Identity Politics in the Visible World: Race, Anonymity, and Human Rights
The name Noam Galai is more than just a buzzword in all debates and topics related to privacy, secrecy, digital data and social media in the contemporary world. Rachel Kadish, who is a cousin to Noam Galai, tells the heartbreaking story of how his supposedly shy cousin becomes a victim of the greatest vice in the world internet today – theft of digital property. In her article "Who Is This Man and Why He is screaming?” Kadish narrates how the now international picture of her cousin robbed him of his privacy and the right to consent. Galai, who posted his controversial picture on one of the most popular social media websites, Flickr, was shocked to discover that his face had become a landmark symbol in not only the world of showbiz, but also in political circles. The recent Iranian revolution saw the face of the shy Galai do rounds on the internet and the streets of Iran. One of the authors that have sought to explicate the effects of media and technology on society is Peter Singer. In his article "Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets", Singer seeks to explain the impact of social media and other information websites on society from the perspective of the government. Citing such examples as Wiki Leaks, Singer endeavors to explain how technology and especially social media websites can be both beneficial and detrimental. In this paper, I seek to explain various reasons why I agree with the statement that with the extent to which the society has embraced technology and social media, the face is no longer private property.
The foremost reason why our faces are no longer private property is because, if other social media subscribers like or find something peculiar about any user’s face, it will go viral. This is particularly so because anyone can download, share and even print it. While one may not understand the fuss about Galai’s picture, it is interesting to learn that the picture, which Galai posted as any other ordinary picture went viral even before he realized it. Surprisingly, his workmates learned about the viral nature of the picture before he did, and when he did, he realized that there was little or nothing at all that he could do about it. In narrating this story, Rachel Kadish arrives at the question: If your face is not private property, what is? This question is among the many that various authors have sought to answer in this era, where politics, the internet and society are together.
Secondly, the human face cannot be said to be private property because social media websites are like a tall tower from which everyone’s deeds and movements can be monitored. Using the analogy of prominent philosopher Jeremy Bentham, Singer seeks to illustrate that privacy and secrecy are just as important as they are detrimental. The Panoptican, an idealized tower from which everyone’s deeds and movements can be watched are the center of Bentham’s explanation. Even though the piece of the building was never built, it caused significant controversy in relation to government operations and the need for secrecy. The piece of the building can be comparable to the internet and social media websites in today’s world. Through the internet and such websites, people can effectively watch others’ movements, ways of thinking, plans and even feeling. Singer says, “we blog, tweet and post what we are doing, thinking and feeling” (31). He goes on to explain that when we do such things, other people can collect information without due consent – something that amounts to violation of human rights. One cannot help but wonder what constitutes private property if one’s own face is no longer private. Perhaps we are living in the times predicted by Bentham – times when there would be a tower from which all people could be watched.
The third reason why I believe that our faces are not private property is because, with the rate at which people are embracing technology, theft of digital data is a vice that is growing so rapidly. Critics have argued that, if the reasoning of the average human being is anything to go by, theft of digital property does not appear to be as evil as the theft of actual physical property. While this is the case, cyber bullying and other forms of cybercrime have become quite widespread in the contemporary world. In the real sense, however, digital theft is as dangerous and condemnable as the theft of actual wealth. According to Ludwig Wittgenstein, “The face is the soul of the body”. This implies that if the face is no longer classified as personal or private property, not even the body is. Clearly, then, in the current age of technology, there is nothing to be considered private property. People have engaged in social media activities to an extent that everything is now available to the public – both strangers and acquaintances.
Another reason that significantly supports my argument is the fact that social media websites are meant to link people from all parts of the world. This makes the things we post on social media websites visible not only to the people close to us, but the entire online community. Such websites as Facebook, twitter, Instagram, Flickr and vine, increase personal visibility through a comprehensive system of networking. These websites are referred to as social networking websites. Social networking is with linking people from various parts of the world for purposes of interacting and sharing information. Perhaps one of the factors that can sufficiently explain how these websites increase personal visibility is the reality that such websites emphasize the use of pictures and photographs, which can be shared, downloaded and re-uploaded by other users, who do not consider the actual intent of the user. Additionally, as Singer clearly puts it, millions of users that log in to such websites every day, post not only their thoughts, but also their whereabouts and personal plans. This makes every internet user vulnerable because their privacy is likely to be invaded at any time by any person, both criminals and the innocent users that download and re-use pictures that they find attractive.
Another reason, why it is valid to conclude that there is nothing in the private property category, is because social media websites complicate people's understanding and ideas of privacy. Such complications are with the misinterpretations that come along with the functions of social media. While people understand social media websites to be interactive platforms, others consider them to be political forums where revolutionary ideas and other radical ideas can be aired. Such misunderstandings cause people to, limitlessly, air their views. When the revolution in Iran swept the social media sites, especially twitter, the world woke up to the realization that social media websites could be more detrimental than useful in times of political turmoil. Such complicated ideas are the main reason behind Hillary Clinton’s words, “wiki leaks revelations tear at the fabric of the proper function of responsible government.” (Singer 34)
Our faces are no longer private because drawing the line or rather mediating between public and private property is not the easiest of tasks. Gurus in property law advise that to mediate between private or intellectual property and public property in the web-connected world, we should endeavor to eradicate the misinterpretations presented by the websites. Eradicating such misinterpretations means that all internet users should be made to understand the potential effects of the internet. Learning from the story of Noam Galai is of the essence in contemporary society. Had Galai taken the time to consider the possible dangers of posting his photo on Flickr, he could not have done it. On the contrary, he could have considered licensing the photo as this could have, not only benefitted him, but also saved him of the agony he had to go through after discovering that his face, which was supposedly part of his personal property, was doing the rounds on international showbiz and political revolutions. According to Kadish, “To Noam, there was nothing more excruciating than finding himself the center of attention,” (Kadish 1). Having found himself at the center of international attention, one can only imagine what the shy young man had to go through. Essentially, therefore, to draw a line between personal and public property, one should endeavor to gain a deep understanding of the extent to which the internet can ruin the society, and violate the human rights.
Galai’s image is so popular, not because Galai himself is popular, but because of the artistic features of the photo. This makes the piece stop being just a social media upload, but a work of art that many admire. Describing the image, Kadish says, “the resulting image was unsettling—a youth with buzz-cut hair and a long, narrow face, aiming an open-throated cry skyward.” (2). From this description, one can only understand why the picture went viral after such a short time. What one can learn from this image’s story is the fact that with the prominent role of social media and the internet in today’s social circles, not even one’s personality can be classified as private property. From the description that Kadish gives, Galai is a reserved person that hates or rather fears attention. Nobody knows that Galai sometimes gains a rare confidence before a camera. The picture, which is now international, reveals this aspect of Galai that he would not have revealed. The lesson here is simple – nothing is private property.
As a matter of fact, protecting that which we consider private property is increasingly difficult because the social media websites complicate our understanding of the connection between technology and race. While the relationship between technology and race may seem like a complicated matter, the reality is the opposite of this presumption. Currently, technology is ironing out the negative aspects that were considered the epitome of racism. Currently, social media are bringing together people from across the cultures. Facebook, which is prominently associated with the west, is a common factor in international interaction, and so is twitter. Galai’s picture is not a symbol of race – it is in all continents. It is no puzzle why Galai’s image was a prominent tool in the Iranian revolution. The skyward open-throated cry is a symbol of dissatisfaction and grief. The image is a representation of the people of Iran, who are dissatisfied or rather angered by the current ways of governance.
The use of Galai’s image raises the question: does art belong to the artist or the society? While this is a matter of contention, it is acceptable that art falls under the category of intellectual property. Intellectual property belongs to an artist and not the society. There is a difference between the property and the identity. What belongs to the society is the identity. For instance, if a person takes a picture of people dancing to some cultural song, then the image will belong to the artist. However, the cultural identity of the image would belong to the society because a culture is the cementing aspect of society. It is a culture that binds people together to make a society. In order to avoid the violation of human rights, people should consider the intent of the artist. In the absence of such consideration, anyone that opts to use such an image violates the rights and consent of the artist. From the foregoing, it is clear that, with the prominent role of social media in the society, our faces are no longer personal property.
Works Cited
Kadish, Rachel "Who Is This Man, and Why Is He Screaming?" The Good Men Project Magazine, July-August 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.utne.com/arts/scream-picture-noam-galai-self-portrait-graffiti.aspx?PageId=2
Singer, Peter "Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets" Harper’s Magazine, August 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62934818/Peter-Singer-Visible-Man
