ATHENS, Ohio – Americans may enjoy the perks of living in the “Information Age,” but the same computer technology that connects us in the 21st century also has us under someone else’s thumb, a new book suggests.
Government institutions and private businesses are using vast networks of computerized systems that make it easy to access, share and use personal data. And that’s not just a question of breaching privacy rights. It’s an issue of how large organizations are using technology to gain power over individuals – something all Americans should be concerned about, according to John Gilliom, an Ohio University political scientist and author of the new book “Overseers of the Poor: Surveillance, Resistance, and the Limits of Privacy,” published recently by the University of Chicago Press.
Gilliom, a surveillance and privacy expert, set out to take a deeper look at how computer surveillance measures are impacting Americans by examining a group that knows what it’s like to have almost every aspect of their lives monitored: welfare recipients.
Two former welfare clients hired by Gilliom for the project interviewed 50 welfare mothers in southeastern Ohio about living under computerized surveillance. The women didn’t complain about the infringement of their legal rights to privacy or other guarantees, he said, but expressed humiliation, fear and anxiety about living under intense scrutiny.
“The things they told us compel us to see this sort of surveillance as a system of power and domination that truly frightens people and diminishes the senses of citizenship and autonomy in their daily lives,” said Gilliom, who suggests this shows a need for a broader public conversation about surveillance and privacy rights.
For welfare mothers such as “Mary,” a monthly check from the government isn’t enough to cover rent, food, utilities and other expenses for her three children. Like many, she subverts the welfare system by not reporting cash gifts from relatives, but lives in fear that the extensive computer surveillance measures used by the government to track her every dollar and household activity will land her in trouble – or, at worst, in jail.
“You have to watch your step like you are in prison. ... Someone is watching over you and you are hoping every day that you won’t go up the creek, so to speak, and (that you will) get out alive in any way, shape or form,” said Mary, one woman interviewed for the project (all women were granted anonymity).
Using a massive computer network that sweeps state and federal databases for Social Security numbers and other identifying information, the government tracks figures one might expect in the welfare system, including household income and expenses; the ages, names and Social Security numbers of children; savings and checking accounts and marital status. But this network also includes data on criminal history, health records, retirement plans and much more information about those who receive benefits.
In Ohio, where the study was conducted, the government uses the Client Registry Information System – Enhanced (CRIS-E) to connect caseworkers around the state and detect any financial or domestic changes associated with a client’s electronic case file. State governments have used systems like this for more than a decade, replacing cumbersome paperwork systems of monitoring welfare clients.
Gilliom’s finding that welfare recipients don’t view their problems in terms of legal rights is an enlightening contribution to the privacy debate, said Austin Sarat, a professor at Amherst College who studies legal and social issues.
“Not everyone is rights-conscious or rights-assertive,” he said. Gilliom’s research suggests welfare recipients have found other ways to cope. Because benefit checks rarely cover all living expenses, recipients often are forced to manipulate the system by working for cash or failing to report extra bank accounts or household members who may be contributing income or gifts, said Gilliom, a professor of political science. These recipients realize they’re cheating the system, and fear that the government will penalize them by revoking benefits or even sending them to jail. But, he added, many feel they have no alternative.
“They broke rules, but felt morally compelled to do so because of their greater obligation to take care of their families,” he said.
Welfare program administrators – including several in Ohio whom Gilliom interviewed for his book – contend that as recipients of federal benefits, welfare mothers should expect a certain level of monitoring in their lives as a routine check for deception. Administrators argue that they’re just trying to do their jobs, providing a service to welfare clients and safeguarding the welfare system from mass fraud.
But Gilliom maintains that the totality of these measures – regardless of their intentions – has created a “surveillance society” that gives more power to government institutions, agencies and businesses than to individual people.
Welfare recipients are just one example; surveillance is becoming a bigger issue for all Americans, he argued, at a time when workplace drug testing, monitoring of e-mail and Internet use and, most recently, airport security measures are becoming the norm in our society. Though public opinion polls often show that Americans fear that technology and the government are infringing on their privacy, those surveys miss the point, he said. Public conversation on privacy issues should be broadened.
“The sum total of the changes that have happened in the last three decades should put a chill in every American’s heart,” he said. And it’s not only welfare mothers who are striking back at the system, Gilliom argued. Cheating on taxes and using radar detection to avoid traffic tickets are just two examples of the ways the average American handles living in the surveillance web, said the author, who examined issues related to employee drug testing in the 1996 book “Surveillance, Privacy and the Law: Employee Drug Testing and the Politics of Social Control” and has been published in academic journals such as Law and Social Inquiry – the Journal of the American Bar Association.
“It’s as American as apple pie to break rules like this,” said Gilliom, who hopes his new book will inspire more public dialogue on surveillance issues.
Written by Andrea Gibson
Contact: John Gilliom, 740-593-1338, gilliom@ohio.edu