Information Technology for Development ISSN: 0268-1102 (Print) 1554-0170 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/titd20 Techno-optimism or Information Imperialism: Paradoxes in Online Networking, Social Media and Development Sharon J. McLennan To cite this article: Sharon J. McLennan (2016) Techno-optimism or Information Imperialism: Paradoxes in Online Networking, Social Media and Development, Information Technology for Development, 22:3, 380-399, DOI: 10.1080/02681102.2015.1044490 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2015.1044490 Published online: 20 May 2015. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1167 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 3 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=titd20 Information Technology for Development, 2016 Vol. 22, No. 3, 380– 399, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2015.1044490 Techno-optimism or Information Imperialism: Paradoxes in Online Networking, Social Media and Development Sharon J. McLennan ∗ Institute of Development Studies, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North, New Zealand In recent years, the world of social media and online networking has met with the world of international development, leading to rapid changes in development practice and to the emergence of new fields of study. Proponents of this change argue that the Internet provides the tools for global cooperation and participation. However, the reality is less clear, with critics asserting that much of the Information and Communication Technology and networking discourse and practice is rooted in past approaches to development. This reflects a wider debate about whether ICT provides space for alternative views and social movements, or if it represents a new form of networked “information colonialism.” Drawing on ethnographic research with the online development-oriented network projecthonduras.com, this paper reflects on these debates, and on the wider implications of social media in development practice. An early model of peer-to-peer collaboration in development, projecthonduras.com has over a decade of networking experience and has been the catalyst for many connections and encounters, which have, at times, literally saved lives. However, while research with this network highlights some potential for disintermediated and inclusive networking, it also provides an example of a conventional development approach operating within an online space, and illustrates the impact of digital exclusion and homophily. Using the networking concepts of disintermediation, participation and diversity/homophily, this paper explores the structure and discourse of projecthonduras.com and illustrates the paradoxical nature of ICT and social media in development, providing a cautionary note to those who look to social media to provide answers to contemporary development dilemmas. Keywords: development; networks; Honduras; ICT4D; social media; volunteer tourism Introduction take therefore what modern technology is capable of: the power of our moral sense allied to the power of modern communications and our ability to organize internationally. That in my view gives us the first opportunity as a community to fundamentally change the world. (Brown, 2009, TedGlobal) The optimism which surrounds the potential of social media1 and online networking for development is encapsulated in this quote which taps into a well of optimism for the role of technology in bringing positive change to our world. Proponents such as Shirky (2008) and Watson (2009) argue, for example, that for the first time in history, the tools for global cooperation are not held by governments or institutions, but because of their low cost and ubiquity, are in the hands of all, and that social networking tools provide new means of organizational and community participation that will lead to a golden age in activism and involvement. This optimism is premised on the idea that online networking and social media provide a disintermediated and ∗ Email: s.mclennan@massey.ac.nz Brian Nicholson is the accepting Editor for this article. # 2015 Commonwealth Secretariat Information Technology for Development 381 participatory space for a diverse range of actors to connect and collaborate. However, there has also been a growing critique of these claims which highlight the political, economic and social limits to online networking, the potential for the Internet to empower the strong and disempower the weak (Morozov, 2012), and the importance of considering “the deeply sedimented histories and politics of place” (Juris, 2012, p. 260). Other critics go further, noting the potential for neocolonialism, variously termed information age colonialism (Gross, 2006), computer-mediated colonialism (Ess, 2002) and information imperialism (Bodle, 2010). These critiques are particularly important in development contexts mirroring as they do the critiques of modernization and of development itself. This paper contributes to these debates, drawing on a case study of one early adopter of online networking for development, projecthonduras.com. Although somewhat atypical and relatively small compared to many of the larger development networks and NGO associations, projecthonduras.com is one of the earliest and longest-lived examples of web-based peer-to-peer collaboration in development. Its informal and decentralized nature and underlying philosophy reflect the optimism inherent in the networking and social media discourse. However, it has drawn criticism for being a neocolonial and US-centric network, and indeed, the research discussed in this paper indicates that rather than offering an alternative for development, projecthonduras.com is an example of a conventional development approach operating within an online space. This paper explores this paradox using the networking concepts of disintermediation, participation and diversity/homophily, highlighting the way in which the structure of the network and the ideologies, values and political understandings of the founders, leaders and users have led to the promotion of development strategies and approaches that prioritize the agendas of the elite rather than the voices of the marginalized. Online networking, social media and development Although this paper reflects on the experience of projecthonduras.com as an early adopter of ICT-based networking in development, the network is part of a much wider global movement. Indeed, the volume of information that can be handled, the speed at which it can be delivered and the resulting globalization of trade, migration, travel, development and science have led to a revolution in all sectors of the “connected” society. ICT has enabled the expansion of networks on a global scale and has galvanized the concept of networks to describe new ways of being in, and understanding the world (Henry, Mohan, & Yanacopulos, 2004; Knox, Savage, & Harvey, 2006; Warkentin & Mingst, 2000). This section explores the way in which these changes have impacted on and been conceptualized within development contexts. The techno-optimism of ICT4D and networking for development Within development theory and practice, the growth and spread of ICT are reflected in the emergence of ICT4D (Information and Communication Technology for Development), a growing area of practice and research that is concerned with the use of ICT to support development aims and objectives, to help overcome the digital divide and to assist NGOs and governments in development work (Heeks, 2009; Heffernan, Lin, & Thomson, 2013). The term ICT4D is widely used in the international institutions, including the UN (with the ICT taskforce in 2001), the G8 (who established the Digital Opportunity Task Force in 2000) and the World Bank (Unwin & de Bastion, 2008, p. 56). Proponents argue that ICT has the potential to level the playing field between rich and poor, to reduce inequalities (Unwin, 2009), to transform development processes and to alter the balance of power (Heeks, 2010a; Kleine & Unwin, 2009). However, while early ICT4D literature and practice was supply driven (Heeks, 2010a) 382 S.J. McLennan and concerned with reducing the digital divide, it is the potential of networked social interaction and Web 2.0 that has captured much recent attention (Thompson, 2008). Noting the changes in the focus of ICT4D, Heeks (2009) suggests that we are entering a new phase in ICT4D, which he terms ICT4D 2.0, while Thompson (2008, p. 825) writes of Development 2.0, arguing that the increasing use of ICT by people in development contexts means that ICT has become not just an assemblage of hardware, software and user behavior, but an “architecture of participation.” Thompson highlights what he considers to be the considerable power of ICT-enabled social networks to transform the dynamics of group interaction, potentially driving increased calls for a much more plural and collaborative development. Acevedo (2011) concurs, noting that these networks have the ability to connect development actors in different sectors and projects, fostering collaboration among individuals and institutions, resulting in a development network that is superior to that provided by a few experts. While this optimism toward networking for development echoes the claims of Web 2.0 proponents more generally, it predates the advent of Web 2.0 and reflects earlier perspectives in the literature regarding the network society and the potential of networks. As Bodle (2010, p. 11) notes, “linking economic development to networks and networking has been a Utopian dream for over a century.” Indeed, the use of the network concept has become so pervasive that it has generated a whole new field of research and related discussions on its impact on societies (Castells, 1996; Diani, 2000; Escobar, 1999). Networks are considered to be characterized by flat, non-hierarchical structures and voluntary and reciprocal forms of communication and exchange (Henry et al., 2004; Keck & Sikkink, 1998, p. 8). Henry et al. (2004, p. 839) note that they promise to be “innovative, responsive and dynamic, while overcoming spatial separation and providing scale economies.” These characteristics have made the networked form of organization very appealing to civil society. As Acevedo (2011, p. 5) notes, the networked form brings many benefits for development actors including “enhanced knowledge generation, increased potential for participation of people and entities in concrete activities, and improved productivity for certain joint actions.” This is what Heeks (2010b) refers to as the transformational potential of ICT in development, new ICT-enabled models that can transform the processes and structures of development. The potential of online networking and social media in development is premised on the idea that these characteristics of networks are particularly characteristic of online networks and social media. In particular, proponents highlight the disintermediated nature of online spaces, and the resulting participatory and diverse nature of online networks. These concepts are discussed next, and are highlighted in Table 1. Disintermediation A key element to the techno-optimism surrounding online networking and social media in development is disintermediation, the idea that social media and online networks are open and flattened structures which cut out the middle man (Heeks, 2010a) allowing both the poor and campaigners to reach enormous “networked publics” (Boyd, 2010) without having to depend on powerful intermediaries such as media corporations and other traditional gatekeepers (Madianou, 2013). While the term disintermediation predates the emergence of Web 2.0 and social media (Gellman, 1996 noted that the Internet itself is a mechanism for disintermediation), it is an integral part of the concept of social media as it describes the direct communication between individuals and groups made possible by social media. The Arab Spring is a frequently cited example of this, as citizens were able to produce and distribute content via online channels, Information Technology for Development 383 Table 1. Theoretical concepts. Concept Disintermediation New mediators Participation Exclusion Diversity Homophily Information colonialism Definition The removal of middlemen, intermediaries and gatekeepers. In this context, the idea that social media and online networks are open and flattened structures which allow both the poor and campaigners to reach others without having to depend on media corporations, governments and other traditional gatekeepers The appearance of nontraditional intermediaries in the online context, usually those with wide personal networks, information and power (including celebrities, high-profile activists and social media personalities) Widely used in development contexts to describe the process by which members of a community are involved in or can contribute to decisions related to development activities. Within ICT4D, it refers to the way in which the availability and ICT can increase the participation of the poor and marginalized in the debates and projects that affect their lives The result of structural and discursive constraints (including language and culture) that prevent the poor and marginalized from participating in online spaces Refers to the plural and collaborative nature of online networks and the potential of the Internet to enable bottom-up collaboration and the breakdown of social divisions The tendency of individuals to associate with people like themselves, and for networks to channel information and interactions in ways that reinforce social divisions The idea that Western worldviews and the priorities of the powerful are embedded in information technology and the Internet, and that these technologies therefore exacerbate rather than challenge global inequalities thus avoiding both mainstream media outlets and government censorship (Nanabhay & Farmanfarmaian, 2011). While events such as the Arab Spring provide some evidence to support the potential of disintermediated online networks and social media, the linking of individuals and groups and the dissemination of information still tends to require the active participation of those who have wide personal networks, information and power. For example, Madianou, in discussions on the role of disintermediation in online campaigns such as the Kony 2012 campaign, argued that the support of celebrities was vital to the campaigns, that these new intermediaries determined the degree of success, and that as such “what emerges is that Internet-based communication is neither unstructured nor equal” (2013, p. 258). Indeed, as the discussion of projecthonduras.com will illustrate, the requirement for participants with connections and influence adds a structural constraint to the emergence of truly disintermediated networks. Participation A second key element to the techno-optimism surrounding online networking and social media in development, and related to disintermediation, is participation. It is argued that the availability and low cost of networking applications and websites can give a voice to the marginalized (Srinivasan, 2012), and enable their participation in debates and projects which affects their lives. Heeks (2008) refers to this as per-poor innovation, innovation that occurs within and by poor communities, enabled by Web 2.0 and mobile technology. As previously noted, Thompson (2008, p. 825) takes this a step further, calling Web 2.0 an “architecture of participation,” one which has the potential to reframe development itself: an “an opportunity for generating, mediating and moderating a particular conception of social life; which in turn poses a direct 384 S.J. McLennan challenge to much of the way in which ‘development’ . . . has been conceptualized and delivered to date.” There is certainly evidence that the use of ICT and social networking has increased social movement participation. For example, ICT is considered to have been a significant contributor to movements such as the Zapatista uprising (Esteva & Prakash, 1998), and more recently, the Arab Spring (Harlow, 2013; Howard et al., 2011; Khondker, 2011; Reygadas, Ramos, & Montoya, 2009) and the Occupy movement (Juris, 2012). Harlow’s (2011) study of an online Guatemalan justice movement also shows how online movements can translate into offline action, suggesting that “the Internet has the capacity for actually creating – not just enhancing – political activism in Latin America” (p. 240). However, as with the limits to disintermediation, there are considerable constraints to full participation. Baillie-Smith and Jenkins (2011, p. 172) argue that participation in globalized networks requires the availability of social, economic and cultural resources including literacy and access to the Internet. The potential for social media to enable broad participation in online activism was also challenged a study of immigration activists by Harlow and Guo (2014), who found that the technologies could not create the personal connections that activists believed were at the core of activism and that as such, they were “just one more logistical tool, best for communicating with other activists or potential supporters, rather than the migrants themselves.” Madianou (2013, p. 264) found similar concerns, noting that the action encouraged by online activists in the Kony 2012 and WaterForward campaigns “did not fulfill the cosmopolitan criteria of reflexive dialogue and imagination.” Denskus and Esser (2013), who analyzed blogs and tweets made during the 2010 MDG summit, also found that social media use failed to catalyze alternative priorities for, and approaches to, international development and did not make a significant contribution toward global democratic participation in agenda setting. The potential of online networking tools and social media as an architecture of participation is clearly more of a challenge than it perhaps first appeared, something Baillie Smith and Jenkins (2011, p. 168) note, arguing that “paradoxically, despite all the global chatter . . . grassroots activists and organizations are increasingly not part of new global civic spaces.” Diversity Closely linked to the ideas of disintermediation and participation is that of diversity. With the tools for participation in the hands of all, it stands to reason that the networks created are diverse and can contribute to a more plural and collaborative development (Thompson, 2008). Indeed, Thompson (2008, p. 824) notes that there has been a marked shift in the conception of ICT from a top-down “instrument of efficiency and automation” to an “enabler of bottom up collaboration, diversity and multiple truths.” However, as with the concepts of disintermediation and participation, the claims regarding diversity have also come under some scrutiny, particularly when juxtaposed with the contrasting concept of homophily. Homophily is a well-documented phenomenon which relates to our tendency to associate with people like ourselves (Bodle, 2010; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). The presence of homophily in networks is both psychological – as we are predisposed to connect with people like ourselves – and structural (Bodle, 2010). It “limits people’s social worlds in a way that has powerful implications for the information they receive, the attitudes they form, and the interactions they experience” (McPherson et al., 2001, p. 415). While online networking and social media may have the potential to link a diverse range of people and organizations, and to overcome homophily to some degree, the persistence of homophily in online networks is key to Atouba and Shumata’s (2014) finding that NGOs are more likely to collaborate when they have the same status, similar founding dates and geographical proximity. It is also central to Information Technology for Development 385 Harlow and Guo’s (2014) findings, and to Madianou’s (2013) argument that social media campaigns are communitarian rather than cosmopolitan. However, the homophily of networks is related to far more than just access issues, and is related to the underlying culture and discourse of the network. As Madianou (2013) notes, “communication in SNS (social networking sites) is not a tabula rasa, a blank sheet” and, as such, the structure of networking applications and sites is determined by software, which affords users certain kinds of interactions but not others (Boyd, 2010; Madianou, 2013). Computers and information technology are not value-neutral, but reflect the cultural bias, values and communicative preferences of their designers (Ess, 2009; Madianou, 2013). It is this characteristic of ICTs which has led to claims of information colonialism. Information colonialism Contrasting with the optimism expressed earlier in this paper are allegations of information age colonialism (Gross, 2006) and computer-mediated colonialism (Ess, 2002). Ward (2011, p. 148) notes that as a virtual space that transcends national boundaries, the Internet is “potentially the site of a new and extremely powerful wave of neo-colonialism” which can exacerbate economic inequalities. Bodle (2010, p. 10) argues that as social networks grow, they tend to contain “the limitations and constraints consistent with the diffusion of ICTs generally,” including cultural imperialism and ethnocentrism. This echoes earlier critiques of ICT4D which highlight the unequal spread of ICT and which argue that the simple equating of technology with development recycles conventional modernization thinking and is a resurgence of modernization discourse, possibly even a new form of modernization that Shade (2003, p. 114) terms Modernization 2.0. Critics have also pointed out how the uneven spread of ICT can exacerbate the digital divide, and tends to privilege Western content and intellectual property rights, leaving unchanged the unequal division of political space (Warkentin & Mingst, 2000). As Morozov (2012, p. xiii) notes, the idea that the Internet favors the oppressed rather than the oppressor is therefore marred by . . . “cyber-utopianism: a naı̈ve belief in the emancipatory nature of online communication that rests on a stubborn refusal to acknowledge its downside.” While most authors discussed in the section on techno-optimism would probably agree that reality is far more complex than the simple binary set up here, the critiques of information colonialism are serious, and worth consideration. The case of projecthonduras.com – a network founded on positivity and the potential of the Internet, yet criticized for being neocolonialist – has much to contribute to these discussions. The case: projecthonduras.com Projecthonduras.com was created by Marco, a Honduran-American living in the USA who had become aware of the large amounts of aid money that came into Honduras and was concerned at what little difference it appeared to be making. In early 1998, Marco met Paulina, another Honduran-American with similar concerns. That summer, they started talking about creating a website to bring these people together to network and share information on ways to help Honduras. The idea gained momentum following Hurricane Mitch, which hit Central America in October 1998. They noted that although many new websites had appeared, put up by Honduran organizations to raise money and gather supplies, most disappeared or became inactive soon after the crisis. To address the need to keep people linked and working together, the projecthonduras.com website was launched over Christmas 1998. The website remains at the core of the projecthonduras.com. Rather than being bright and flashy and displaying a lot of information within the site 386 S.J. McLennan itself, the layout of the page and the website is designed to lead visitors to click on the links and move on to other pages in the site, to the network forums and on to the websites of organizations actually working in Honduras. One of the most important tools on the website for connecting visitors with other organizations was the Honduras Aid Map, which utilizes Google maps to map the location of NGOs working in Honduras and to provide links back to organizational websites. Since completion of the website this has been removed and the site now provides a simple list of organizations working in Honduras. The website also contains information about the annual conference,2 and at various times, the website has also hosted volunteer recruitment pages, short essays written by Marco and others, and spreadsheets tracking volunteer groups and aid money. While the website is clearly the home base of projecthonduras.com, it remains largely static, serving to point people in the direction of the organizations working in Honduras and the forums. These forums are the lifeblood of the network, and a vehicle for communication between network participants. They started life as a list in Marco’s Microsoft Outlook program; however, the list soon outgrew the capacity of Outlook and was transferred to E-groups and then to Yahoo groups. This allowed individuals to add themselves to the list, and it provided a means for individuals to post directly to the list and to communicate without a mediator. Over the next few years, Marco created 14 Yahoo groups, ranging in focus from education and healthcare, to the environment, tourism and business support. The largest of these groups had hundreds of members, and at their peak, over 100 messages each month. The online networking aspect of projecthonduras.com was limited to the website, email and online forums for nearly a decade. This changed in 2008 – 2009 with the launch of a Facebook group. However, the transition from Yahoo forums to Facebook soon became problematic as many projecthonduras.com contacts were not Facebook users and many were unable or unwilling to change. By mid-2008, these issues led to the reinstatement of the Yahoo groups as the primary networking tool for projecthonduras.com. In early 2009, Marco also launched a projecthonduras profile on Twitter. The profile has remained active, but not heavily utilized – the projecthonduras profile does not follow anyone else, and the tweets are irregular. Most are simple broadcast posts such as conference information or links to relevant videos, and there are few conversational tweets. In 2009, the social media presence of projecthonduras.com increased significantly with the launch of the closely associated Honduras Weekly website and news blog which, according to Marco, became the final stage in the evolution of projecthonduras.com: But it’s going to be much more of a partnership (between projecthonduras and Honduras Weekly) . . . The goal is to make Honduras Weekly the PR arm of projecthonduras, so it’s kind of the fourth step in the strategy. (Marco, Skype interview, 2010) Blog posts and articles are posted on Honduras Weekly regularly, often with links to projecthonduras.com, and the website has a Facebook page, and YouTube and Vimeo profiles (the videos are often embedded on the projecthonduras.com page). Honduras Weekly also hosts lists of NGOs in Honduras, forums for discussion and essays on volunteering in Honduras, much like projecthonduras.com has in the past. Public relations articles promoting the network and the conference are featured frequently and many of the bloggers and commenters are also participants in projecthonduras.com. Despite the growth and changes in the network, projecthonduras.com has retained its virtual and informal character, and to this day has no formalized structure, director or formal leadership team, no employees and no office space. It remains very clearly centered on Marco who operates the online network from his computer at home, putting in hours each evening. The network has Information Technology for Development 387 no formal membership or procedure for joining other than the request (sent to Marco) to join the Yahoo forums. Because projecthonduras.com has no formal structure, it also does not have a budget or income, and it also has almost no overheads. The most significant financial cost for the online network is the small amount Marco pays from his own pocket for webhosting. The other tools used by the network – email, yahoo forums and Facebook are free of charge, although some tasks, including translation and marketing assistance, are provided by volunteers. Most of the funding for the conference is raised through the registration fee, although there is some outside sponsorship, including significant sponsorship from Joint Task Force Bravo, the US military humanitarian wing stationed in Honduras (in 2008) and from USAID (United States Agency for International Development) in Honduras (the significance of this will be discussed later in this paper). There is considerable techno-optimism in the projecthonduras.com discourse, as the following quote indicates: projecthonduras.com is an alternative model of development for Honduras based on using information and communications technology (ICT) to identify, mobilize and coordinate all the available human capital. By “human capital,” we mean things such as time, energy, expertise, experience, talent, and contacts . . . resources that really only have value when people become personally engaged. It is this engagement that is the key to truly changing Honduras for the better because it has the effect of transforming the way we look at human beings in need. It creates an infectious awareness that pulls us, our friends, our relatives, our acquaintances, and our colleagues out of our apathy and isolation. (Projecthonduras.com, 2008) This resonates with the techno-optimism of ICT4D, and the possibility of Internet-based tools to catalyze significant change for countries like Honduras. Indeed, although founded pre-Web 2.0, the informal and decentralized nature of the network and the growing social media presence (particularly through the close association with Honduras Weekly) reflect the optimism inherent in social media discourse. This is also reflected in projecthonduras.com’s distinctive philosophy: The tone and manner in which we carry out this strategy is equally important. For this, we have adopted a philosophy that emphasizes thinking, saying and doing things that are positive, constructive, and non-divisive. The premium isn’t on winning, making money, or feeding egos, but rather on helping for the sake of helping and coming up with creative solutions to problems that need to be solved. It is all part of our unconventional movement to change Honduras. (Projecthonduras.com, 2005) The philosophy, encapsulated in this quote and in numerous other posts and research data, is based on three pillars: apoliticism, constructivism and positivity. This is believed to contribute to building the “infectious awareness” and to get people “personally engaged” both in Honduras, and in the projecthonduras.com network itself, thereby creating an “unconventional movement” for change. This philosophy and aim fit well with the vision of social networking envisaged by Brown (2009), Shirky (2008) and Watson (2009); however, as this paper will highlight, the translation into practice is complex. Methodology This paper draws from a larger study of projecthonduras.com. The research aimed to explore the philosophy and networking practices of projecthonduras.com, examining volunteerism within the network and the politicization of the network during the 2009 Honduran coup as well as the use of social media and online networking. The research was carried out over three years (2008 – 2010) and utilized ethnographic methods. Ethnography is characterized by a holistic approach, taking into account the whole social setting, relationships and the wider economic 388 S.J. McLennan and political context. However, Wolcott (2008) argues that ethnographic inquiry should go beyond descriptive accounts, and is suitable for answering provocative questions, including “questions as to meanings imputed to action” (p. 74). In this sense, it was a useful methodology for research within a network that was promoting itself as a new and alternative model for development, and which was carried out during, and significantly influenced by, political events in Honduras. Consequently, the aim of using ethnography in this context was to explore the experiences and world views of participants in the projecthonduras.com network in order to answer Wolcott’s (2008) “provocative” questions about both the actions within the network and the meanings underlying them. Because of projecthonduras.com’s dispersed nature and primarily Internet-based structure, the research was of necessity multi-sited, with a significant online component. Multi-sited ethnographies have emerged in recent decades in response to shifts in anthropology and in the world itself (Hannerz, 2003; Marcus, 1995). In the case of this research, the multiple sites were both on and offline, and as such, the methodology needed to reflect the “reciprocal relations and links that exist between the culture of the Internet and between the wider processes taking place” (Sade-Beck, 2004). This research included both traditional and online ethnographic methods to account for both on- and offline activities and discourse, and the interactions between these spaces. Methods Ethnographic research, whether on- or offline, generally relies on three main methods: participant observation (PO), interviews and document analysis or archival research. These three ethnographic methods formed the backbone of this research. In this research, the PO consisted (cumulatively) of a year of fieldwork in Honduras and nearly two years of online PO. The online PO included regular monitoring and reading of the website, and observation of and some participation in the Yahoo forums and on Facebook and Twitter. Offline PO included observation of and participation in the projecthonduras.com annual conferences in 2008 and 2009, visits to and limited observation of the homes and workplaces of 14 network participants (in Copán Ruinas, Tegucigalpa, San Pedro Sula, La Ceiba, Cofradı́a, Lago Yojoa, Roatan and Danli), residence in Copán Ruinas (home base of the annual conference) for one month in 2008, and residence and work in the Yeguare valley, Honduras for nine months in 2009 – 2010. Semi-structured interviews provided a significant portion of the data for this study. Initial interviews were carried out with key members of the network (including most of the leadership and many participants) who were recruited purposively, while later interviewing was driven by the need to interview a range of network participants (and nonparticipants). Most interviews were carried out in the workplaces and homes of the interviewees, although some were conducted at the annual projecthonduras conference, and others in cafes or other neutral spaces. The number of face-to-face interviews was limited due to political events at the time of the fieldwork, but the final number included 29 face-to-face interviews, as well as 21 email interviews and three Skype interviews. Early interviews (undertaken in October and November 2008) were clearly structured around Appreciative Inquiry (AI) principles,3 and the questions were based on AI mini-interview protocols devised by Cooperrider, Whitney, and Stavros (2005). These were designed to both build trust and highlight the strengths of the network, and to identify topics for more in depth interviews later in the research. The questions asked interviewees to identify highlights of their experience with projecthonduras, what they valued about the network, the core factors that enabled the network to function and how they imagined projecthonduras would be in five Information Technology for Development 389 years’ time. Most of these remained key questions in the interview schedule, although it changed over time as old questions were answered and new questions became apparent, and some interviews were very informal and wide-ranging.4 Email interviews were based on the same initial questions, and were carried out (with only one exception) in serial format, so emails with one to two questions were sent initially, then followed up as replies were received. This meant that email interviews often stretched over a long time frame, usually weeks and sometimes months. The research also included analysis of the full projecthonduras.com website and over 300 social media postings, news reports and other text-based sources. This included the collection of all projecthonduras.com website pages accessible during the study and pages archived by the Wayback machine from 2000 to 2008, 33 essays by the founder Marco posted on the projecthonduras.com site, pages and posts from 36 other websites and blog posts mentioning projecthonduras.com, approximately 35 media articles, and hundreds of Yahoo group, Facebook and Twitter posts. Analysis In order to facilitate data management and analysis of information all of the data (including interview transcripts, field notes and Internet documents) were loaded into NVivo5 as soon as they were processed. NVivo was used to collate the data, to categorize and code them thematically, and to begin the process of reconstruction (re-coding and memoing). Although the use of software such as NVivo takes some of the tedium out of data coding, it did not eliminate the need to think and deliberate, generate codes and reject and regenerate them (Basit, 2003). These processes continued throughout the research, largely through writing. The writing for this study started early, with memos and field notes added to NVivo as they were generated. This process of writing though the analysis is an integral part of Glaser’s (1978) grounded theory method, but it is equally appropriate in ethnography, which places a heavy emphasis on the writing and analysis of field notes. Findings This research started with great anticipation, based on the promises and potential of the projecthonduras.com rhetoric, and stories of successful networking heard at the conference and in personal interactions. It very quickly became clear that most of those who participate in the network found the involvement in, and the contacts made through, the network to be useful for their work in Honduras. However, it also soon became evident that these early findings were not the full picture. Despite this promise and numerous stories of success, many participants did not believe that the network was reaching its potential. The research findings confirmed this, as there was often little visible activity in the online forums and it was difficult to see where and how the networking was happening. In addition, the network appeared to be dominated by non-Hondurans, with control largely in remaining in the hands of the founder. Outcomes of networking The most immediate benefit from the ability of individuals and groups involved in Honduras to communicate through the Internet forum created by projecthonduras.com was the synergy of relationships. Once people began talking to each other, things began to happen. People interested in helping had a means for getting involved, even from a distance. People confronting a problem had a way of generating ideas for solutions and some sense of hope that things could change for the better. People frustrated by bureaucratic ineptitude had a means of negotiating the system or 390 S.J. McLennan getting a response. The ability to network has created an international community capable of uniting, organizing, collaborating, responding and helping each other and those in need. (Sandra, 2004, Petersburg Prize nomination letter) The quote above is from the nomination documents for projecthonduras.com’s entry into the Petersburg Prize competition.6 Projecthonduras.com was a finalist in the 2004 competition, a significant achievement for a small, informal network, and one that reflects the many positive outcomes of participation in projecthonduras.com. These outcomes range from simple awareness of who else is working in Honduras to the facilitation of project collaboration and even full partnership. Interviewees identified the primary benefit of participation in projecthonduras.com as the opportunity to consciously and actively look for contacts to assist them with their work in Honduras. Many also find that the network is a good source of support and encouragement. It was very encouraging to see how many different people were there, and that I wasn’t the only one that was trying empty the ocean with my teaspoon. That is a great encouragement. (US American volunteer, interview, 2009) Participation in the network also provides space for the promotion of volunteer work in Honduras, and for the work of participant organizations. Examples of this are the use of YouTube clips on the projecthonduras.com website, and the way in which Marco has used Facebook to promote the activities of various groups. However, while this is important, the potential of the network goes further than simple links between people, awareness and encouragement. Many participants utilize the projecthonduras.com network in a more strategic way, for coordination and sharing, and for informal teaching and learning, outcomes that are key objectives of the network. Although formalized partnerships arising from projecthonduras.com are not very common, projecthonduras.com contacts often lead to one-off or informal coordination of projects, the sharing of physical, human and financial resources, and informal sharing of advice and experiences. Examples of coordination and sharing include healthcare organizations sharing medication and equipment; volunteers from one organization participating in projects with another; coordination of shipping (of supplies, donations, etc.) to Honduras; assistance to individuals (such as the provision of medical aid or scholarships); cooperation on short-term projects, and sharing contracts and protocols with new organizations. Much of this is at an individual level and can be life-changing, and there are many stories of lives being saved by medical treatment accessed through the network. The organizational-level collaboration can also be significant, particularly where inexperienced organizations are able to draw on the expertise and experience of this who have been working long term in Honduras. Low activity Clearly, there are some very positive outcomes to networking through projecthonduras.com. Despite this, throughout the research period, the number of forum posts on the projecthonduras.com Yahoo groups was low, and in some cases, decreasing. For example, the number of posts on the Yahoo Honduras healthcare forum dropped from a high of approximately 1100 posts per year in 2001, to 400 per year in 2007, and then to around 200 per year in 2008 – 2009. The new Facebook and Twitter profiles, introduced in 2008, were not well subscribed or integrated. Some of this lack of activity can be attributed to structural reasons, including the navigational structure of the website itself, which some find difficult to browse. Visitors who would like to participate further are directed away from the projecthonduras.com website Information Technology for Development 391 to the online forums hosted by Yahoo groups, and to the Facebook. This is because Marco believes it to be more effective and efficient to use existing free tools developed and maintained by others than to maintain dynamic content on the website itself. Marco’s preference for using offsite networking tools is perhaps a reflection of the informal nature of the network, and the fact that projecthonduras.com has been in existence since 1998, when static websites were the norm. The effect of these structural limitations was particularly apparent in the short-lived transition to Facebook in 2008, discussed above. Many long-term participants in the group resisted the change as they could not or would not use the Facebook groups. Facebook groups require the participant to have a Facebook profile, and some were reluctant to join. Many also had concerns about data security and privacy, particularly in the healthcare forums where details of individual medical cases are often discussed. A significant number of participants who were unable or unwilling to switch to Facebook were lost. Another way in which the structure of projecthonduras.com constrains participation is the intentional limiting of the focus of networking to the three themes of health, education and community development. These are the focus areas of three of the four Yahoo forums, and the topics addressed at every conference. While this maintains a tight focus on the types of projects represented and the topics of conversation, it may serve to discourage the participation of those who do not feel their projects fit these themes. Centrality of the founder A key finding, alluded to in the case description above, was the continued centrality of the founder, Marco, despite the disintermediated model of growth discussed on the website, which asks visitors to the site to: Pass this on to as many people as you know, and before you know it we will have tens of thousands of people connected online slowly putting together the pieces of a movement with a new strategy of how to change Honduras from the ground up by its citizen volunteers rather than from the top down by its traditional institutions. (Projecthonduras.com, 2011) While this has occurred to some degree, Marco remains central to the network. He has continued to work (voluntarily) as the web-master and moderator of the online forums, and has a strong influence over the underlying philosophy and structure. In networking terms, he is the central node: If you look at me as that dot in the middle, then I kind of serve as a go-between between you and all of the other groups that are out there. So if you have a problem, I can refer you to a listserv . . . and I can get an answer for you and I might be able to get some resources for you . . . this is the way the network works, but you’ve got to really use it. (Marco, Conference on Honduras, 2009) Marco’s influence is also now spreading beyond the immediate projecthonduras.com network, as was particularly evident following the 2009 Honduran coup d’état: I’ve told all of our networks to become friends (on Facebook) with him (Marco) to stay updated . . . Marco’s postings have definitely helped us a lot with our volunteers to understand the situation a lot better. (US American NGO founder, interview, 2009) Structuring the network in this way, with himself in the center, has arguably been key to the longevity and success of the network; however, the implications of his influence are significant, particularly in the context of post-coup Honduras. This point will be explored further in the discussion section, but first, the findings in relation to the wider projecthonduras.com networked community are outlined. 392 S.J. McLennan The projecthonduras.com community Using the website, forums and conference, Marco has created a network which is, somewhat paradoxically, both diverse and homogeneous. The network includes Hondurans and North Americans, some who are religious and some who are not, and representatives of NGOs, churches, academia, professional groups, government and military institutions and private businesses. Yet, the dominant impression when walking into a projecthonduras.com conference or when undertaking online PO in the network, is one of homogeneity. Unpacking this diverse yet homogeneous network is, perhaps understandably, somewhat tricky. Projecthonduras.com does not collect any quantitative data on who is joining the network or using the network resources, and it is not possible to access these data from the Yahoo forum membership lists. However, drawing from fieldwork data, including observation and interviews, snapshot data for the figures drawn from a list of participants at the 2008 and 2009 conferences, and data from a 2005 study of the network by students from George Washington University, it is possible to estimate that about 66– 75% of participants in the network are from North America, and only about 25% are Honduran. This situation has led to critics accusing the network of being a US-centric organization (Pine & Vivar, 2010). However, the lack of Honduran participation is not deliberate. Indeed, the leadership has made significant efforts over the years to increase Honduran involvement including full translation of the site to Spanish (finally completed in 2010), and targeted promotion of the conferences within Honduras. The lack of success with this can be – at least in part – attributed to the North American origin of the founders and leaders and of the network itself, the initial emphasis on linking Hondurans in the USA rather than Honduras, and the location of the first three conferences in Washington, DC. Honduran participants are also significantly affected by structural constraints, in particular limited or intermittent Internet access and difficulty with the website: For example . . . there was a worker (at an NGO medical clinic) whose son needed evaluation for a skull deformity. But she was too shy, humble, whatever to ask for help. After work one day I sat with her and showed her a few sites connected to the projecthonduras network, but it was plain that she was overwhelmed by the Internet technology and the complexity of the sites we visited. (Canadian volunteer and business owner in Honduras, email interview, 2009) The low participation rate of Hondurans is one of the reasons why the network appears homogenous. However, rather than being a cause, it may actually be a consequence of the homophily of the network. From early on, the network attracted a core of North American participants and, as much of the advertising was through Marco’s own networks and via word of mouth and within the personal and professional networks of participants, the growth of the network has continued to be among organizations with similar backgrounds and values. This has contributed to the Western, middle-class nature of the network culture, to a service-oriented, paternalistic understanding of development and an underlying liberal politics, a potentially uncomfortable place for Hondurans. Politicization The underlying culture and politics of the network became very apparent at the time of the Honduran coup of 2009 when, despite a rhetoric of apoliticism, the network became increasingly politicized. This did not come as a complete surprise; as previously noted, the coup had been preceded by the involvement of both US and Honduran government agencies in the projecthonduras.com network. Following the coup, it soon became apparent that political sympathies of the network leadership and most of the participants were pro-coup. Despite the rhetoric of apoliticism, Marco began making political statements soon after the coup and continued to do so Information Technology for Development 393 throughout the remainder of 2009 and into 2010. Much of that writing was posted on his Facebook page and on Honduras Weekly, with some also posted directly to the projecthonduras forums. Most of the postings of the forums and Facebook were clearly pro-coup, those who were against the coup were a minority, and often felt uncomfortable expressing their views publically. As the discussion of Marco’s role in the network indicates, support for the coup was amplified through the online network and beyond and, as a result, projecthonduras.com became widely known as coup supporters. Indeed, Pine and Vivar (2010) went so far as to accuse the network of being a tool of the US government in “whitewashing the neoliberal undermining of democracy in Honduras” – an accusation that also references the network’s ongoing association with the US Ambassador, the US Military and post-coup politicians. Discussion The case of projecthonduras.com provides an empirical example of a Web 2.0 model in development, thus addressing a key point in Thompson’s (2008) Development 2.0 research agenda, but rather than an example of the architecture of participation, the projecthonduras.com example clearly illustrates some of the limitations of network technologies. This research clearly highlights the way in which structures and processes influence the outcome of online networking, casting light on the debates between techno-optimists and the arguments of information colonialism. As Table 2 shows, these research findings can be articulated in terms of the networking concepts identified in this paper: disintermediation, participation and diversity/homophily. Table 2. Findings. Concept Disintermediation/new intermediaries Participation/exclusion Diversity/homophily Findings Centrality of the founder of projecthonduras.com: The reliance on a single founder with connections and influence adds a structural constraint to the emergence of a truly disintermediated network New intermediaries: Although participation in the projecthonduras.com network enables participants to bypass traditional media, government and NGO sources for information and resources, the network founder and key participants in the network have become new intermediaries Low activity: Falling numbers of posts and online engagement indicate decreasing participation. A significant drop in activity following the transition to Facebook groups is indicative of the challenges inherent in the adoption of new technologies Limited participation of Hondurans: Structural constraints, the English language dominance and the US-centric nature of the projecthonduras.com network limit the involvement of Hondurans. This can be seen as a consequence of the homophily of the network (see below) Diverse yet homophilous: While there is considerable diversity among the participants (age, profession, institutional affiliation) from early on, the network attracted a core of North American participants and the growth of the network has continued to be among organizations with similar backgrounds and values Politicization: The involvement of US and Honduran government and military representatives, and the positioning of the network leadership following the 2009 coup deepened the homophily of the network as those with different views felt excluded 394 S.J. McLennan Firstly, although there is evidence of a degree of disintermediation in the projecthonduras.com network, this is incomplete. Indeed, rather than a lack of gatekeepers, within projecthonduras.com, most network connections are created by Marco, and almost all information continues to be funneled through him. This extends Madianou’s (2013, p. 258) argument that Internet-based communication results not in disintermediation but the creation of new intermediaries. In the case of projecthonduras.com, the reliance on a single founder and a small leadership group with connections and influence not only represents the use of new intermediaries, it adds a structural constraint to the emergence of a truly disintermediated network and has also significant effects on participation within the network. Participation in online networks is strongly influenced by the culture of the network, and the values espoused by those posting and sharing. While the projecthonduras.com model aims to create an open and inclusive network, encouraging constructive dialogue and conversation, this is limited by the underlying politics of the network. It is also important to note that the participation highlighted by Heeks (2008) and Thompson (2008) goes beyond the collaboration of development workers and volunteers (which is central to the projecthonduras.com model), and is linked to inclusion, specifically looking to include the marginalized, enabling their participation in the debates and projects which affect their lives. This is something the projecthonduras.com network does not do particularly well, although arguably it goes beyond the vision of the network which was founded to link those outside Honduras with skills and knowledge with needs in Honduras. Indeed, the case of projecthonduras.com, which functions very effectively as a network of outside volunteers and development workers but which has struggled to connect with Hondurans, supports and furthers Harlow and Guo’s (2014) assertion that online technologies are best utilized to create connections between activists, rather than promoting the participation of the marginalized themselves. This politicization also illustrates the way in which homophily and the mediation of key individuals can have an amplifying effect on the dominant culture of a network. Marco’s perspective on the 2009 Honduran coup was not only widely read and discussed within the network, it also became well known outside of projecthonduras.com. This positioning, in addition to the way in which the space within projecthonduras.com is structured reflects and reinforces the particular power structure of development in Honduras. Rather than providing a space for all voices to be heard, projecthonduras.com promotes and amplifies the perspectives of North Americans in Honduras and effectively excludes dissenting voices (including those of the Honduran resistance). This is particularly significant in the geopolitical context of the Americas, a highly contested development space. The long history of US political and corporate interventionism in Honduras and the use of development aid for political purposes have made the role of outside organizations decidedly political (Boyer, 2010; Ensor, Ensor, Fuentes, & Barrios, 2009; Stoll, 1991), a conclusion supported by Jackson’s (2007) assertion that development workers in Honduras are neoliberal globalizers. This finding is reinforced by the liberalism of many of the organizations and individuals – in general, organizations networking within projecthonduras.com support a liberal, capitalist vision for development, and have a strongly North American world view. Rather than aligning with those they are trying to help, this world view aligns the organizations and people working in them with powerful elites in Honduras. This finding appears counter to the discussion of online networking and social media for development earlier in this paper that showed that there is significant promise in the idea of online networking and social media for social change. This is not just the excitement of techno-optimists, but the experience of some high-profile social movements, and an increasing array of research findings. The question is, therefore, whether these seemingly oppositional findings can be reconciled. Information Technology for Development 395 This answer may be in a discussion of development itself. Despite, or perhaps because of, the wide usage of the word development, there is surprisingly little consensus among development academics and practitioners as to what development actually is, let alone how to go about doing it. What is clear is that the liberal capitalist mode of development is currently dominant, often to the point where it has appeared that there can be no social transformation in any other direction (Thomas, 2000, p. 774). This alliance of development with western liberalism led to the significant critiques of post-development, which drew from postmodern and postcolonial analyses of power. While the post-development critique was strong, to the point of calling for the abandonment of the modernist development project, it also led to the emergence of alternative ideas for development. Many critics of development saw potential in social movements, particularly indigenous and grass roots movements with postcolonial and postmodern ideals of questioning power relationships and the rejection of Western influences and values. For example, foreshadowing the rise of online networking, Escobar (1999) argued that networks offer unprecedented possibilities for alternative social, cultural and political practices, and indeed, the experiences of the Zapatistas, Arab Spring and Occupy movement can be understood within this frame. Projecthonduras.com appears to operate from a different framework. Given the homophily of the projecthonduras.com community, the involvement of high-level US government agents in the network and the support of a neoliberal coup, it is clear that the network operates from a development paradigm which prioritizes the role of outsiders, a culture which – largely unintentionally – excludes Honduran institutions and Honduran solutions, and a politics that is consistent with North American hegemony. Rather than an alternative to development or a social movement, projecthonduras.com is an example of a conventional development approach operating within an online space. It also illustrates the way in which the Internet and social media, with roots in Western nations and ideologies, can reinforce information colonialism, promoting development strategies and approaches that prioritize the agendas of the elite rather than the voices of the marginalized. Online networks and social media are clearly limited by the ideologies, values and political understandings of their founders and users, and the new intermediaries that facilitate their growth. They are also products of the political, economic and social environment in which they emerge and operate. They can be the conduit for a more plural and collaborative form of development. They can empower and give voice to the marginalized. However, they can also reinforce and extend the hegemony of neoliberalism and the power of the privileged. Perhaps the answer is with Escobar (1999, p. 32) who argues that while networks could be the location of new political actors and the sources of promising cultural practices and possibilities, they are “only as good as the ensemble of human, natural and nonhuman elements they bring together and organize,” reminding readers that they are part of a larger world that may be “inimical to their aims.” Conclusion The findings outlined in this paper have considerable implications for those interested in Internet-based networking initiatives and social media. There has been much excitement about the potential of online networking tools including online forums, Facebook and Twitter to assist with international development efforts, and there is certainly evidence that these tools have significantly changed the way in which development organizations work. However, these tools are constrained by many factors including new intermediaries, barriers to participation and exclusionary structures and discourse, and the way in which even a seemingly open and nonpolitical 396 S.J. McLennan focus can determine who uses the networking tools and how. Perhaps more worrying, however, is the increasing evidence that rather than increasing participation and inclusion, in development contexts, online networking and social media tend to reflect and multiply offline power imbalances and inequality. As such, this paper concurs with Baillie-Smith and Jenkins (2011, p. 175) who note “a very real need to consider the power dynamics and hierarchies embedded in transnational development networks and global civil society more broadly.” This discussion reflects the critiques of development itself. Embedded in Western liberalism and notions of progress and individualism, conventional development approaches have long been criticized for expanding and reinforcing Western hegemony. The Internet and social media, with roots in Western nations and ideologies, can exacerbate this, promoting development strategies and approaches that prioritize the agendas of the elite rather than the voices of the marginalized. However, this is not inevitable and there is evidence that social media is giving a platform to alternative voices and movements. Indeed, it should be noted that the research on which much of this discussion is based was done in 2008 – 2010 with a network most active in the early 2000s, and while projecthonduras.com has not changed significantly, the Internet continues to change at a rapid rate. More research is desperately needed as the uptake of social media increases globally, as is an honest appraisal of the benefits and pitfalls of Web 2.0 and the Internet in development practice. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. Notes 1. This paper uses a broad definition of social media which draws from Juris’ (2012, p. 274) description of social media as “web-based channels for social networking, microblogging, and the sharing of user-generated content” and Kaplan and Haenlein’s (2010, p. 61) characterization of social media as “Internetbased applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user generated content.” This allows for an understanding of social media that incorporates both the functions of social media and the technological foundations on which it is based. As such, the terms social media and online networking are often used together in this paper, with the term social media referring to the networking sites and content, and online networking referring to the process and outcomes of the use of social media and other networking tools. 2. Projecthonduras.com hosts and annual conference in Copán Ruinas, Honduras, which provides an opportunity for face-to-face networking, complementing and extending the online network. 3. Appreciative Inquiry is a method focusing on positive organizational attributes that may fuel change. It is most often used as a tool for organizational change, but it is one that is becoming increasingly visible among academics. AI aims to bring out the best and expand the possible; however, practitioners do not believe that it turns a blind eye to the negative, and see AI as a starting point from which to work, establishing a dynamic in which people are able to speak freely about their experiences rather than from a defensive mode or a presumed need to justify themselves and their work (Michael, 2005; Reed, 2007). 4. All interviews were recorded, and were carried out and transcribed by the author. 5. NVivo is a qualitative data analysis computer software package which is designed to help researchers organize and analyze un-structured and non-numerical data. 6. The Petersburg Prize (now known as the Development Gateway Award) recognizes outstanding achievement in the application of ICT to improve lives in developing countries. Notes on contributor Sharon J McLennan is a post-doctoral fellow and lecturer in Development Studies at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand. Working with a team of researchers, her post-doctoral research investigates the corporate community development initiatives of mining and tourism multinationals in the Pacific. She completed her Ph.D. in 2012 which looked at the networking of small, volunteer organizations Information Technology for Development 397 in Honduras, and she continues to be involved in research on volunteering and social media in development. Linking these research themes is an interest in new actors in development, and in contemporary development processes and globalization. References Acevedo, M. (2011). Network cooperation: Development cooperation in the network society. In S. Chhabra & H. Rahman (Eds.), Human development and global advancements through information communication technologies: New initiatives (pp. 1–21). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Retrieved from http:// services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?doi=10.4018/978-1-60960-497-4 Atouba, Y. C., & Shumate, M. (2014). International nonprofit collaboration: Examining the role of homophily. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. doi:10.1177/0899764014524991 Baillie Smith, M., & Jenkins, K. (2011). Disconnections and exclusions: Professionalization, cosmopolitanism and (global?) civil society. Global Networks, 11(2), 160–179. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0374.2011. 00317.x Basit, T. (2003). Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educational Research, 45(2), 143 –154. Bodle, R. (2010). Assessing social network sites as international platforms: Guiding principles. Journal of International Communication, 16(2), 9– 24. doi:10.1080/13216597.2010.9674765 Boyd, D. (2010). Social networking sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self (pp. 39–58). London: Routledge. Boyer, J. (2010). Food security, food sovereignty, and local challenges for transnational agrarian movements: The Honduras case. Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(2), 319–351. Brown, G. (2009). Wiring a web for global good. Retrieved April 29, 2014, from http://www.ted.com/talks/ gordon_brown Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell. Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: Handbook. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Denskus, T., & Esser, D. E. (2013). Social media and global development rituals: A content analysis of blogs and tweets on the 2010 MDG Summit. Third World Quarterly, 34(3), 405–422. doi:10. 1080/01436597.2013.784607 Diani, M. (2000). Social movement networks: Virtual and real. Information, Communication & Society, 3(3), 386 –401. Ensor, M. O., Ensor, B. E., Fuentes, V. E., & Barrios, R. E. (2009). The legacy of Mitch: Conclusions for the new millennium. In M. O. Ensor (Ed.), The legacy of Hurricane Mitch: Lessons from post-disaster reconstruction in Honduras (pp. 186 –216). Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Escobar, A. (1999). Gender, place and networks: A political ecology of cyberculture. In W. Harcourt (Ed.), Women@Internet: Creating new cultures in cyberspace (pp. 31– 54). London: Zed Books. Ess, C. (2002). Computer-mediated colonization, the renaissance, and educational imperatives for an intercultural global village. Ethics and Information Technology, 4, 11 –22. Ess, C. (2009). Digital media ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Esteva, G., & Prakash, M. S. (1998). Beyond development, What? Development in Practice, 8(3), 280– 296. Gellman, R. (1996). Disintermediation and the Internet. Government Information Quarterly, 13(1), 1–8. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociological Press. Gross, R. (2006). Intellectual property rights and the information commons. In R. F. Jørgensen (Ed.), Human rights in the global information society (pp. 107– 120). Cambridge: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=KQ63AgAAQBAJ Hannerz, U. (2003). Being there . . . and there . . . and there!: Reflections on multi-site ethnography. Ethnography, 4(2), 201 –216. Harlow, S. (2011). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media & Society, 14(2), 225–243. doi:10.1177/14614448 11410408 Harlow, S. (2013). Fue Una “Revolución de Facebook”: Explorando La Narrativa de Los Meme Difundidos Durante Las Protestas Egipcias [It was a “Facebook revolution”: Exploring the meme-like spread of narratives during the Egyptian protests]. Revista de Comunicación, 12, 59–82. Retrieved from http:// 398 S.J. McLennan ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,c ookie,url,uid&db=aph&AN=92630500&site=ehost-live&scope=site&scope=cite Harlow, S., & Guo, L. (2014). Will the revolution be tweeted or facebooked? Using digital communication tools in immigrant activism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12062 Heeks, R. (2008). ICT4D 2.0: The next phase of applying ICT for international development. Computer, 41(6), 26–33. doi:10.1109/MC.2008.192 Heeks, R. (2009, March). The ICT4D 2.0 manifesto: Where next for ICTs and international development? (Development Informatics Working Paper Series). Manchester: Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester. Heeks, R. (2010a). Development 2.0: The IT-enabled transformation of international development. Communications of the ACM, 53(4), 22–24. Heeks, R. (2010b). Do information and communication technologies (ICTs) contribute to development? Journal of International Development, 22(5), 625–640. Heffernan, C., Lin, Y., & Thomson, K. (2013). Drawing from development: Towards unifying theory and practice of ICT4D. Journal of International Development. doi:10.1002/jid.2882 Henry, L., Mohan, G., & Yanacopulos, H. (2004). Networks as transnational agents of development. Third World Quarterly, 25(5), 839 –855. Howard, P. N., Duffy, A., Freelon, D., Hussain, M., Mari, W., & Mazaid, M. (2011). Opening closed regimes. What was the role of social media during the Arab Spring? Project on Information Technology and Political Islam. Retrieved from http://pitpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ 2011_Howard-Duffy-Freelon-Hussain-Mari-Mazaid_pITPI.pdf Jackson, J. T. (2007). The globalizers: Development workers in action. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Juris, J. S. (2012). Reflections on #occupy everywhere: Social media, public space, and emerging logics of aggregation. American Ethnologist, 39(2), 259 –279. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1425.2012.01362.x Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003 Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Khondker, H. H. (2011). Role of the new media in the Arab Spring. Globalizations, 8(5), 675–679. doi:10. 1080/14747731.2011.621287 Kleine, D., & Unwin, T. (2009). Technological revolution, evolution and new dependencies: What’s new about ICT4D? Third World Quarterly, 30(5), 1045–1067. Knox, H., Savage, M., & Harvey, P. (2006). Social networks and the study of relations: Networks as method, metaphor and form. Economy and Society, 35(1), 113–140. Madianou, M. (2013). Humanitarian campaigns in social media. Journalism Studies, 14(2), 249–266. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2012.718558 Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system?: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95– 117. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/ 2678628.pdf?acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true Michael, S. (2005). The promise of appreciative inquiry as an interview tool for field research. Development in Practice, 15(2), 222 –230. Morozov, E. (2012). The net delusion: The dark side of internet freedom (p. 449). New York, NY: Public Affairs. Nanabhay, M., & Farmanfarmaian, R. (2011). From spectacle to spectacular: How physical space, social media and mainstream broadcast amplified the public sphere in Egypt’s “revolution”. The Journal of North African Studies, 16(4), 573– 603. doi:10.1080/13629387.2011.639562 Pine, A., & Vivar, D. (2010). Saving Honduras?. Retrieved from http://www.counterpunch.org/ pine10152010.html Reed, J. (2007). Appreciative inquiry: Research for change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reygadas, L., Ramos, T., & Montoya, G. (2009). Pandora’s box: The implications of social movements on development. Lessons from the Lacandona jungle in Chiapas. Social Movement Studies, 8(3), 225– 241. Sade-Beck, L. (2004). Internet ethnography: Online and offline. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(2), 45 –51. Information Technology for Development 399 Shade, L. R. (2003). Here comes the DOT Force!: The new cavalry for equity? International Communication Gazette, 65(2), 107 –120. Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York, NY: Penguin. Srinivasan, R. (2012). Rethinking digital cultures and divides: The case for reflective media. The Information Society, 28(1), 24– 36. doi:10.1080/01972243.2011.630775 Stoll, D. (1991). Is Latin America turning Protestant?: The politics of Evangelical growth. Berkeley: University of California Press. Thomas, A. (2000). Development as practice in a liberal capitalist world. Journal of International Development, 12(6), 773 –787. Thompson, M. (2008). ICT and development studies?: Towards development 2.0. Journal of International Development, 20, 821 –835. Unwin, T. (2009). ICT4D: Information and communication technology for development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Unwin, T., & de Bastion, G. (2008). Information and communication technologies for development. In V. Desai & R. B. Potter (Eds.), The companion to development studies (2nd ed., pp. 54 –58). London: Hodder Education. Ward, T. (2011). Hegemony and the web: The struggle for hegemony in a digital age. In R. Rikowski (Ed.), Digitisation perspectives (pp. 147 –166). Rotterdam: Sense. Warkentin, C., & Mingst, K. (2000). International institutions, the state, and global civil society in the age of the world wide web. Global Governance, 6(2), 237–257. Watson, T. (2009). Causewired: Plugging in, getting involved, changing the world. Hoboken, NJ: Tom Wiley. Wolcott, H. F. (2008). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Studies in Political Economy A Socialist Review ISSN: 0707-8552 (Print) 1918-7033 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsor20 Governance, Security and Technology: the Case of Biometrics Elia Zureik & Karen Hindle To cite this article: Elia Zureik & Karen Hindle (2004) Governance, Security and Technology: the Case of Biometrics, Studies in Political Economy, 73:1, 113-137, DOI: 10.1080/19187033.2004.11675154 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19187033.2004.11675154 Published online: 07 Mar 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 4 View related articles Citing articles: 2 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsor20 Download by: [Cornell University Library] Date: 30 October 2016, At: 04:35 SPE 73 new 4/23/04 10:06 PM Page 113 GOVERNANCE, SECURITY A N D T E C H N O LO GY: THE CASE OF BIOMETRICS Elia Zureik with Contribution from Karen Hindle Introduction: Governance, Government, and Governmentality Several writers have advanced “governance” as an alternative framework to the traditional notion of “government.” At the state level, governance emphasizes cooperation between the civil and political spheres of society, whereas government is usually thought of in terms of the formal political structure of the nation-state—its executive and legislative branches. Governance is intended to “bring the citizen back in” by stressing participation, accountability, transparency, and human rights as basic elements in the management of society. Because of its ability to connect individuals and groups to the centres of power, information technology is being singled out as a requisite for good governance.1 It is also being seen, however, as a double-edged sword with the potential of facilitating wider control of information and centralization in formal state structures to the detriment of good governance; state surveillance is advanced by the critics as a case in point.2 Governance is more encompassing in its reach because it allows us to locate power outside the formal boundaries of government. Foucault’s notion of governmentality is useful in furthering our understanding of governing beyond the formal conception of the citizen and her relationship to the state. Governmentality focuses on the constitution of the self in the power nexus of society’s institutions, political or otherwise. It acknowledges power in its productive aspects i.e., it reconfigures the subject but, at the same time, creates resistance. Through governmentality, the citizen is viewed as an active subject, though labouring under “complex chains of constraints, calculations of interests, patterns and habits, and obligations and fears.”3 For us, governance involves not only understanding “relations of ruling” (to quote Studies in Political Economy 73 SPRING/SUMMER 2004 113 SPE 73 new 4/22/04 4:08 PM Page 114 Studies in Political Economy Dorothy Smith)4 in their political, economic, and formal sense, but also the nature of the discursive practices used to administer and manage people through what Michel Foucault calls “bio-politics.”5 In its totality, governance involves the use of knowledge (technical, social, administrative) to manage population groups through identification, categorization (inclusion and exclusion), and a monitoring process the purpose of which is to create a disciplinary, hegemonic regime based on self-normalization.6 Security and Technology Security is usually defined in military terms to refer to national security. Security thus defined aims at protecting the nationstate from external threats. With an increase in religious, ethnic, and racial conflicts within states, the United Nations agencies and some countries— Canada in particular—began to view human security as a complementary concept that concerns itself with human rights, protection of the environment, and guaranteeing of basic needs related to health, education, and personal security.7 Human security and good governance dovetailed as requisites for a stable international order. Yet, national-cum-military security remains the defining feature of security as articulated in state policies. The events of 11 September 2001 have further dashed any hope that human security will establish a lasting foothold in the security discourse and pose serious challenge to the military and technological conception of national security. But security in its various dimensions has a longer history. High modernity, Peter Manning claims, has transformed personal security from its internal and immediate context based on communal life and interpersonal relationships to one that depends upon external factors such as technology. 8 Technology is being touted as the main tool of risk assessment and the guarantor of security. This substitution has created an illusory sense of security which, in turn, has given rise to “corrupting” influences manifest in appeals to “technological conceit:” Agents of control, governmental experts in security and private corporations that carry out risk management and risk estimates for business, those who promote and sell high tech devices - machines to read retinas, explosive detectors, “smart” cards that contain personal information in a chip in a card, 114 SPE 73 new 4/22/04 4:08 PM Page 115 Zureik and Hindle / BIOMETRICS and the mirage of electronic protections in and around airports and computerbased data, promotes the [corrupting] illusion. The anxious public is willing to pay for them directly and indirectly and promote the illusion. The public, eager for reassurance, accepts the efficacy of such innovations.9 Manning goes on to suggest that at times of crisis, such as in the aftermath of 11 September, something akin to a panic campaign is orchestrated by state agents of social control, supported by a media-simulated depiction of the enemy as a shadowy, external “other.” Terrorism is no longer associated with understanding the context of action, but with singling out certain groups who are profiled on the basis of national origin, race, and religion. Surveillance becomes part of a “tautological” universe in which, to quote Gary Marx, “everything that moves” and is captured on a video camera becomes part of a deviant world.10 To put it another way, “The claim is that what is seen can and must be controlled, rather than seeing what is seen as a limited, specialized, rather flawed narrow window into the violent complexity of humanity.”11 Mariana Valverde makes a related point that security is an abstract concept, not something to be measured and quantified: “The impossibility of guaranteeing security is rooted in the fact that like justice, and like democracy, ‘security’ is not so much an empirical state of affairs but an ideal—an ideal in the name of which a vast number of procedures, gadgets, social relations, and political institutions are designed and deployed.”12 In the context of post-11 September events security, according to her, meant “state security” and not necessarily “citizen security.” State security has been defined in a Hobbesian, zero-sum fashion and is monopolized by experts and professionals who by-pass public participation and design “top down” security solutions. In noting that American and Canadian antiterrorism legislations extend beyond immediate, temporary concerns to deal with immigration and other issues of personal and public nature, we end up with “governance through security.”13 This paper addresses the nature of biometric as “body technology,” with claims to authenticate identity and enhance security and trust. Both in Canada and the United States, the campaign to introduce the technology 115 SPE 73 new 4/22/04 4:08 PM Page 116 Studies in Political Economy has triggered national debates. The discussion surrounding these debates will be situated in the context of American and Canadian antiterrorism legislations introduced after 11 September 2001. Because of their claims to authenticate and verify personal identity on the basis of behavioural and physiological features, biometrics are presented as desirable key elements in the categorization and processing of people such as immigrants, travellers, welfare recipients and eventually citizens through the introduction of a biometric national identity card. As shown in the final part of the paper, this raises fears of using the technology for social profiling purposes. Body Technology: Dimensions of Biometrics DNA “fingerprinting” and biometrics are two monitoring technologies that focus exclusively on the body as a unique identifier of individuals. While DNA analysis uses blood, body fluids, hair, and human tissues for unique identification purposes, biometrics use human physiology and certain types of behaviour such as voice recognition, gait, and signature analysis. Those who write about identity authentication and security are fond of making a distinction between something one knows (such as a password or personal identification number (PIN)), something that one has (such as a card key or smart card), and something that one is i.e., a biometric. The assumption here is that it is possible to forget, lose, or fall victim to fraud because of what one has or knows, but one will always be what one is—at least in terms of body parts.14 The International Biometrics Industry Association (IBIA), an advocacy organization that represents major biometric companies in the United States, defines biometrics as follows: Biometric technology involves the automatic identification or verification of an individual based on physiological or behavioral characteristics. Such authentication is accomplished by using computer technology in non-invasive way to match patterns of live individuals in real time against enrolled records that use face, iris, hand, fingerprint, signature, and voice measurements in applications such as border control, information security, physical access control, financial privacy safeguards, time and attendance management, law enforcement, and other civil and government uses.15 116 SPE 73 new 4/22/04 4:08 PM Page 117 Zureik and Hindle / BIOMETRICS Biometric technology uses two main methods for identity checks: verification (sometimes called authentication) and identification. Verification confirms that people are who they say they are, while identification determines who the person is. Regardless of the biometrics measured, the technology relies on pattern recognition, which converts images into a binary code by means of an algorithm. To use the verification system, individuals must enroll first, which involves submitting an identifier such as an identity card, and then linking the information obtained from the document to biometric (hand, eye, fingertips, etc.) images. A reference template is created and stored to link information on the document to unique biometric data. This reference template must be updated to incorporate any physiological changes of the enrollee. Verification is accomplished when an individual presents an identifier with which he enrolled, and the system compares the trial template with the reference one. Verification is referred to as one-to-one matching. Identification, on the other hand, is one-to-many matching. The idea here is not to confirm that people are who they say they are, but to check if the temporary template is present in the stored files of reference templates. In other words, one’s biometrics are compared against the many that are stored in the system. An example here would be a passenger whose scanned image (trial template) is compared to many existing reference templates, such as those who are on an FBI “watch list.” Another example provided by the US General Accounting Office (GAO) is to check on a welfare recipient for negative matching. Here the system attempts to verify that the recipient is not “double dipping,” i.e., using fraudulent documentation with multiple identities to qualify for welfare. Biometrics as Trust Enhancing Technologies Writers on surveillance concur that underlying the need for surveillance is a lack, or potential lack, of trust by those in positions of power vis-à-vis those who are below them. This is true whether the surveilled is classified as a deviant or normal person. For our purpose, however, surveillance is examined in so-called normal situations, in everyday life, particularly in organizational settings such as airports, workplaces, and public arenas. Of the various factors mentioned in the discussion of monitoring and surveillance, risk and trust rank paramount. 117 SPE 73 new 4/22/04 4:08 PM Page 118 Studies in Political Economy Under this conception, surveillance technology is construed as a trustenhancing tool. And the more capable the technology is of capturing people’s unique biological identifiers, the more reliable and trustworthy it is perceived to be – particularly by its promoters. For this reason, genetic profiling and biometrics occupy a special place in the range of available surveillance technologies. According to David Knights, et al.: One response to pressures to find means of manufacturing trust has been to collect and check details of users’ physical characteristics through the use of retina scans, hand geometry, fingerprints, voice recognition, digitized photographs, and DNA.16 Knights and his colleagues question if this technology, even when used in combination with smart cards that carry a user’s biometric information, will contribute to greater (manufactured) trust and lower the risk levels among users, as its promoters claim. It is difficult to say, they conclude, because of the dialectical relationship between control (power) and agency. If trust in institutions depends on the type of technology in use, trust in technology is also a function of level of trust in institutions that use the technology to begin with. Thus, “the consuming public may express mistrust in the data collection activities of business in general, and financial institutions in particular. Yet, at the same time, it shows a willingness to ‘entrust’ ever increasing amounts of personal data to those same businesses and institutions in exchange for various benefits.”17 And “such methods of personal authentication constitute an uneasy mixture of strategies and activities which elude allocation along the trust/control opposition.”18 Clearly, biology as a signifier of persona is back in use, and is in the process of displacing impersonal technologies that rely on PINs and passwords. In a telling manner, the body (eyes, hand, and face) returns as the absent Other, this time encased in biometric technology. Thus, instead of the eye being the source of the surveillance gaze, now the eye becomes the object of the gaze. A view of surveillance from the point of view of the surveilled argues that, under certain conditions, surveillance can create a criminogenic environment that encourages distrust, stigmatizes innocent people, and may victimize those affected by it.19 In contrast to objective crime wherein the effect of 118 SPE 73 new 4/22/04 4:08 PM Page 119 Zureik and Hindle / BIOMETRICS criminal behaviour is immediate and visible, surveillance-type victimization falls under the subjective crime category that is associated with psychological and emotional stress, which in certain cases can outweigh objective, material loss. McCahill and Norris cite examples of army personnel who were punished for refusing to give DNA evidence to their superiors. Other cases of surveillance victimization involve insurance companies and employers20 who share information about their employees and clients with third parties, and in the process jeopardize a terminated employee’s prospects of securing employment elsewhere.21 To cite another example borrowed from biometric technology, face recognition has received extensive press and media coverage as a promising and reliable surveillance tool in security-conscious environments. Yet, the reliability of face recognition technology has been questioned, and some even describe it as impractical. David Birch demonstrates the point by using the example of London Heathrow Airport, which processes in excess of one million passengers weekly.22 For the sake of example, he assumes that 10 individuals who are the real targets of security checks pass through the screening system and are accurately identified by the cameras. With a success rate of 99.90 percent, face recognition cameras will end up registering around 990 cases of false positives (.001 of 1 million), in addition to the 10 targetted individuals. To verify and reject close to one thousand false positives per week—averaging more than one hundred cases per day—is impractical. It would surely be costly and overload the surveillance system. Birch concludes by pointing out that face recognition technology, similar to closed circuit television (CCTV), may make us “feel” safe; in reality, however, we are not any safer. The effectiveness of face-recognition technology depends on the quality of the captured images, camera angle, and lighting. Effectiveness is also constrained by changes in the physiological features of the target. It is difficult to capture accurate images of people in motion or far away from the cameras. Changes in appearance, such as one’s hairstyle, a new beard, or glasses, will also cause problems in matching captured images with information stored in databases. Face recognition is more reliable in static situations, such as in workplaces and other organizational settings where individuals are 119 SPE 73 new 4/22/04 4:08 PM Page 120 Studies in Political Economy required to submit to routine checks and provide up-to-date information on their appearance. A recent report prepared by the US National Institute for Standards and Technology recommends the combined application of face recognition and fingerprint scanning technologies on all foreign visitors to the United States. Based on test data provided by the State Department, the study discovered 90 percent accuracy in one-to-one face recognition (the person scanned is actually the same one to whom the document was issued), and one percent false positive rate. In the case of pictures with low quality, the accuracy rate declines to 47 percent. In the case of one-to-many searches (matching a single face against a database), identification had a success rate of 77 percent. Although finger scanning accuracy rate exceeded face recognition, “fingerprint recognition had its problems as well, especially with individuals whose fingertips had worn down, like farm workers, house cleaners, and the elderly.”23 The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a privacy advocacy group in Washington, DC, lists six areas of concern in the use of biometrics: 1) method of data storage and whether it will be centralized or decentralized; 2) data vulnerability to theft and abuse; 3) confidence level in carrying out authentication, and the implications of errors such as false positives or false negatives; 4) knowing how to judge whether the information is authentic; 5) being clear on who decides about possible linkages of biometric information to other types of information such as police records, consumer habits, etc., and 6) any unintended consequences at the societal level of having citizens being constantly under the gaze of cameras and other video surveillance equipment.24 These are not exactly reassuring results from the point of view of good governance. While the state may persist in deploying the technology in the name of governmentality and the administration of people—seen for example in the current government drive in Canada and other western countries to introduce national identification cards that use biometrics—privacy violations and other social costs resulting from such an undertaking may outweigh claims of efficiency and indeed security. In particular, as shown in this 120 SPE 73 new 4/22/04 4:08 PM Page 121 Zureik and Hindle / BIOMETRICS paper, such technological measures may end up stigmatizing marginal groups and visible minorities. Promoting Biometrics: The United States In spite of expressed doubts about the efficacy of the technology, the biometrics industry persisted in promoting its role in guaranteeing security at the personal, institutional, and national levels. This became most apparent in the marketing strategy of the biometrics industry in the wake of 11 September. The economic payoff for the biometrics industry in the United States has been substantial. With a budget of $38 billion for Homeland Security Administration, major defense manufacturers are adapting their technologies for domestic use. In the words of one commentator, “11 September, created a long-waited moment for the biometric industry.”25 The 11 September attack came at a time when the high-tech and dot-com industries were in a severe economic slump, following the boom period of the 1990s. One report estimates that the size of the biometric market would exceed $4 billion in the United States in 2007, which would reflect an 80 percent growth in the market.26 A panic campaign that went into effect after the terrorist attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York was seized upon by the biometrics industry to market its wares. In the words of George Radwanski, former Canadian Privacy Commissioner: In the days and weeks following the attacks, the general public got a good look at what privacy advocates have been worrying about. They saw that there is a huge industry eager to manufacture and sell the technology of surveillance...
Purchase answer to see full attachment