Panopticommodity System

[Hoser McRhizzy]

Googled, 2012

Just want to say congratulations on coming through training week with flying colours!  Gerry says you're learning quickly and I've had several comments from your co-workers about how likable you are.  You've passed the drug test, your references were glowing...  Personally, I'm convinced.  Now there's just the tiny formality of your background check before Chris can put you on payroll. 

Everything looks pretty normal here.  We have some chat logs from 2009 that got a bit out of hand, and there's the MySpace account you kept for 3 months in 2005.  The one where you called yourself Red Herring?  Not a bad read, although a little liberal for my tastes.  But I did notice a few things we do need to cover.  No, there's no need to sit down.  This'll just take a second.

It says here you've had over 20 email accounts in the past 10 years.  Many of them, you used once and then never again.  You'll need to account for these addresses, as well as what you were using them for.  Get a standard H27 form from Chris at reception.

Also, in 2011 you were online but undocumented for a few hours.  Probably just a glitch, but it could also indicate that you went outside the national filter, so you'll need to account for that time.  Chris can walk you through the process.  It'll only take a few minutes.

Now, this concerns me a little more.  In 2010, you used a free email account to disparage your boss.  You called him a, let's see here, a "cuntfaced fuckbucket."  A "prep school punk."  And you indicated that he gave promotions based on whether or not you'd fellatiate him.  I hope you understand that the image we project here is one of respect, honesty and interpersonal trust.  If you act on any urge to express yourself like this in the future, you'll be unemployed in seconds.  Are we clear?

One last thing we need to cover.  You posted multiple Craigslist ads in 2007, and I see from your resume that's the same year you moved to the city?  No, no problem there.  We all get lonely.  Unfortunately, one of your ads solicits females to engage in a rather explicit bondage fantasy.  No!  No need to explain!  While the details are disturbing, I've read far worse and it's easily fixed: you just need to discuss it with the office councilor.  So, when you leave here, head on down and make an appointment to talk with Andrea in supplies.

Other than that, you're squeaky.  The job is yours, if you still want it. 

[Hoser McRhizzy]

Wasn't sure what section of the forum this might belong to (it's not art, not a rant, and not particularly discordian as far as I can tell).

Criticism would be very appreciated.

[Eater of Clowns]

I enjoyed it, the creepy not far fetched enough feel worked well to make it seem potentially real.

I was a bit confused about the differentiation between boards in my newer days.  I posted a few things that fell flat because they were in the wrong area.  This is probably more Or Kill Me territory.  Now that I know the place better, I can let my stuff fall flat for lack of sparking interest rather than going in the wrong place.

[Hoser McRhizzy]

I'm glad you liked it.    And thanks much for the board advice.

[Cramulus]

I like it! I like how it examines your life through the lens of bureaucracy. "We understand that humans are chaotic, we just need to account for that chaos." This is some spooky sci-fi, no? If only because it's so realistic



also I love that the person you have to see about your lesbian bondage fantasy is "Andrea in supplies." 

[Hoser McRhizzy]

also I love that the person you have to see about your lesbian bondage fantasy is "Andrea in supplies." 

tbh, I hadn't imagined myself as the interviewee (have to try that next time), but it is funnier that way.  And I liked your insight about bureaucracy-logic.  I'm kind of obsessed with it.



Off-topic, but just for clarity (and in case anyone's interested), panopticommodity is a term coined by David Lyon.  One of those words that sounds exactly like what it's meant to describe, but here's a rough definition from an old(er) paper of mine:

For example, in this seeming age of transparency, a taken-for-granted truism exists that giving up personal information to marketing companies and/or governments is a toll for the use of ICT communication, which creates a trade function of exposure for access.  This is what Mark Andrejevic describes as the "justification and domestication of surveillance" (2004) and David Lyon terms "panopticommodity" (2006: 6): an exposure of the self as a normalized price to pay for access, or the "commodification of privacy" (Campbell & Carlson, 2002).

Thank you both for the feedback.  I haven't written anything that wasn't an essay or a kind of paint-by-numbers mimicry in about a decade.  Short of that is: much appreciated.

[Freeky]

[Doktor Howl]

That would be funny, if it wasn't a direct view of the future.

[Salty]

This is great! I laughed out loud at "cuntface fuckbucket".

[Hoser McRhizzy]

thx for the mittens, professor.  And I'm glad you got a laugh out of it, Alty. 

That would be funny, if it wasn't a direct view of the future.

I do think it's where we're headed.  Already got Family Friendly software selling kids' chat logs to marketers, national filters, schools turning students into unwitting camwhores, and on.  My dystopia is all that governmental/marketing shit getting centralized.  Not surprisingly, there's a sizable chunk of people who want it done last year.

[Eater of Clowns]

Don't forget GPS functions in family phones.  Why trust your kid when you can track them via sattelite?

[Hoser McRhizzy]

Exactly.  Then there's the job that requires you to have a cell phone and keep it on when you're not at work.  And ads for "apps for that" where you can locate your friends wherever they happen to be. 

It's the mix of extreme and banal surveillance, access and control that freaks me out sometimes.  But then I just sound like a crazy person.

[Eater of Clowns]

Exactly.  Then there's the job that requires you to have a cell phone and keep it on when you're not at work.  And ads for "apps for that" where you can locate your friends wherever they happen to be. 

It's the mix of extreme and banal surveillance, access and control that freaks me out sometimes.  But then I just sound like a crazy person.

I saw an OnStar ad where they remotely shut down a car that had been hijacked for a high speed chase.  I immediately decided I would never own a car with OnStar in it.  When do they decide to use that when I'm overdue for an inspection sticker, or a few days late on my insurance payment?  No thanks.

[Reginald Ret]

Why can't i laugh about this?
Fucking fuck it, i'm going to try harder to become selfsufficient.
I'll become a recluse living of what i can grow on my own land.
Then i won't need a job so i won't be as susceptible to this kind of shit.

Do you mind if i spread this around a bit?

[Triple Zero]

I love it, nurse!

And yeah, this is probably what we're heading for, except it will be different. Not better, probably, but just different.

And there is a glimmer of hope getting people better privacy. There are some interesting foundations and parties working over here, at least. Unfortunately, the Dutch Pirate Party turns out to be a bunch of nerds that don't really do the political blah very well IRL. But they do have a lot of support. If not this election [next week], maybe the next one.