less willing to “negotiate” them, as usually happens in the formation of state constitutions. It has its own constitution – the acceptance of which is served like a seed. “You gain points” (or “lose points”) which means you gain “gifts” or face penalties. 4 In any case, you must recognize some kind of “moral legitimacy” in corporate tactics.
The bipolar reward-punishment mechanism of the entrepreneurial “legal order,” packaged as paternalism and voluntary acceptance of the company’s admonishments, promotes/encourages the client’s infantilization. “It’s enough, of course, if you want it” (to become a “good driver”…) are the final words of the aforementioned laudatory reportage. Which means that it’s not that you are “free” to “want it” or “not want it,” but rather that you are obligated to “want it,” since otherwise you are suspected of intentional bad driving; that is, antisocial behavior. At this historical stage, the voluntarism of accepting the entrepreneurial norm is mandatory; as mandatory as it has become to have a “social media account.” It is not legally mandatory in the old sense of the law. It is socially and functionally mandatory: if you “don’t want it,” you are suspect; and you will have none of the minor “privileges” of adapted behavior.
That’s the situation so far. Because at this stage, the collection and flow of driving data is done through mobile devices and 4G communication technology. But very soon, the vehicles themselves will connect directly to the internet of things, and through that, to the company with which they are insured. Then the data flow will bypass the driver’s preferences (or “willingness”), it will be continuous and mandatory, just like the inspection, if every owner wants to remain insured (which, of course, is mandatory in the traditional sense of the law).
The case of shaping driving behavior that we just examined is an example, an expression of the type of shaping and controlling behaviors through big data. Just as easy (and in many respects even more acceptable) are the applications of data flow related to each person’s health – a sector that will skyrocket with 5G communication capabilities. If the shaping and control of “correct” driving behavior as a continuous, permanent process of digital surveillance seems like an exception, the corresponding process for shaping and controlling “correct” dietary and physical behavior, in the name of good health, has all the specifications to become a social norm. There is considerable voluntarism in hygiene. However, it is not alone. In countries where employers provide private insurance for their employees, the issue of their “good health” also concerns insurance companies. Thus, for example, for at least 5 years now various employers in the US, along with private insurance, “offer” their employees wearables that record their habits regarding personal exercise, calories burned, and other health data. The data flows automatically to the insurance companies, which appear to be effectively convincing, supporting that these are diabetes prevention programs. It is obvious that (for their own good) these employees must constantly self-monitor through digital recordings and shape a healthy daily routine.
Digital dedication
We consider pointless any discussion as to whether the masters of this world always wanted universal surveillance and now luckily have the technology to achieve it; or whether it is the development of computing that gave them ideas. On the contrary, what is important from our political point of view and at the same time the most difficult and sensitive issue is the relationship of contemporary (and future) citizens with the datafication of their lives. This datafication and its use for surveillance and shaping social behaviors does not appear out of nowhere. Many social behaviors are (or seek to be) normalized in their “analog” version. This is evident in hygiene. The measurement of calories consumed (or burned) by someone who “eats healthily” had become fashionable (even a “personal duty”…) long before the technical capability for real-time digital counting emerged. Preventive laboratory tests likewise. Moreover, the misconception that digital communications are, practically, technically, “public” rather than “private” has been entrenched since the widespread adoption of mobile telephony; long before companies (or states) found ways to collect, process, and exploit all kinds of communication data.
What generalized datafication and its algorithmic exploitation add, comes in three kinds. First, the range of data (thus the range of digital traces of everyday life) that acquire either commercial interest or surveillance interest (or both) appears unlimited… Secondly, it is now ripe for a (corporate or/and state) “processing center” of this data to appear publicly, with the promise that everything is done for good purposes… And thirdly, the extent and intensity of the normalization of behaviors much more universally than ideology (e.g. religious such) or law (e.g. civil, state legislation) could ever do, through the “game” of rewards/punishments, already promises impressive successes. Experts, mostly academic intellectuals (who often declare themselves enemies of this development) speak of a higher qualitative level of discipline (of every citizen): dedication. The normalization of behaviors as it emerged through the boundaries set by state legislation was based on discipline against the prohibition of those considered antisocial (with the definition being redefined in different historical periods by modifying legislation), leaving the considered social ones to be shaped at will in the huge “intermediate space” between prohibitions.
The shaping and control of behaviors through big data and increasingly complex algorithms for processing them goes much further. It constructs, beyond the far more accurate and enduring prohibition, a much broader and extralegal range of “unacceptable” behaviors, rewarding those considered correct. It constructs, that is, in place of the formerly static (and limitedly productive) prohibitions, productive dynamics of prompts, suggestions, and norms. This system, whether it is corporately or state-controlled (China’s social credit system is the global “beacon”…), does not suffice with passive acceptance of it. It demands and enforces the active participation of each individual, primarily in self-surveillance, self-measurement, and self-recording; and simultaneously, in monitoring all others within his/her social environment. This activity, which for social media has various names (from “friends” to “followers”), is what can be called devotion to a higher level of relationships. It is certainly devotion that is demanded either by corporate bosses or by states.
Essentially, the commitment to digitally defined and monitored norms is the extension of voluntary enthusiasm for new technological intermediations; and the capitalization of this voluntary enthusiasm. More than 2 years ago we wrote among other things: 5
… Understanding the internet as the largest experiment in control and manipulation in human history does not necessarily imply “dark forces” that conspire and plot in digital highways, although such forces do exist. For the most part, these experiments are conducted under the guise of corporate competition, and the underlying assumption is that many aspects of this phenomenon—which turns everyday life into material for observation and intervention—are willingly accepted by the public, as long as they are accompanied by assurances that everything is done to improve “the services provided” and the “online experience.” Consider, for example, your daily internet experience. You will have noticed that the websites you visit—whether they are search engine results, articles on news sites, or pages on social media—are not exactly the same as those seen by another user or by you on a different device. This is partly due to declared preferences, partly to browsing history and cookies (those persistent trackers on every device), but mainly due to the extensive use of A/B testing techniques. “A/B tests” are exactly what their name suggests: different versions of the same content served to different users in order to measure reactions, evaluate customer habits, and adjust the content accordingly. The reason A/B testing plays a decisive role in the policies of internet companies is that, on one hand, they are easy and inexpensive to implement, and on the other, they yield results that could never have been predicted without actual testing. For example, Google discovered that slightly changing the shade of blue of the links in search results led to a multiplication of clicks and an increase in its profits by 200 million dollars.
This particular example may seem “neutral,” but the intensity of experiments conducted online is such that the results have escaped the realm of “research” and now fall into the category of crude manipulation; and the Facebook example with the “emotional contagion” experiment (previous issue, don’t believe the hype) doesn’t even belong among the glaring exceptions…
… The masters of cyberspace don’t care to know everything about us, because we are already, at least digitally, terribly transparent! What interests them and what they are conducting intensive tests towards, is the general direction and control of real life…
The normalization through big data, the digital shaping and control of behaviors, is exactly what anyone should expect who has (and had) the basic awareness that digitization is not the sudden triumph of “human freedom” but a fundamental element of capitalist development, of the Paradigm Shift. The “wild years” of the 3rd industrial revolution, when businesses and states did not know exactly how they could exploit the explosion of cyberspace, lasted only a little while; and they are definitively past. It matters (politically, we dare say) the fact that at this current historical phase, this shaping of behaviors can be perceived by citizens (and so it happens mostly) as “friendly help”, as “care”, as “service”. With the same ease and unforgivable naivety with which hotel advertisements are favorably accepted on someone’s mobile phone as soon as they are found “away from home”, with the same relief with which the command “turn right” is accepted as mechanical guidance via gps, the phrase “you are about to make a high-risk move – reconsider your choices” on the screen will be interpreted as the machine’s “intelligence and concern”…
Such is the case with dedication… From the opposite side? This is called the biopolitics of power…
The revelation was covered by the cloud of “illegality” from the company’s side and the other company, Facebook, which provided the first with the personal data it requested. But the “illegality” was only one side of the issue. Detailed in cyborg 12, July 2018, Cambridge Analytica: internal cyber psyops of the 4th world war. ↩︎
ergo hellas is a subsidiary of the German ergo insurances. This particular behavioral profiling and monitoring program is an international invention of insurance companies. For example, the American allstate insurance presented its own program “drivewise” in the summer of 2018. Allstate offered a 3% discount on premiums to those customers who simply agreed to join and remain active in drivewise – in order for the company to collect as much data as possible and improve its algorithms. Additionally, allstate offered a 15% refund of premiums if the driver proved to be “safe” based on its specifications for their first 50 trips. And afterward, if they continued to be the same, it offered the same refund every six months. Its customers had, beyond these, additional gifts if they agreed to allow a continuous flow of data from their vehicle to the insurance company. Three were the criteria of “safe driving” for allstate: Safe speed: under 130 kilometers per hour; Safe driving hours: limiting driving late at night; Safe stops: limiting sudden braking. Another American insurance company, progressive insurance company, advertises its similar program differently, under the title snapshot: Snapshot is a program that personalizes premiums based on the ACTUAL driving you do. It’s called “usage-based insurance.” This means you pay according to when and how much you drive, instead of having a standard premium. It’s simple. You drive safely and you save money. You drive even more safely and you save even more. Conversely, your premium will increase if you drive dangerously… ↩︎
