Discrimination and Welfare Policy in Ontario Janina

The aim of this paper is to better understand the purposes of surveillance systems and their relation to discrimination. Scholars are in agreement that surveillance systems play a central role in contemporary society; however, they have diverging views on the purpose of surveillance. In the first section, arguments on the purpose of surveillance by both realists and critical theorists are presented. Thereafter, three welfare policies in Ontario are introduced with the aim of conceptualizing and concretizing some of the theoretical issues raised by realists and critical theorists. In the third part it is concluded that surveillance is a complex phenomenon, and that this complexity requires us to distinguish between different aspects of surveillance. Discrimination in surveillance systems not only happens on the level of ‘information processing’ but also on the level of ‘information collection. ’ Most people agree that our lives are permeated with surveillance technologies. Our personal data is routinely and systematically collected and stored. Surveillance systems have become an aspect of our everyday lives: We are watched as workers, as consumers, as patients and as travelers. What is the purpose of surveillance? Is it to increase efficiency of systems, to prevent crimes and fraud, or maybe to assert influence and control over people? Although scholars are in agreement that in contemporary society surveillance systems play a Faculty of Information Quarterly Vol 2, No 2 (Feb/Mar 2010) Page 2 of 9 central role, they have diverging views on the purpose of surveillance. This paper will look at various perspectives on this issue. Realist theorists like Dornan and Hudson (2003), for instance, have a positive conception of surveillance. They understand that surveillance can be used to discriminate against certain groups but believe that, by means of greater government control, surveillance can be ameliorated and used to distribute wealth more equitably. Critical and panoptic theorists, on the other hand, have a more pessimistic attitude towards surveillance. They point out that surveillance data is first and foremost used to either favour or discriminate against certain people. Consequently, they believe transforming surveillance practices into a positive and beneficial force is almost impossible. Discussions about surveillance deal with issues such as data double, social sorting and discrimination, and privacy and data protection. The issue of the growing influence of private corporations is also a central component of surveillance debates. After introducing these topics, the paper will scrutinize them on the basis of a case study of welfare information collection policies in Ontario. In the mid-1990s, a number of new policies were introduced by the government. The paper will look at three policies in particular: the new verification procedures, biometric fingerscanning and the new provincial telephone fraud line. On the basis of Margaret Little’s research it will be shown that discrimination, as emphasized by critical theorists, does indeed occur. However, it is important to be clear that discrimination in surveillance processes can take place on more than one level; it can happen during ‘information collection’ as well as during ‘information processing. ’ This paper argues that surveillance is complex, and that this complexity requires us to distinguish between different aspects of surveillance. Although critical scholars point out that surveillance can lead to discriminatory practices, they fail to distinguish between the various components of surveillance and hence present an overall negative picture of surveillance. In fact, both realists and critical scholars tend to talk about surveillance in a broad manner and critique it without making a distinction between its different aspects. Only by dividing surveillance up into its various components can we uncover its problematic aspects. It will be concluded that the central problem is not surveillance per se, but the way information is collected, processed and used. There is widespread agreement among scholars that information societies are saturated with surveillance. Surveillance systems permeate almost all aspects of our lives. For instance, David Lyon (2001) calls our society a “surveillance society” because “one intrinsic aspect of all so-called information societies is that they are . surveillance societies” (p. 5). Others call this society a “personal surveillance society” in which “one of the principal uses of the global network is to exchange detailed profiles of individuals’ characteristics” (Perri,