Music is Surveillance
CC Attribution - ShareAlike 3.0 Germany:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor and the work or content is shared also in adapted form only under the conditions of this
González Fuster, Gloria
Brakel, Rosamunde van
Surveillance typically echoes visions of the Pan-opticon and Big Brother’s omnipresent gaze, as if it was all (and just) about being watched, especially by those we cannot see. But what if we tried to think of surveillance through sound and music? This talk will tilt the audience’s ‘paranoid ears’, inviting them to explore surveillance and/as music, ultimately putting forward that music (as accessed and distributed in modern societies) is, to some extent, surveillance.
 Hi, welcome everyone. I'm going to start this presentation. And the main purpose of this presentation or our starting point is to ask what is surveillance. And we want to rethink surveillance through sound and music. Now doing that is difficult because depictions in popular culture, the definition of surveillance as watching over, media depictions and also academic research have laid mostly the emphasis on the visual and notions of watching. Now the typical image when talking about surveillance, which is often given as the panopticon, which was a prison thought out by Jeremy Bentham. With those of you who are not aware of this, the idea is that you have the guard in the tower in the middle who you cannot see as a prisoner and the prisoners are in a circle around the central tower. The idea is that even though the prisoners do not see the guards, they will behave. For example, there's another panopticon, it's Orwell's book 1984, Big Brother is watching you, even popular music with the police singing about, I'll be watching you. And then the emergence of CCTV cameras, especially in the UK in the 1990s has influenced popular depictions and also academic research on surveillance very much, focusing on watching. Now however, surveillance was never purely visual and even Jeremy Bentham, when he was thinking about his panopticon prison, devised a listening system. But he decided not to do it because technologically it was not possible to have a listening system that was one way. So surveillance was never meant to be purely visual and so eavesdropping is the most well known form where it's not about watching but about listening. But there are also other types of, yep, I'm going too fast, other types of acoustic surveillance or surveillance through sound and music. Now in the 1930s, we see that Muzak emerged, a Muzak was created to specifically influence people's behaviour, for example at work, so designing music to make people work more efficiently, for example. Then also in the 1930s, we have the emergence of the radio and specific radio programmes with the idea that certain population groups are targeted by what is offered through music and so this should be, we can see this in developments in the 1930s with the rise of the number of corporations working around marketing and marketing strategies. Now a more recent example of where sound and music is used to influence people's behaviour is what is known as Mosquito, which is a sound apparently only people up till a certain age can hear. And the idea is that, for example, in train stations, they don't want to have young people hanging around so they give this sound so that they will run away. I know that in Brussels, for example, they also use classical music for this purpose. And so these are just a number of ways that music and sound has been used to influence people and now I'm going to give the floor to Gloria. Yes, thank you. So we were listening to a piece of music of an artist called Scanner. He used to make music by invading people's privacy, he used to just scan around him and see what confidential communications he could hack and then use this as a sound for his music, for his art. So it is actually by listening to this kind of music and trying to think surveillance through sound that we came to the conclusion that perhaps it was better to focus on the relation between surveillance and music. So of all the relations between surveillance and sound, we tried to use our paranoid ear, that's a notion by Seth Gouret, to think about music and surveillance. And actually it appeared that we were not the first ones, there were more people that had been thinking about the relation between surveillance and music. This is Zaccaria French thinker and he wrote one of the most influential books on modern music. He wrote the first version at the end of the 70s and he had this very clear reference to the fact that the technologies of music are related to the technologies of surveillance. So he emphasised there's a link between music as we know it and the surveillance through technology. Actually it was not the only one to have this kind of insights about the nature of modern music. This is Adorno, a German thinker of course and he was originally from Germany, he moved to the United States and he basically just did not like at all jazz, he did not like at all popular music. But it was not only just that he disliked them but he really saw the seeds of fascism in modern music, in popular music, in standardisation of music and also in jazz. Actually you can think of maybe classical music is better, so that's Adorno against popular music. But actually classical music is not philosophically much better. There's famous sociologist Max Weber who just pointed out that the piano itself is a piece of furniture, a bourgeois piece of furniture. So there is indeed a link between the societies which believe the technologies that we use for music. Another thinker that has been emphasising this is Kittler and in his case his comments were more specific about rock music, pop music and he explained that actually most of the technologies that we use, that were used in the classical records for rock music, for pop music, for instance in Abbey Road are directly derived from advances in technology during the Second World War. So when you think about singing an imagine a little war, there's no people in all this, you are actually using strategies that are really related to war. Indeed when we think, when we look at the technologies of modern music as such, we do see this kind of links. This is Teremin, he was a Soviet spy. He came from the Soviet Union, he lived for a while in the United States. He invented this Teremin instrument. I don't know if you know what's the sound of this Teremin instrument. You probably know that it does sound like a strange sound and it's played without touching the instrument. So actually what he invented was a use of waves and because of this invention actually was used directly for surveillance purposes, he also invented with the same kind of technology the microphone without cable, so the bag that actually allowed, played a very important role during the Cold War and he also contributed to the invention of the MOOG keyboard which was very influential for the whole development of electronic music as we know it. So there is clearly a link in theory, there is clearly a link in history between surveillance and music, but what about now, what happens, is this link still a reality? And actually we are kind of lucky because this important French thinker, Jacques Attali, he rewrote his book from the 70s when the Internet appeared. He thought it was important to actually describe what the Internet meant for music and society. And he rewrote this book and actually I think this is very interesting. He deleted the sentence that I liked. So the sentence where he described the relationship between surveillance and technology was mysteriously deleted from this new version of the book. So I'm trying to make you be a bit paranoid to stimulate your paranoid ear and also stimulate your paranoid thinking, what does it mean? Does it mean that we are no longer in a society where there's a link between music and surveillance? And of course we believe it's not the case, we believe this link is stronger than ever. In the previous session there was a discussion about music, online music streaming services and the different ways actually through which we consume all music. This can be online streaming services as such, but also just services like YouTube or any other service. And there were some references to the question of what happens to your data when you go online and hear and listen to music. So what happens to your data? Indeed to know a bit of what happens to your data you have to read the terms and conditions, the policy, the privacy policies of the services and I made this work for you. This is why I'm now a bit feeling bad, but during a few days I was just trapped in a place reading terms and conditions and reading privacy policies of online music services and I will try to summarize everything in a very quick way. So there is some data that you will always give whenever you listen to music online. There's kind of no escape. It depends on the service, this is a summary of the service, but probably you will need to give your name, your username, your age, your email, your broad location, the country you're living, the gender most probably at least a peak. So you will have to give some technical information, IP address, browser info, some information about the ads that you're seeing, the ads that you're clicking because that's very, very relevant for the services. You will of course have to give a lot of information about the music you are listening to and for how long, when are you listening to the music? In some cases you will also be obliged to give information about whether you're running or you're still. This Spotify says it's very important to know what kind of music you want to hear because you don't want to hear the same music when you're sitting. So they have to know all the time whether you're running or sitting. That's their view. In some cases with some services you're not obliged to give all that info at the beginning or you can also then give more info just if you want to, that's obtained or so they ask you please, could you by the way give us more data and then indeed you can give more data, more speaks, you can give more specific information about your location, your contacts and all this information. Now this takes some time and of course you're not obliged to do all this because there's an easy thing to do. You just give them access to your Facebook account so they can get almost all the data directly from Facebook. It's very, very convenient. You may also decide actually to log in through Google or you can just give them all the data and the access to your Google account and the access to your Facebook account. But these of course will have implications of what happens to the data, what happens to all the data. This is the second part of the privacy policies that I suffer reading. So what happens to this data, what is the purpose of this collection of the data? The data will of course go to the provider of the service that can be Spotify, that can be Bandcamp, that can be a Deezer, whatever. They will use it to give you some recommendations and some music. The data will also be given to other companies with which they have partnerships. Most of the time it will be used for scientific purposes, that is to know more about you, the audience, what happens in a country, so all these kinds of statistics. If you logged in through Facebook, of course, all the data, many, many, many, many items will go to Facebook. So that's always the case. And of course, a lot of data will go to Google if you logged in through Google and actually even if you didn't. And we had in the session before there was somebody saying, I, as the boss of my company, I can guarantee you that I will never, as long as I live, sell your data to anybody. That's always there in the privacy policies of everybody. That's at the beginning of the privacy policies. We promise you, we will cherish your data, we will never sell it. And then when you go to the end, page 80 of the privacy policy, it does say that if necessary, if we don't have any more money, of course, we will first just sell your data so we can get some money. So that's a summary of what happens to your data. And you may wonder, I thought there were some privacy settings. Maybe that's not as serious as it looks. I can still influence this. Indeed, there are some privacy settings, but they cannot really protect you for much of this. They will basically protect you from the way in which you share this, the data you share with other companies. You will still most of the time share the data with Facebook, with Google, with Spotify, of course, and if somebody needs money with anybody. So that was a little something that I want you to listen. So basically that was just a musical interview to tell you we are becoming data. We are constantly being data. And we are constantly being transformed into data by listening to music. So this raises the question, what is then the role for music in the critique of surveillance? What can we actually make some interesting music to denounce surveillance, to complain about the invasion of privacy? And actually there is interesting music that is out there. This is one example. It's Holly Hennan. She has this beautiful video. It's a love song to an NSA expert. So this was following, there's another revelation. She knows that whenever she's online, there's possibly somebody, the national security agency in the United States, looking at what she does. So she brought this love song to the NSA and she has this beautiful video that you can go and watch in YouTube. But of course, if you go and watch the video in YouTube, you know you will be tracked. There's another interesting video also. That's Anoni watch me again. It's the contrary of a love song. It's a hate song against surveillance that you can go and watch online. But so how can you then escape in surveillance while you critique surveillance? This is one of the big questions that we would like to explore with you. This is one of the set of questions that we would like to explore. And for the second set of questions, Prasamunde comes back. So to conclude our final question is what does this mean for our initial question? What is surveillance? Is music surveillance? I think we have shown that surveillance is in the sense of the dictionary is not just watching over but can include other senses such as the ear and I think we've shown that with the rise of the internet and internet surveillance and the music software that is increasingly being used to listen to music that the users of these programs are becoming disciplined in the sense, similarly in the sense as in the panopticon to always provide their data wherever they go and specifically with music they are seduced into always giving their data as a matter of speaking as a normal, giving your data becomes a normal way of life. I don't know if Gloria wants to add anything to that. I think we are very lucky because we have ten minutes left for questions from the audience. Thank you. Thank you. I don't know if there's a moderator but please go ahead. I was first. I'm kidding. So I would like to know, do you know anything about the current state of the art? So what is done with the data? Because of course everybody knows or assumes there will be algorithms, calculating something, person to my listening behavior but what knowledge or information is drawn from that data? Is there already articles from the technological field where data scientists say people who listen to Pantera are normally very aggressive and mean persons? So how deep goes it into the personality of the listeners? Yes. Actually, we don't know much about what happens for real with the data. This is the very frustrating thing about those previous policies that I was mentioning. So they always tell you, you want to know what happens to your data? Go and read those 80 pages, you go and read them and at the end you really don't know what is this supposed to be, what's the purpose? Indeed part of it is supposed to make better recommendations for you. But what happens, what is the purpose of the general statistics? My impression, my view, I don't know if someone disagrees but it's not just because they care for the personality of Pantera listeners. It is of course the commercial purpose. It's all about marketing and given this actually, most of the time to companies that are not about music, it's about demographics, collecting demographics, collecting your practices, where are you, when did you go out, what's the kind of lifestyle that you have? But it's not just sharing your music preferences with other music lovers and you are here with music. Really Facebook is not in this for the love of music and also Google is not there. When you look into the literature itself, there's a lot of discussions about before, which kind of, how can we classify, but how can we keep again the listener more and more interested. So we don't want to lose the listener because it's the outsource of data. I agree, I just wanted to add that I think it's clear that one purpose of, especially for example, if you log into Spotify with your Facebook profile, the data used by Facebook will most probably be used on the one hand for advertising and on the other hand for doing research, big data research that they are conducting. Any other questions, comments? Yeah, I see one. Yeah. Hi. Thanks for a fascinating talk. I'm interested in just probing a bit more what are the different angles that are offered by thinking in music and the auditory terms instead of visual. Just one other example is there's a great short story at the time of invention of the radio, the enormous radio, which sort of cues into this sensation of being watched and heard all the time in that case. But is there something about the physical element there that makes it more real? And I'm just curious whether when we can't see the listening devices, whether we act differently to when it's invisible, like on these various platforms, and just whether you'd thought about that physical distinction as being an element in how people perceive surveillance. Well, there has been a lot of discussion about this and of course there is a big difference in if you are obviously being watched by a CCTV camera or you are listening to music online or on Facebook and not really aware that you are being watched or in other cases listened to. I think awareness is very important, but the awareness doesn't mean it has to be visual. So being aware that you are being controlled means that you can also have possibilities to interact and resist towards the surveillance. If you're not aware at all, then there's, this could also be an awareness of visual surveillance because you can have cameras that are hidden. I think there's, it's a question that is not dependent on the visual or the auditory, but is there... But I think there is indeed a difference, a quality difference and in one of the slides we had the posters of three films and actually they were there because there are three films about surveillance through eavesdropping. And I think they are the most beautiful films because you really see the effort of the direct film directors as visual thinkers trying to explain this pervasion and the presence of the listening surveillance. So how can somebody be listening to you and how you can perceive this in a very physical manner. In the end you will have people just breaking things physically because they try to just locate the sound. And also there are interesting artists now working in sound art, trying precisely to reveal the sounds that are around us. And there is, for instance, this German artist working with electrical hams. So the noises that the electrical appliances and the electrical machines do around us and making this audible for us because sometimes what is audible is not physically enough for us and that's very interesting how you can approach the different types of surveillance. So no more questions, comments, reactions, everybody. Yep. Okay. Rosamunde, last word. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
 Hi, welcome everyone.  I'm going to start this presentation.  And the main purpose of this presentation or our starting point is to ask what is surveillance.  And we want to rethink surveillance through sound and music.  Now doing that is difficult because depictions in popular culture, the definition of surveillance  as watching over, media depictions and also academic research have laid mostly the emphasis  on the visual and notions of watching.  Now the typical image when talking about surveillance, which is often given as the  panopticon, which was a prison thought out by Jeremy Bentham.  With those of you who are not aware of this, the idea is that you have the guard in the  tower in the middle who you cannot see as a prisoner and the prisoners are in a circle  around the central tower.  The idea is that even though the prisoners do not see the guards, they will behave.  For example, there's another panopticon, it's Orwell's book 1984, Big Brother is watching  you, even popular music with the police singing about, I'll be watching you.  And then the emergence of CCTV cameras, especially in the UK in the 1990s has influenced popular  depictions and also academic research on surveillance very much, focusing on watching.  Now however, surveillance was never purely visual and even Jeremy Bentham, when he was  thinking about his panopticon prison, devised a listening system.  But he decided not to do it because technologically it was not possible to have a listening system  that was one way.  So surveillance was never meant to be purely visual and so eavesdropping is the most well  known form where it's not about watching but about listening.  But there are also other types of, yep, I'm going too fast, other types of acoustic surveillance  or surveillance through sound and music.  Now in the 1930s, we see that Muzak emerged, a Muzak was created to specifically influence  people's behaviour, for example at work, so designing music to make people work more efficiently,  for example.  Then also in the 1930s, we have the emergence of the radio and specific radio programmes  with the idea that certain population groups are targeted by what is offered through music  and so this should be, we can see this in developments in the 1930s with the rise of  the number of corporations working around marketing and marketing strategies.  Now a more recent example of where sound and music is used to influence people's behaviour  is what is known as Mosquito, which is a sound apparently only people up till a certain age  can hear.  And the idea is that, for example, in train stations, they don't want to have young people  hanging around so they give this sound so that they will run away.  I know that in Brussels, for example, they also use classical music for this purpose.  And so these are just a number of ways that music and sound has been used to influence  people and now I'm going to give the floor to Gloria.  Yes, thank you.  So we were listening to a piece of music of an artist called Scanner.  He used to make music by invading people's privacy, he used to just scan around him and  see what confidential communications he could hack and then use this as a sound for his  music, for his art.  So it is actually by listening to this kind of music and trying to think surveillance through  sound that we came to the conclusion that perhaps it was better to focus on the relation  between surveillance and music.  So of all the relations between surveillance and sound, we tried to use our paranoid ear,  that's a notion by Seth Gouret, to think about music and surveillance.  And actually it appeared that we were not the first ones, there were more people that  had been thinking about the relation between surveillance and music.  This is Zaccaria French thinker and he wrote one of the most influential books on modern  music.  He wrote the first version at the end of the 70s and he had this very clear reference  to the fact that the technologies of music are related to the technologies of surveillance.  So he emphasised there's a link between music as we know it and the surveillance through  technology.  Actually it was not the only one to have this kind of insights about the nature of modern  music.  This is Adorno, a German thinker of course and he was originally from Germany, he moved  to the United States and he basically just did not like at all jazz, he did not like  at all popular music.  But it was not only just that he disliked them but he really saw the seeds of fascism  in modern music, in popular music, in standardisation of music and also in jazz.  Actually you can think of maybe classical music is better, so that's Adorno against  popular music.  But actually classical music is not philosophically much better.  There's famous sociologist Max Weber who just pointed out that the piano itself is a piece  of furniture, a bourgeois piece of furniture.  So there is indeed a link between the societies which believe the technologies that we use  for music.  Another thinker that has been emphasising this is Kittler and in his case his comments  were more specific about rock music, pop music and he explained that actually most of the  technologies that we use, that were used in the classical records for rock music, for  pop music, for instance in Abbey Road are directly derived from advances in technology  during the Second World War.  So when you think about singing an imagine a little war, there's no people in all this,  you are actually using strategies that are really related to war.  Indeed when we think, when we look at the technologies of modern music as such, we do  see this kind of links.  This is Teremin, he was a Soviet spy.  He came from the Soviet Union, he lived for a while in the United States.  He invented this Teremin instrument.  I don't know if you know what's the sound of this Teremin instrument.  You probably know that it does sound like a strange sound and it's played without touching  the instrument.  So actually what he invented was a use of waves and because of this invention actually  was used directly for surveillance purposes, he also invented with the same kind of technology  the microphone without cable, so the bag that actually allowed, played a very important  role during the Cold War and he also contributed to the invention of the MOOG keyboard which  was very influential for the whole development of electronic music as we know it.  So there is clearly a link in theory, there is clearly a link in history between surveillance  and music, but what about now, what happens, is this link still a reality?  And actually we are kind of lucky because this important French thinker, Jacques Attali,  he rewrote his book from the 70s when the Internet appeared.  He thought it was important to actually describe what the Internet meant for music and society.  And he rewrote this book and actually I think this is very interesting.  He deleted the sentence that I liked.  So the sentence where he described the relationship between surveillance and technology was mysteriously  deleted from this new version of the book.  So I'm trying to make you be a bit paranoid to stimulate your paranoid ear and also stimulate  your paranoid thinking, what does it mean?  Does it mean that we are no longer in a society where there's a link between music and surveillance?  And of course we believe it's not the case, we believe this link is stronger than ever.  In the previous session there was a discussion about music, online music streaming services  and the different ways actually through which we consume all music.  This can be online streaming services as such, but also just services like YouTube or any  other service.  And there were some references to the question of what happens to your data when you go online  and hear and listen to music.  So what happens to your data?  Indeed to know a bit of what happens to your data you have to read the terms and conditions,  the policy, the privacy policies of the services and I made this work for you.  This is why I'm now a bit feeling bad, but during a few days I was just trapped in a  place reading terms and conditions and reading privacy policies of online music services  and I will try to summarize everything in a very quick way.  So there is some data that you will always give whenever you listen to music online.  There's kind of no escape.  It depends on the service, this is a summary of the service, but probably you will need  to give your name, your username, your age, your email, your broad location, the country  you're living, the gender most probably at least a peak.  So you will have to give some technical information, IP address, browser info, some information  about the ads that you're seeing, the ads that you're clicking because that's very,  very relevant for the services.  You will of course have to give a lot of information about the music you are listening  to and for how long, when are you listening to the music?  In some cases you will also be obliged to give information about whether you're running  or you're still.  This Spotify says it's very important to know what kind of music you want to hear because  you don't want to hear the same music when you're sitting.  So they have to know all the time whether you're running or sitting.  That's their view.  In some cases with some services you're not obliged to give all that info at the beginning  or you can also then give more info just if you want to, that's obtained or so they ask  you please, could you by the way give us more data and then indeed you can give more data,  more speaks, you can give more specific information about your location, your contacts and all  this information.  Now this takes some time and of course you're not obliged to do all this because there's  an easy thing to do.  You just give them access to your Facebook account so they can get almost all the data  directly from Facebook.  It's very, very convenient.  You may also decide actually to log in through Google or you can just give them all the  data and the access to your Google account and the access to your Facebook account.  But these of course will have implications of what happens to the data, what happens  to all the data.  This is the second part of the privacy policies that I suffer reading.  So what happens to this data, what is the purpose of this collection of the data?  The data will of course go to the provider of the service that can be Spotify, that can  be Bandcamp, that can be a Deezer, whatever.  They will use it to give you some recommendations and some music.  The data will also be given to other companies with which they have partnerships.  Most of the time it will be used for scientific purposes, that is to know more about you,  the audience, what happens in a country, so all these kinds of statistics.  If you logged in through Facebook, of course, all the data, many, many, many, many items  will go to Facebook.  So that's always the case.  And of course, a lot of data will go to Google if you logged in through Google and actually  even if you didn't.  And we had in the session before there was somebody saying, I, as the boss of my company,  I can guarantee you that I will never, as long as I live, sell your data to anybody.  That's always there in the privacy policies of everybody.  That's at the beginning of the privacy policies.  We promise you, we will cherish your data, we will never sell it.  And then when you go to the end, page 80 of the privacy policy, it does say that if necessary,  if we don't have any more money, of course, we will first just sell your data so we can  get some money.  So that's a summary of what happens to your data.  And you may wonder, I thought there were some privacy settings.  Maybe that's not as serious as it looks.  I can still influence this.  Indeed, there are some privacy settings, but they cannot really protect you for much of  this.  They will basically protect you from the way in which you share this, the data you share  with other companies.  You will still most of the time share the data with Facebook, with Google, with Spotify,  of course, and if somebody needs money with anybody.  So that was a little something that I want you to listen.  So basically that was just a musical interview to tell you we are becoming data.  We are constantly being data.  And we are constantly being transformed into data by listening to music.  So this raises the question, what is then the role for music in the critique of surveillance?  What can we actually make some interesting music to denounce surveillance, to complain  about the invasion of privacy?  And actually there is interesting music that is out there.  This is one example.  It's Holly Hennan.  She has this beautiful video.  It's a love song to an NSA expert.  So this was following, there's another revelation.  She knows that whenever she's online, there's possibly somebody, the national security agency  in the United States, looking at what she does.  So she brought this love song to the NSA and she has this beautiful video that you can  go and watch in YouTube.  But of course, if you go and watch the video in YouTube, you know you will be tracked.  There's another interesting video also.  That's Anoni watch me again.  It's the contrary of a love song.  It's a hate song against surveillance that you can go and watch online.  But so how can you then escape in surveillance while you critique surveillance?  This is one of the big questions that we would like to explore with you.  This is one of the set of questions that we would like to explore.  And for the second set of questions, Prasamunde comes back.  So to conclude our final question is what does this mean for our initial question?  What is surveillance?  Is music surveillance?  I think we have shown that surveillance is in the sense of the dictionary is not just  watching over but can include other senses such as the ear and I think we've shown that  with the rise of the internet and internet surveillance and the music software that is  increasingly being used to listen to music that the users of these programs are becoming  disciplined in the sense, similarly in the sense as in the panopticon to always provide  their data wherever they go and specifically with music they are seduced into always giving  their data as a matter of speaking as a normal, giving your data becomes a normal way of life.  I don't know if Gloria wants to add anything to that.  I think we are very lucky because we have ten minutes left for questions from the audience.  Thank you.  Thank you.  I don't know if there's a moderator but please go ahead.  I was first.  I'm kidding.  So I would like to know, do you know anything about the current state of the art?  So what is done with the data?  Because of course everybody knows or assumes there will be algorithms, calculating something,  person to my listening behavior but what knowledge or information is drawn from that data?  Is there already articles from the technological field where data scientists say people who  listen to Pantera are normally very aggressive and mean persons?  So how deep goes it into the personality of the listeners?  Yes.  Actually, we don't know much about what happens for real with the data.  This is the very frustrating thing about those previous policies that I was mentioning.  So they always tell you, you want to know what happens to your data?  Go and read those 80 pages, you go and read them and at the end you really don't know  what is this supposed to be, what's the purpose?  Indeed part of it is supposed to make better recommendations for you.  But what happens, what is the purpose of the general statistics?  My impression, my view, I don't know if someone disagrees but it's not just because they care  for the personality of Pantera listeners.  It is of course the commercial purpose.  It's all about marketing and given this actually, most of the time to companies that are not  about music, it's about demographics, collecting demographics, collecting your practices, where  are you, when did you go out, what's the kind of lifestyle that you have?  But it's not just sharing your music preferences with other music lovers and you are here with  music.  Really Facebook is not in this for the love of music and also Google is not there.  When you look into the literature itself, there's a lot of discussions about before,  which kind of, how can we classify, but how can we keep again the listener more and more  interested.  So we don't want to lose the listener because it's the outsource of data.  I agree, I just wanted to add that I think it's clear that one purpose of, especially  for example, if you log into Spotify with your Facebook profile, the data used by Facebook  will most probably be used on the one hand for advertising and on the other hand for  doing research, big data research that they are conducting.  Any other questions, comments?  Yeah, I see one.  Yeah.  Hi.  Thanks for a fascinating talk.  I'm interested in just probing a bit more what are the different angles that are offered  by thinking in music and the auditory terms instead of visual.  Just one other example is there's a great short story at the time of invention of the  radio, the enormous radio, which sort of cues into this sensation of being watched and  heard all the time in that case.  But is there something about the physical element there that makes it more real?  And I'm just curious whether when we can't see the listening devices, whether we act  differently to when it's invisible, like on these various platforms, and just whether  you'd thought about that physical distinction as being an element in how people perceive  surveillance.  Well, there has been a lot of discussion about this and of course there is a big difference  in if you are obviously being watched by a CCTV camera or you are listening to music  online or on Facebook and not really aware that you are being watched or in other cases  listened to.  I think awareness is very important, but the awareness doesn't mean it has to be visual.  So being aware that you are being controlled means that you can also have possibilities  to interact and resist towards the surveillance.  If you're not aware at all, then there's, this could also be an awareness of visual  surveillance because you can have cameras that are hidden.  I think there's, it's a question that is not dependent on the visual or the auditory,  but is there...  But I think there is indeed a difference, a quality difference and in one of the slides  we had the posters of three films and actually they were there because there are three films  about surveillance through eavesdropping.  And I think they are the most beautiful films because you really see the effort of the direct  film directors as visual thinkers trying to explain this pervasion and the presence of  the listening surveillance.  So how can somebody be listening to you and how you can perceive this in a very physical  manner.  In the end you will have people just breaking things physically because they try to just  locate the sound.  And also there are interesting artists now working in sound art, trying precisely to  reveal the sounds that are around us.  And there is, for instance, this German artist working with electrical hams.  So the noises that the electrical appliances and the electrical machines do around us and  making this audible for us because sometimes what is audible is not physically enough for  us and that's very interesting how you can approach the different types of surveillance.  So no more questions, comments, reactions, everybody.  Yep.  Okay.  Rosamunde, last word.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.
re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_0_167.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_168_383.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_384_1151.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_1152_5207.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_5208_9311.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_9312_9419.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_9420_9707.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_9708_9827.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_9828_11315.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_11316_11411.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_11412_11747.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_11748_15035.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_15036_15347.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_15348_15407.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_15408_16115.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_16116_17471.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_17472_17639.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_17640_20003.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_20004_20519.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_20520_23207.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_23208_24455.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_24456_24707.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_24708_24947.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_24948_26723.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_26724_30167.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_30168_30419.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_30420_30479.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_30480_31223.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_31224_31427.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_31428_32267.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_32268_34439.png re_publica_2017_-_Music_is_Surveillance_QpxTwWC4WH4_34440_38826.png