Category Archives: surveillance

Eugenics and Biosurveillance in the Golden State

In 1979, the California Eugenics Law was repealed, but it would take 24 years for the state to acknowledge this atrocious injustice aimed at poor, disabled, and predominantly women of color throughout the state. According to an interview with Professor Alex Stern for NPR, the “state law from 1909 authorized the surgery for people judged to have ‘mental disease,’ which may have been inherited.” To clarify, surgery meant sterilization. The reasoning for such legislation is deeply rooted in the work and research by eugenicist Francis Galton who believed certain genetic dispositions were superior or inferior. Although eugenics was debunked as a pseudoscience, it bred white supremacism, institutionalized racism, and misogyny with ripple effects throughout western history.

From 1909 to 1979 the California eugenics law was in effect and during that time, approximately 800 tubal ligation procedures, according to statistical research, were performed on women and men without their consent. According to Stern, despite the law being dissolved in the late 1970s, 146 female inmates were subjected to forced sterilization between 2006 and 2010. The law targeted black and brown women, predominantly Latina. While there have been stories and articles covering the practice of eugenics and disproving it as a science, it continues to contribute to contemporary practices of genetic surveillance and the constant battle to legislate women’s’ bodies. According to Stern, many of the women sterilized in the 1960s and 1970s were mostly women with Latin American last names, poor, and immigrants with very little to no support to help navigate the American healthcare system. bell hooks aptly described America as a country built on a structure of ‘white-supremacist-capitalist-patriarchy.’ I argue this structure, which continues to plague the United States today, extends to and encompasses our medico-legal system as well.

DNA collection and banking have been a deeply contested area of biosurveillance for years. Stern’s research on the California Eugenics Law begs the question: how many more states have buried histories of forced sterilization deep in their records? The prevalence of biometric data collection as a way of policing poor, disabled, and marginalized bodies has a direct correlation to eugenics practices. Aside from historical data, artists working in the realms of genetic determinism offer a unique methodology and approaches to exploring and critiquing science as a vehicle for systemic racism and sexism.

This particular research speaks to the way heteronormativity and white supremacy have gone hand in hand. The history of forced sterilization on women of color in California made it extremely difficult for communities of color to obtain immediate health care reform and reparations. While a registry has been created to capture what Stern, as estimated to be around 800 potential survivors of these procedures, the question that comes to mind, are potential cases around the US that may have similar suppressed or obscured records.

While science is often believed to be objective, much like data and statistics, it can be grossly manipulated to serve specific ideologies. Stepping away from historical frameworks, I have been deeply influenced by the cyberfeminist collective, subRosa. In the SubRosa anthology, Domain Errors!: Cyberfeminist Practices, Emily de Araujo and Lucia Somner created “A Summary History of Eugenic Theories and Practices in the United States,” which outlines the major events in the advancement of eugenics and racial profiling.

How can we ensure updated information is then communicated to the masses in such a way that enables the reader to see exactly how they fit into this larger rubric of theorization? How do we revise and graft onto these methods of resistance that the SubRosa collective have created for the community? Methods may include intervention at the clinical research level or occupying particular scientific and institutionalized spaces to promote inclusion of underrepresented and underserved bodies. What are the ways we can seize (medical and data) systems of oppression and turn genetic surveillance into genetic sousveillance? In Heather Dewey-Hagborg’s performance piece, DNA Spoofing, we see various fictitious methods preventing surveillance of the body. What might it mean for subjects to be given the opportunity to survey the surveyor and reflect back practices to a physician?  In which ways can we set up new ethical practices with lasting effects?

Bibliography:

The Gene: An Intimate History by Siddhartha Mukherjee

Domain Errors: Cyberfeminist Practices by the SubRosa Collective

Research and Digital Resources, Alexdra Minna Stern, PhD

On a Eugenics Registry: A Record of California’s Thousands of Sterilization, NPR

A Summary History of Eugenics Theories and Practices in the United States compiled by Emily de Araujo and Lucia Sommer of the SubRosa Collective

Informatic Opacity

This essay was originally published in the Journal of Aesthetics and Protest.

Zach Blas, Facial Weaponization Suite: Mask – May 31, 2013, San Diego, CA

On June 7, 2013, the National Security Agency’s surveillance program was made public in news media with the aid of whistleblower Edward Snowden, journalist Glenn Greenwald, and filmmaker Laura Portrais. Their reports revealed a suite of software designed for global, invasive data searches and analysis, including PRISM, a data-mining application used to collect billions of metadata records from various telecommunications and social media companies, and Boundless Informant, a visualization tool developed to track and analyze collected data; a third was announced on July 31, 2013, as XKeyscore, a search system that mines extensive online databases containing browsing histories and emails. Just as philosopher Michel Foucault once described the panopticon as the exemplary diagram of surveillance in the modern age, this assemblage of software, whose reach is yet to be fully known, will arguably become our contemporary replacement.

Continue reading

Good Regulators: The Weakness of 1Password and Its Progeny

There’s a math theorem that I rather like because I think it appeals to so many situations. I feel this way about that quote from Frankenstein, “And now, once again, I bid my hideous progeny go forth and prosper… blahblah;” I used that repeatedly in school essays, on entrance exams, in acceptance speeches. Some things make little sense to you in-situ but come to mean much more when you apply them to other scenarios. In the Good Regulator Theorem, good regulators are a model of systems that they regulate, and if the model is not a performant echo, then the system is weak, unregulated, and welcome to compromise. In some ways, I feel passwords are “good regulators,” things that model what they manage, because they protect memory (stores of information that you might like to keep private), and in a meta-way, they rely on your memory to ensure their utility.

We often write weak passwords because we have weak memories. So then we write frameworks around them that weaken their ability to perform, their ability to echo the system they model, and thus we introduce our human weakness into an already crippled model of protection. We “salt” and “hash” our passwords but we are still distant from a happy breakfast, to a happy progeny, a product of our genius and not simply an echo of our faults. So what can be done about passwords? What can be done about the memory they protect? How does the weakness of passwords, and of “good regulation,” affection the bio-politics of our contemporary world?

Password Strength XKCD

Continue reading

Future Map Reloaded

Brian Holmes is a Chicago-based art critic, activist and translator known for his writing on the intersections of artistic and political practice. In light of the recent explosion of surveillance discourse in the media, we invited Brian Holmes to revisit an essay he wrote in 2007 on the intersection of cybernetics, surveillance and neoliberal capitalism, to provide a theoretical framework for discussion.

FUTURE MAP RELOADED
By Brian Holmes

title-future-map

Say “surveillance” and people think “Foucault.” Dull bureaucratic corridors; cold cells; disciplined bodies; an invasive gaze. State power, in short. The bloated US prison system and the staggering growth of mass electronic surveillance since 9/11 gives us every reason to think this way. Yet there is another, even more pervasive form of mass surveillance. Friendly and seductive, not cold and bureaucratic; multiple and proliferating, not centrally controlled; corporate and consumer-oriented, not based on state power. And there is also another Foucault.

Continue reading

Response to the “Face of Litter”

Yes, this looks very familiar…

No I had nothing to do with it, I was not consulted or cited, and I’m not surprised.

It isn’t surprising that an ad agency copied an artist’s work with no remuneration or citation.

And it isn’t surprising that an ad agency press release was recycled from one media outlet to the next as “news” without research or problematization of the obvious issues here around surveillance, genetic privacy, and public shaming as a technique of social control.

Finally, it isn’t surprising that DNA might be used to monitor, survey, and publicly shame individuals deemed deviant.

But what is the “face of litter” campaign really? DNA phenotyping isn’t cheap, and it’s telling to contemplate why a Parabon Nanolabs, a small biotech startup, would donate this expensive technology to an ad agency for a pro bono ecological project. It’s called PR.

Continue reading

Newborn DNA Storage Raises Serious Privacy Concerns

Before they are even a week old, ninety-eight percent of the 4.3 million babies born annually in the United States have a small sample of blood taken from their heels. These newborn bloodspots (NBS) are then screened for a variety of inherited conditions and are often later stored in state-operated databases. Newborn screening itself is an important public health program and some have described these residual sample “biobanks” in equally positive terms. Although there are concrete benefits of newborn testing, there are also troubling consent and privacy issues raised by the screening, storage and use of the samples.

 

Newborn screening began in the United States as a series of state level pilot programs in the 1960s to test for PKU, a rare genetic condition that is easily treatable if caught early. The success of these early programs led to rapid adoption of newborn screening among all states in the US and the number of conditions screened for has grown progressively since with additional funding at the Federal level. Because of the singular history of newborn screening, it remains the only widespread health testing in the US conducted not by an individual’s doctor, hospital, or health care provider but by individual state departments of public health. This singular history can also account for a wide disparity in state law and policy with regards to parental consent, sample storage and use.

Continue reading