Surveying Our Times

A post on NPR’s The Two-Way blog reports that Cisco is helping China put up as many as 500,000 cameras across a city as part of a network project called Peaceful Chongqing. The cameras are claimed to provide a means of surveillance for cracking down on dissent. A Washington Post article notes that “Several U.S.-based companies, including Cisco, HP and Alabama-based software maker Intergraph, have either signed on to help create the network or are poised to do so.” This raises the evident question of whether corporations in a democracy should be contributing to large scale projects in non-democratic nations that create the conditions and means for abuse, and this case demonstrates how the antitheses of democracy and capitalism have been thrown out of balance, with capitalism taking charge. Note that when I say democracy, I am not referring just to the meaning of electing representatives to government, but to principles of social equality and respect.

But let me not proceed too far down that track without recognizing that what Cisco builds in China is similar to the structure already in place in the United States—only under a different government. We can easily be tracked by cell phones, financial transactions, and e-mails that we send on a daily basis. Additionally, next time you’re in a store, a government building, a parking garage, or a stoplight, see if there is a camera nearby. Consider facial-recognition software, phone tapping, and browsing information saved by ISPs. The means for a government to track anyone is already enmeshed in the activities of our daily lives and our nation’s infrastructure. Some might make the argument that “if you’re not doing anything wrong, then there isn’t a problem.” But the problem has less to do with following the law, and more to do with the volatile future and potential abuses of this tracked information—not just by governments, but through the threat of cyberattacks. Any user of technology should have a heightened awareness of how both privacy and security are lost.

While Ethisphere notes Cisco as one of the world’s most ethical companies, Cisco faces a lawsuit from the Human Rights Law Foundation for allegedly customizing their technology to serve China’s political purposes. On Cisco’s web site, they have a section about ethics that targets employees. There is even a decision tree for difficult to handle situations relating to Cisco’s ethical standards. Employees are asked in one step of the ethical decision-making process to consider “Does this reflect Cisco values and culture?” Perhaps Cisco should ask itself the same question. This is the action of a corporation more concerned with capital than the effects of its technology. But if Cisco doesn’t create the network, then won’t someone else? Probably so. Then will American corporations begin to lose their foothold in the global economy? They probably would. So we return to the opposites of capitalism and democracy, understanding the need for human rights, but also economic health. How do we find the balance between the two or is a balance possible? I begin to think that a balance is not possible and that, due to its competitive nature, capitalism trumps democracy. This is evident in political campaigning, income brackets, and the growing of corporate culture.

Perhaps the most telling quote from the bidding process was from Todd Bradley, an executive vice president who oversees HP's China strategy: "We take them [China] at their word as to the usage." He added, "It's not my job to really understand what they're going to use it for. Our job is to respond to the bid that they've made."