Depictions of dystopian governments, from Orwell to Black Mirror, often make an effort to include systems of surveillance in their fiction. These systems track, catalogue, and manage citizen’s lives, leveraging behavior for the good of the state and curbing dissent at every opportunity. And, aside from those that wield the levers of power, there is almost no perception of the surveillance state as benevolent. But if we consider the argument put forward by Alex Pentland in “A Data Driven Society”, one that highlights the need for systems that can manage and direct what he calls “idea flow” (Pentland 81), can we begin to construct a “benevolent” surveillance state?
The People’s Republic of China, although a far cry from Orwell’s Oceania, has a history of surveying and policing its citizens behavior. Dating back to as far as the 11th century, more recent surveillance ventures began after the 1949 takeover by the Chinese Communist Party. These programs were aimed at monitoring movement and loyalty to the state and placed citizens at odds with one another (Mistreanu 4). In 2014, the State Council announced the next step: a “national credit system” that would “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step” (Planning Outline). Intended on being fully implemented by 2020, this announcement sent many Western journalists and human rights advocates spinning.
And while they’re concerns are justified, the CCP has a history or punishing dissent, the aim of the social credit system is, at least on paper, quite benevolent. The aim is promoting good behavior through tangible rewards given to citizens who perform certain behaviors. Citizens of Rongcheng, one of three cities part of the CCP’s pilot program, are given 1,000 points to begin with, a number that changes depending on recorded behavior. From there, five points can be taken away for a traffic ticket, exemplary business or commitment to family can earn someone 30 points, and even charity work is logged and rewarded (Mistreanu 2). All private citizens, and businesses, are beholden to this scoring system (Mistreanu 2).
What’s fascinating about this system is that it is not carried out by the central government alone. In fact, there is no “national” social credit system in any sense. Instead, the social credit system being implemented across China is a decentralized patchwork of credit values, each with their own scoring factors, operating out of online payment providers like AliPay, city governments, hospitals, and even libraries (Mistreanu 4).
This effort illustrates the potential reality of using data at local, regional, and national levels to “nudge” behavior in beneficial ways. With the amount of data swimming around in the aether, it only makes sense that it be used as leverage to construct a better society. But there are issues. The Chinese social credit system is not a radical change. In fact, one could argue it is simply a way for the CCP to solidify their position and increase their options for suppression. But imagine different circumstances. Imagine a society leveraging data on the macroscopic level, everything from government records to online receipts, as is being done in China, and a comprehensive list of digital rights for consumer citizens. The fusion of Pentland’s “Data New Deal” (Pentland 83) and the CCP’s social credit system might be the optimal template for the 21st century template.
Sources Accessed:
- “Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System (2014-2020)“
- “The Data Driven Society” , Alex Pentland
- “Life Inside China’s Social Credit Laboratory” , Simina Mistreanu
Data/Society/Decision-making Spring 2019 