Reconsidering rights and ethics in the era of digital security - Pete Fussey, Tuesday 12 March at 5pm

We are delighted to be hosting this week a seminar led by Prof. Pete Fussey from Essex University, entitled ‘Reconsidering rights and ethics in the era of digital security’. This is the latest in the seminar series The Politics of Freedom in Data Times organised by NewPolCom postdoctoral fellow Dr. Matthew Hall.

All welcome!

Reconsidering rights and ethics in the era of digital security

Tuesday 12th Mar 5pm – Room: Founders West 101

Professor Pete Fussey, Department of Sociology, University of Essex, UK

 Recent years have seen a growing digitalisation of human societies. Digital technology has become increasingly ubiquitous and progressively integral to virtually all aspects of our lives. Companioning these developments has been the increased importance of digital data, now generated in unparalleled quantities and analysed with unprecedented speed and depth. These changes hold particular implications for the commission of, and responses to crime. Regarding the latter, the law enforcement uses of AI, predictive technologies, merged data hubs, algorithmic decision-making and advanced video analytics have generated significant attention and commentary. The speed and character such change brings many new ethical challenges. This includes a tension between state’s duty to uphold the security of its citizens – demanded by Article 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights – and obligations to uphold other rights such as privacy, expression and freedom from harassment. Yet it is arguable that whilst such debates have generated significant heat, they have produced little light. Based on initial findings from a five-year ESRC funded project analysing the human rights implications of big data and ICT this paper explores a range of ethical issues generated by the use of such technologies. Extending beyond the standard, and limited, ‘privacy versus security’ frame, the paper considers a range of additional concerns, including issues of efficacy, proportionality, utility and harm, collateral intrusion, consent, accountability, oversight and regulation.

Congratulations to Ellen Simpson - from MPPA to PhD programme

Congratulations are due to 2017-18 Media, Power & Public Affairs student Ellen Simpson, who has accepted a fully funded graduate assistantship at Syracuse University’s School of Information Studies. There she will build upon her MSc work with the NewPolCom Unit on online community formation and branch out into a study of how marginalized groups utilize platform design to create resilient online communities. She will be working with Bryan Semaan.

New issue of Media, War and Conflict published!

The latest issue of Media, War and Conflict journal has been published. Please find below the table of contents and click on the titles to be taken to the article (subscription required).

Articles

Patriotic journalism: An appeal to emotion and cognition Avshalom Ginosar and Inbar Cohen

The impact of political context on news coverage: Covering Qatar in the Israeli press Moran Yarchi, Tal Samuel-Azran, Yair Galily, and Ilan Tamir

Portraits of the enemy: Visualizing the Taliban in a photography studio Jenifer Chao

The UK Justice and Security Bill 2012–2013: Using secrecy to legitimize the securitization of the law Mark Pope

Journalism under pressure in conflict zones: A study of journalists and editors in seven countries Marte Høiby and Rune Ottosen

Telling NATO’s story of Afghanistan: Gender and the alliance’s digital diplomacy Katharine AM Wright

Newspaper coverage of the herdsmen–farmers conflict in central Tiv Land, Benue State, Nigeria Celestine Verlumun Gever and Coleman Fidelis Essien

Book review

Book review: Janet Harris and Kevin Williams, Reporting War and Conflict Gretchen Dworznik

The journal’s co-editors are NewPolCom’s Ben O’Loughlin along with Sarah Maltby (Sussex), Katy Parry (Leeds) and Laura Roselle (Elon).

Troll warfare - seminar recap by Sophie Mcclarron

Written by Sophie Mcclarron, current MSc student taking our Media, War & Conflict course.

Will Merrin: ‘The continuation of politics by other memes: The rise of global troll warfare’

6 February 2019, Royal Holloway

Trolling is an age-old culture which is used to create chaos and disorder through satire, Merrin announced. The troll must not care about what they are posting but is simply aiming to get a reaction. Trolling has existed for centuries, found in examples such as Henry VIII’s jesters and Marinetti’s futurist soirees. The term ‘troller’ itself developed from the definition to wander and is now defined as being anti-authoritarianism, anti-political and anti-order. The development of trolling from Henry VIII‘s jesters to modern day internet trolls is now the key component of anonymity needed to be an online troll. This would not have been possible as a jester or in group festivals in the past. Being anonymous online is a huge factor of being an internet troll. As Merrin argued, the mask was used to identify a character but now a mask is used to hide an identity.  

Another key factor of being a troll is that victory in troll warfare must be public, visible and appreciated by others. If a troll gets no reaction or it is private, then it is someone simply attempting to troll without being successful. In modern society a problem which we can encounter in this troll culture is ‘doxing’. Merrin defined this as an individual or group being exposed through trolling or for being a troll. An example of this would be Hillary Clinton’s emails being exposed by Wikileaks during the latest US presidential election. ‘Doxing’ can be dangerous as it can shift the power relationship from the vulnerable (the individuals in the public) who are trolling the powerful (the well-known/ media/ celebrities) to the opposite. Once the media can ‘dox’ an individual troll with their name and personal details, this becomes very dangerous for that person as the media corporation takes the role of the troll. Merrin presented examples of instances in which tabloid newspapers took on this troll role.

Merrin argued how trolling has fundamentally changed diplomacy in the 21stcentury. One example saw Canada’s diplomat on twitter trolling Russia with a meme highlighting Ukraine’s borders when Russia was invading. Governments have also embraced troll culture and it can even be seen to be used by radical groups online accounts such as Islamic State members using #catsofjihad. However, the radical groups are also themselves trolled through Twitter and other social media platforms, and this can be argued to have a positive effect. The group Anonymous trolled ISIS twitter accounts by changing all of their links to terror videos to Rick Astley’s ‘Never going to give you up’. This is a positive use of troll culture as it replaces links of hatred and terror to jovial and light-hearted music. It must be noted that although this form of trolling is positive, trolling does also have negative effects too as it can make ISIS seem more relatable and modern in their use of trolling themselves. 

Another dangerous use of trolling is governments’ control or attempted control of social media free speech. Countries such as China and Russia have both employed troll farms where citizens post pro-government trolling messages and to troll other countries and groups. Merrin argued these troll farms are not in fact trolling as trolling requires the person to not care about their post or response which the troll farms do value. Merrin’s closing statement was the most powerful as he admitted he is ‘terrified’ of governments cracking down on free speech online when it comes to trolling as it can be conceived as a hate crime. Trolling can be a dangerous tool to convey horrible messages targeting others but is this really trolling? Not when considering Merrin’s earlier definition so I agree the government being able to control or access all online data is a terrifying possibility. 

The lecture was a very insightful analysis of trolling and its modern use in politics and diplomacy. I agree with Merrin that trolling should be included and taught in politics courses as it is vital students are up-to-date with modern political tools when they graduate. Trolling should be taught and its dangers acknowledged through education but should not be restricted by the government.

By Sophie Mcclarron, 12 February 2019

Talk 6 Feb: William Merrin on The Continuation of Politics by Other Memes: The Global Rise of Troll Warfare

Democracy in 2019 (Wikimedia Commons)

On Wednesday 6 February 2019 we host William Merrin, who will deliver the following talk.

When, where? 4.30pm FW101

The Continuation of Politics by Other Memes: The Global Rise of Troll Warfare

Russia’s ‘information war’ against the west has attracted a lot of attention, but the reality is more complex than this term suggests. The aim of intervention here isn’t simply to influence internal politics by promoting favoured messages as in the past. Instead something else is happening. Today, traditional government covert activities and psyops have merged with internet culture to produce a new form of ‘troll warfare’. This is a mode of war carried out by states, by their organised ‘troll armies’ and ‘troll farms’, by military units themselves, by organised non-state actors (such as hacking groups or extremist groups) as well as by individuals. Today, a huge variety of groups and people employ the troll’s toolkits and weapons for political purposes. This paper explores how baiting, playing, doxing, memes, sock puppets, the lulz and the burn have become central to political debate and to global conflicts. 

William Merrin is an Associate Professor of in Media Studies at Swansea University, and the author of Digital War (Polity, 2018), Media Studies 2.0 (Routledge, 2014), and Baudrillard and the Media (Polity, 2005), and co-editor of Trump’s War on the Media (2018) and Jean Baudrillard: Fatal Theories (Routledge, 2009).

New publication: Countering Online Propaganda and Extremism

NewPolCom’s Akil Awan and Ben O’Loughlin, with co-author Alister Miskimmon, have published a new analysis of the strategic narratives of Islamic State in the new book, Countering Online Propaganda and Extremism, edited by Corneliu Bjola and James Pamment. The book is available to order here.

In their article, entitled ‘The battle for the battle of the narratives: sidestepping the double fetish of digital and CVE’, the authors conclude that to understand countering violent extremism as a digital task comes at a cost:

…the ‘battle of the narratives’ becomes conceptualised and practiced as the quantitative online dominance of ‘our’ content over ‘theirs’. Rather than admitting how intractably difficult persuasion is, and rather than responding to the real-world concerns of those persuadable by radical narratives – political disenfranchisement, socio-economic marginalisation, personal identity crises and xenophobia – the mass takedown of pro-IS accounts on Twitter in 2015 is instead considered a mark of progress. It is easier to simply stopping information from IS reaching individuals in the name of counter-radicalisation rather than exploring why the narrative of IS might be attractive and even persuasive. The enemy is extremism and extremism must be stopped, not the causes of its appeal. 

Countering IS communication narratives cannot refute lived experience, particularly when that lived experience resonates with the narrative. Fighting the digital battle can be a small part of fighting the war, and an even smaller part of the politics of ensuring coherent and secure identities for all citizens as well as the prospect of a good life. As potent as the narratives of violent extremists may be, they are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to account for radicalisation as a phenomenon, particularly amongst young Muslims in the West. Narratives constitute only one part in the complex array of elements that intersect to ultimately manifest as a move towards violent extremism. 

Today, IS is teetering on the brink of its demise, and Western governments have evinced relief that its reach over potential audiences has been drastically diminished. However, our analysis warns that unless these real-world concerns are taken seriously and addressed holistically, these very same issues will no doubt be taken up and mobilised towards the messaging of whichever extremist group inevitably emerges next.

Thank you to Bjola and Pamment for organising such an exciting new volume.

New seminar series: The Politics of Freedom in Data Times

It is clear that 'Big Data' offer a new type of power to those who can use it.  From mass surveillance and analysis of citizens’ metadata by security agencies like GCHQ and the NSA, to the apparent ability of relatively small private companies like Cambridge Analytica to influence elections, by using powerful algorithms to analyse data about what we ‘like’ from huge corporations like Facebook. The power that exists today to not only gather data about citizens, but to analyse and draw inference about what we think, who we are, and what we may do from that data, seems unprecedented. 

What is less clear for citizens and society however is whether traditional paradigms like privacy or civil liberties importantly captures what is happening, or whether a new politics of freedom is necessary.  Our seminar series, The Politics of Freedom in Data Times has invited scholars to come and directly take on these questions and with us at the New Political Communications Unit at Royal Holloway.

Thanks to Dr. Matthew Hall, ESRC Postdoctoral Fellow at NPCU, for organising the series.

Seminar 1: Surveillance and participation in data times 

Thursday 24th January 5pm - Windsor 0-03

Professor Kirstie Ball–St Andrews - Co-Director and founder of CRISP, the Centre for Research into Information, Surveillance and Privacy. Read more.

This seminar explores how participation as a concept can be used to interrogate surveillance practices and the ways in which they evolve. It focuses on the question of whether the surveilled subject could ever be examined in participatory terms. The conceptual focus of surveillance studies has been on the controlling moves of surveillant institutions to, as Murakami Wood and Ball (2013:3) put it, ‘align the time space of subjects with the ideologies and protocols of particular organisations’. The intersection of surveillance with questions of participation offers the potential for a new analytical language to develop. This language may highlight the presence or absence of vested interests, the relative porosity of institutional boundaries, the mechanisms (or absence thereof) whereby surveilled subjects and interested groups can challenge or shape surveillance and the forms of identity politics which emerge.

Seminar 2: Reconsidering rights and ethics in the era of digital security

Thursday 28th Feb 5pm - Windsor 1-04

Professor Pete Fussey, Department of Sociology, University of Essex, UK

Recent years have seen a growing digitalisation of human societies. Digital technology has become increasingly ubiquitous and progressively integral to virtually all aspects of our lives. Companioning these developments has been the increased importance of digital data, now generated in unparalleled quantities and analysed with unprecedented speed and depth. These changes hold particular implications for the commission of, and responses to crime. Regarding the latter, the law enforcement uses of AI, predictive technologies, merged data hubs, algorithmic decision-making and advanced video analytics have generated significant attention and commentary. The speed and character such change brings many new ethical challenges. This includes a tension between state’s duty to uphold the security of its citizens – demanded by Article 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights – and obligations to uphold other rights such as privacy, expression and freedom from harassment. Yet it is arguable that whilst such debates have generated significant heat, they have produced little light. Based on initial findings from a five-year ESRC funded project analysing the human rights implications of big data and ICT this paper explores a range of ethical issues generated by the use of such technologies. Extending beyond the standard, and limited, ‘privacy versus security’ frame, the paper considers a range of additional concerns, including issues of efficacy, proportionality, utility and harm, collateral intrusion, consent, accountability, oversight and regulation.

Seminar 3: I want to break free: Freedom of movement in datafied spaces

Monday 25th March 5pm - Windsor 0-04

Dr. Elinor Carmi,Postdoc Research Associate - Digital Media & Society, Liverpool University, UK.

As people's everyday lives are mediated by algorithmic and datafied spaces, it is difficult to know how much agency people can perform. Do people have the 'freedom' to make decisions and behave as they want? This talk will explore multi-layered datafied environments and how they manipulate the way people engage with them. The talk focuses on the way platforms and advertisers try to influence the way people behave by modifying the algorithmic architecture they use. This is conducted with a practice I call rhythmedia, which draws on the concepts of Henri Lefebvre rhythmanalysis and Raymond Williams' planned flow.

Seminar 4: Why do governments always get internet regulation wrong? Because they don’t embrace the mess…

Tuesday 30th April, 5pm - Queens 170

Dr Paul Bernal–Research Group: Media, Information Technology and Intellectual Property Law, University of East Anglia.  

The clamour for governments to ‘regulate' the internet has never been greater. They’re worried about offensive speech, about trolling and cyber-bullying, about fake news and political manipulation, about piracy and other forms of copyright breach. The internet, according to some of these accounts, is a dangerous place, a ‘wild west’ that needs to be reined in and controlled. And yet their efforts are largely ineffective - or worse, are actually counterproductive. Plans to address trolling end up creating tools for trolls to use on their victims. Attempts to deal with ‘fake news’ end up making fake news more effective and pushed nearer to the top of search lists. More criminal offences and stronger enforcement make almost no inroads in trolling. The question is why this happens - and the answer, across the board, is a failure to face up to the complexity, the messiness of the internet, but instead to fall into a series of classical traps based on oversimplified views of how the internet works. In this talk, Paul Bernal will explain why and how this happens - and what can be done to improve the situation.

MPPA Christmas Party - Monday 10th December 5pm

After a long term, Media, Power and Public Affairs students are invited to our Postgraduate Christmas Party next week:

Time: Monday 10th December, 5pm

Place: Outside FW101

Thanks to our Postgraduate Administrator Charlotte Langston for organising the drinks and festive snacks.

Workshop in the series Social Media, Terrorism and Social Change, Berlin

Akil Awan and Ben O’Loughlin will participate in a workshop on Social Media, Terrorism and Social Change being held in Berlin on 30 November - 1 December. The workshop is organised by the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF). The focus of discussion will be how social and mainstream media provide an ‘enabling environment’ for right-wing and Islamic-inspired terrorism in the UK and Germany.

Participants include Julian Junk, Christopher Daase, Irene Weipert-Fenner, Clara Süß, Francis O’Connor and Hande Abay (PRIF), Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw (University of Hamburg), Martina Scheugraf (Filmuniversität Babelsberg), Diane Rieger (University of Mannheim) and Valentin Rauer (Türk-Alman Üniversitesi). This is the second in the series.

Can culture bridge political divides? New study published today

The British Council and Goethe Institute have published a new report co-authored by Ben O’Loughlin and colleagues exploring how cultural relations activities are valued in societies in conflict — specifically Egypt and Ukraine. For 18 months Ben and colleagues evaluated how Egyptians and Ukrainians engaged with the language programmes, film nights, theatre productions, virtual museums and other cultural activities offered by the British Council and Goethe Institute in their countries. They specifically explored what people found to have ‘cultural value’. They found important divisions between urban and rural populations and across age groups. In theoretical terms, they found that some cultural relations work through a network model, some through a cascade of norms, and some through a norm diffusion process. Crucially, they found a huge appetite for cultural exchange — people in Egypt and Ukraine saw cultural relations with Britain and Germany as a way to improve their own societies. These findings have implications for Ministries of Foreign Affairs that fund cultural relations, for diplomats and staff officers running cultural relations programmes, and for citizens who would like to get the most out of cultural exchange.

The full academic report (200+ pages) is available here.

The team’s literature review comparing British and German approaches to cultural diplomacy was published by the British Council here.

The project was led by Prof. Marie Gillespie of the Open University. Marie and Ben have spent over a decade researching and evaluating soft power, public diplomacy and intercultural communication.