• What We Do
  • Our Team
  • Our Associates
  • Portfolio
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Gender Digital Divide Course
  • About
Menu

Panoply Digital

Sustainable development through appropriate technology
  • What We Do
  • Our Team
  • Our Associates
  • Portfolio
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Gender Digital Divide Course
  • About

Blog

  • November 2018 1
  • October 2018 1
  • August 2018 2
  • June 2018 2
  • May 2018 1
  • April 2018 3
  • March 2018 3
  • February 2018 3
  • January 2018 2
  • December 2017 4
  • November 2017 2
  • October 2017 3
  • September 2017 7
  • August 2017 3
  • July 2017 5
  • June 2017 4
  • May 2017 3
  • April 2017 4
  • March 2017 5
  • February 2017 4
  • January 2017 3
  • December 2016 2
  • November 2016 3
  • October 2016 2
  • September 2016 5
  • August 2016 4
  • July 2016 4
  • June 2016 4
  • May 2016 5
  • April 2016 4
  • March 2016 3
  • February 2016 4
  • January 2016 4
  • December 2015 2
  • November 2015 4
  • October 2015 4
  • September 2015 4
  • August 2015 4
  • July 2015 4
  • June 2015 5
  • May 2015 4
  • April 2015 4
  • March 2015 5
  • February 2015 2
  • January 2015 1
  • November 2014 1
11391229_10153058812374794_6242366779778327166_n.jpg
By Michael Gallagher

MERS mobile surveillance in Korea as extension of social practice: some takeaways for the development community

June 19, 2015

Picking up on a post by Panoply Digital Co-Director Ronda Zelezny-Green on the South Korean government mandating monitoring apps for youth in Android-based mobile technology, I wanted to extend that discussion a bit to demonstrate how pervasive this monitoring can be and particularly how it can be justified, or conceptualized, under appeals to public safety. The image (taken a week or so ago) helps to illustrates all of this a bit: a relatively empty subway car during rush hour on my way to work as most opted to stay home in light of MERS. Before we plunge in, I think it is important to mention that South Korea is not alone in this surveillance. Clearly, this is an ongoing and altogether pervasive issue in many countries. Some are more overt about the process; some are more ubiquitous and, therefore, seemingly implicit. Essentially, the only real distinction becomes at what point in the process is online behavior affected: at the point of seeking (blocked content) or at the point of consuming (surveillance). There are many, much smarter than myself, who would be able to expand on these distinctions, but my point is this: using South Korea as a case study serves to illustrate not necessarily the uniqueness of their situation, but rather how culturally specific and nuanced security and surveillance can be.

So in Korea this has recently extended to mobile surveillance for the purposes of combating or controlling Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). The South Korean government has announced that they will (and presumably have already started) monitoring those suspected of possibly coming into contact with MERS through mobile technology. Ostensibly the purpose is to ensure those under quarantine stay quarantined. Part of the difficulty that emerged from South Korean efforts to contain MERS resulted specifically from those suspected of being exposed to MERS deciding to break or ignore their own quarantine. So there are social dimensions, social dimensions flavored with cultural traits, that are affecting this emergency response. The South Korean government has bypassed these social constraints by simply tracking the phones of those they suspect of having or being exposed to MERS. I am not here to criticize that decision as seen from the perspective of disaster management. It may very well be the correct choice in light of the alternative; the unknown, untreatable elements of MERS are indeed cause for concern for all of us that live here (I am writing to you from Seoul). Yet, there are side effects in fields related to my own and Panoply work that we feel need championing. Privacy, freedom to learn, and freedom to socialize and exchange ideas; these freedoms are all strained with pervasive monitoring lacking transparency.

To begin, this monitoring of mobile activity is an implicit acknowledgement that such monitoring was indeed possible (on a person by person basis) and presumably already occurring. Neither of these acknowledgements are revelatory as technological advancements in GPS spell greater and greater surveillance. What this does spell in the Korean situation, itself at least partly prone to censorship, is how the balance between the rights to opportunity and safety, particularly in children, in mobile technology, and particularly as it applies to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, is manifested. We see pervasive monitoring presented merely as an extension of parenting (Smart Sheriff is the name of the app that Ronda discussed) or as an appeal to public safety and order (the MERS mobile tracking), all logical (to some) extensions of the existing social construct and social contract. For a nation that is established in a particular hierarchy, made most evident through the myriad of social relationships that one must manage well beyond what we might experience in some countries (the US, the UK, etc.), this pervasive surveillance, while loathe to some, might be just a nuisance to others. Opinions vary, but the MERS situation accelerates these moves towards full surveillance and allows for greater reach and less oversight/transparency than ever before (truth be told, I am surprised they even announced their intentions to monitor MERS patients). Whether or not it is palatable is up to Koreans themselves.

What this does make clear for mobile learning or mobile for development work is the need, the absolute necessity, of not only localizing solutions, but acknowledging the social and cultural climate from which the technology itself emerged, from where the social practices emerged that governs its informal use, from where the legal and legislative practices emerged that more formally (and implicitly) governs its use, and whether or not the public is inclined to view this structure as palatable. If they find it acceptable, any solution becomes more a persuasive activity about public awareness and education to the dangers of overreach and surveillance. If I were to champion privacy and freedoms to learn and socialize free from monitoring in the Korean context, then I would begin with persuasion, education, or consensus building. If this monitoring proves less palatable in the local context, solutions can situate themselves in the existing activities of stakeholders to amplify their work. In the Korean context, I would aling my efforts with citizen watchdogs or advocacy groups already championing a freer, less monitored internet. If Koreans were increasingly frustrated with this monitoring and surveillance, as recent departures from KakaoTalk, the leading and home-grown messaging application, suggest) then I would seek to explore more secure and encrypted alternatives, such as Telegram. Yet, a solution that involves foisting a technology on an unwilling or unconvinced populace is more than worthless, it is condescending. Technologies are aggregations of social practices that are specific to the cultures from which they emerge; some are ambiguous enough to be useful beyond their country of origin. As those working in the development community, there is no excuse for not knowing the lay of the land and to know at which stage of awareness and activity a community is in regards to a perceived problem. Yes, I believe this type of surveillance is a problem; I also understand that this belief is toothless without a holistic understanding of the local context.

In News Tags Korea, MERS, mlearning, mobile learning, surveillance
← Putting a (funny) face on evaluation with Mindanao youth: Field notes from Manila...What's so scary about M&E for mobile services? →

Recent Posts

Featured
SDGs accelerating mobility and massification in (higher) education
Nov 30, 2018
SDGs accelerating mobility and massification in (higher) education
Nov 30, 2018

A few caveats at the onset here. This reads a bit more like an academic piece which it largely is. It is drawn from something larger I wrote a bit ago for another paper. It might also read like an attack on the SDGs, which is not my point. The point here is that the SDGs have generated some incredible results and I sincerely support them, but we must be mindful of what is being mobilised in our pursuit of them. My focus is education and I suggest that the provisions of the SDGs related specifically to that field suggest particular scaled interventions (or at least make those approaches particularly attractive). Scale exacts pressure on particular types of education.

Read More →
Nov 30, 2018
Digital education, Syrian displaced academics, and mushrooms: report from a recent workshop in Turkey
Oct 5, 2018
Digital education, Syrian displaced academics, and mushrooms: report from a recent workshop in Turkey
Oct 5, 2018

As part of my association with the Centre for Research in Digital Education at the University of Edinburgh (a version of this post appears there as well), I recently traveled with colleagues to deliver a three day workshop on digital education for Syrian academics who have been displaced by the conflict. The University has worked for a long time with the Council for At-Risk Academics (CARA), a great organisation providing urgently-needed help to academics in immediate danger, those forced into exile, and many who choose to work on in their home countries despite serious risks.

Read More →
Oct 5, 2018
Five things to consider for improving our ICT4D interventions
Aug 29, 2018
Five things to consider for improving our ICT4D interventions
Aug 29, 2018

We seem to have endless ideas on how to use Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D). From job creation to women’s empowerment to civic participation, a number of ICT4D interventions have been developed and implemented over the years. Common question asked in my work is “what type of technology that might have biggest impact in our society in the coming years?”. As we have learned, ICTs in itself aren’t sufficient. While factors contributing to the success of ICT4D have become apparent, and many have written about them, I feel there's still a need to highlight some of them.

Read More →
Aug 29, 2018
Aug 20, 2018
How Relevant was Bridge International Academies' EdTech Intervention in Liberia?
Aug 20, 2018

We have been some of the most vocal critics of Bridge International Academies (BIA), largely because most investigations and evaluations of their edtech impact to improve schooling in sub-Saharan Africa have been less than spectacular (many would say the impact is non-existent). So imagine our surprise to see Wayan Vota's latest ICTworks™ post highlighting the successes of BIA in Liberia.

Read More →
Aug 20, 2018
Stories of innovation and gender imbalance: in conversation with Tanya Accone
Jun 8, 2018
Stories of innovation and gender imbalance: in conversation with Tanya Accone
Jun 8, 2018

We need to make women in innovation more visible, and correct the gender imbalance in the stories we tell. We need to tell more stories about the women working at the top of humanitarian innovation, and so today I sat down with Tanya Accone, Senior Advisor at UNICEF Innovation, to tell the story of a woman working at the top of a very visible humanitarian innovation team for a very visible humanitarian agency.

Read More →
Jun 8, 2018
Surfacing local practice, placelessness, and digital education
Jun 4, 2018
Surfacing local practice, placelessness, and digital education
Jun 4, 2018

We do a lot of work on open learning as well and it was clear there was tension between these open educational platforms (like Coursera, edX, etc.) and their use in local contexts, particularly in emerging economies. There is tension there. Open educational technologies are too often framed as a transparent instrument for educational export, keeping (specifically Western or Global North) curricula, pedagogy, and educational values intact whilst they are broadcast to a global population in deficit.

Read More →
Jun 4, 2018
May 22, 2018
Got bots? A beginners guide to Facebook (chat)bots 4 good
May 22, 2018

I remember when I first started hearing the buzz about bots. My first thought? 'Here we go again...' - a reaction to the endless cycles of hype followed by business-as-usual that typifies the digital sector. However, over the past few months I've had the opportunity to design a few 'bots 4 good', and I'd like to share what I've learned: how they work, what they could be useful for, and where to start if you'd like to get one. I believe that done well, they could be really useful add-ons to your digital strategy as they provide a rich 'in-between' space for mobile users who aren't fully digitally literate.

Read More →
May 22, 2018
How can we ensure that the citizens, government and civil society work together?
Apr 25, 2018
How can we ensure that the citizens, government and civil society work together?
Apr 25, 2018

Last week, I was at TICTeC 2018 where researchers, activists and practitioners discussed the impact of civic technology, or civic tech. This blogpost summarises the discussion of Two heads are better than one: working with governments.

Read More →
Apr 25, 2018
Apr 15, 2018
The Nexus of ICT4D and Environmental Justice: A US Perspective
Apr 15, 2018

Well, as a Black American woman from a low-income background, I constantly say that "development" not only takes place in Africa, Asia, and any other place typically associated with the Global South. There are several places even in the world's "richest" country that reflect not only deprivation but what happens when environmental justice is not served. In light of this and in honor of Earth Day on Monday April 22, in this post I will focus on the nexus of ICT4D and environmental justice in the US.

Read More →
Apr 15, 2018
AI in ICT4D: Accumulated Advantage, Data Driven Bias and Invisibility, and Ethical Care
Apr 10, 2018
AI in ICT4D: Accumulated Advantage, Data Driven Bias and Invisibility, and Ethical Care
Apr 10, 2018

With artificial intelligence (and perhaps with all things technological), we as humans seem to run the gamut between dystopian visions of complete AI takeover and dysfunction (think HAL) and utopian daydreams of gracious ubiquity where personal assistants attend to the less pleasant aspects of daily life (think every edtech advertisement ever, and an increasing portion of Amazon’s advertising budget it would seem). AI is pervasive, regardless of how you critique it.

Read More →
Apr 10, 2018

© 2018 Panoply Digital Ltd. Incorporated at Companies House as Company Number 938241.