Nomophobia In 1984

Every day, the typical person in the United States can be found with some model of smartphone. Every day those people trust that their information is safely secured through usernames and passwords. The thing they don’t understand is that there is always more than one way to access information, even extremely sensitive information. Though policies have been placed to prevent invasion of privacy, current technology is bringing us closer to the world of 1984. Phones are trackers, security cameras can be found almost everywhere, and Congress passed the Patriot Act allowing for investigation of private information without a court order. Technology is truly bringing us frightfully close to the dystopia of George Orwell’s 1984.
With our technology,

the world that we all live in is slowly becoming the corrupted Orwellian dystopia described in 1984. In the novel, there is a two-way “telescreen” that is used to monitor the actions “thoughts” of Party members. In our world, roughly 2 billion smartphones users are in the market today, with an expected increase of 12% to top at 2.16 billion people globally. In 1984, most people have access to a telescreen. If Big Brother wants to manipulate the public, he sends messages and images through the telescreens, and the people have no ability to discern what is right and what is wrong. The social media companies that provide the information that smartphone users read can be used to manipulate the public opinion on a subject or person of their choice. A recent example was when social media platforms attempted to sway the voters of the 2016 Presidential election toward Hillary Clinton by using bias reporting against Donald Trump, in an attempt to show viewers of their media, that he was not a qualified candidate for the office of President of the United States. Their attempt was in vain, as he won the election and will become the new president. The election was much closer than it would have been, with Trump getting 306 electoral votes, and Clinton getting 232 electoral votes. This example shows the power social media providers have over the general public. These companies get all of their information from the phone companies and the information they gather from the phones themselves.
These “smartphones”, similar to the telescreen that sits in the living room as a TV, are two-way communication devices with a large assortment of sensors that include, but are not limited to cameras, microphones, and GPS trackers. At anytime the phone is gathering information about the owner. Anybody could be tracked from anywhere, they could be watched from anywhere, and smartphone users are always so anxious to put all of their banking account information on their phone. The phone simply sits in the owner’s pocket, waiting for a pickpocket, hacker, or thief of some kind to come and take the phone and completely drain their personal account of every hard-earned dollar.
To some people, their phone is their life.

Nomophobia is the irrational fear of being without a mobile phone. In the Scientific American, Valdesolo Piercarlo explains that most people who lose their phone will begin feeling anxiety or distress that some people experience when they don’t have their phone on them. Next, he explains how “…the degree to which people depend on phones to complete basic tasks and to fulfill important needs such as learning, safety and staying connected to information and to others.” This can show how the level of dependence on the smartphone that keeps people to their phone. With the phone on the person, the phone can now tell almost anything about where it is and what is going on. The typical phone can have about 14 different sensors installed. Most phones have GPS that tells where the user is, microphones that are powerful enough to capture sound from the immediate area, and cameras that can take videos that may end up revealing activities that may cause a person’s reputation to be ruined. In Peter Mass and Megha Rejagopalan’s article “That’s No Phone, That’s My Tracker.” it states “…these devices are also taking note of what we buy, how much money we have in the bank, whom we text and e-mail, what Web sites we visit, how and where we travel, what time we go to sleep and wake up – and more.” In the article, the authors quote Paul Ohm, a law professor at the University of Colorado, when they say “Every year, private companies spend millions of

dollars developing new services that track, store and share the words, movements and even the thoughts of their customers.” They continue by saying “These invasive services have proved irresistible to consumers, and millions now own sophisticated tracking devices (smartphones) studded with sensors and always connected to the Internet.” With these revelations, the typical person might think twice before sharing an inappropriate message with friends. This problem is almost as bad as the constant surveillance that is always watching.
Another way technology is bringing us closer to the dystopia described in 1984 is through constant surveillance that can be found in almost every building and street corner.

In an article written by Neil M. Richards, in the Harvard Law Review, titled “The Dangers of Surveillance” it states, “Although we have laws that protect us against government surveillance, secret government programs cannot be challenged until they are discovered. And even when they are, our law of surveillance provides only minimal protections.” With that much power, the government has the ultimate say in who is watched, when they are watched, and who sees them. The article continues by saying, “Courts frequently dismiss challenges to such programs for the lack of standing, under the theory that mere surveillance creates no harms.” In 1984 the people of Oceania are powerless to speak up on the issue of the constant surveillance that plagues their society. If anybody ever spoke up about the issue in secret, they would be eliminated from society one way or another. This is because of the surveillance that surrounds them. In Richards’ article, it states, “The Supreme Court recently reversed the only major case to hold to the contrary, in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, finding that the respondents’ claim that their communications were likely being monitored was ‘too speculative.’” The case was debating if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) violated the Fourth Amendment, First Amendment,

Article III of the Constitution, and the principle of separation of powers. The conclusion of the case was 5-4 majority saying that “… the groups did not have standing to bring their challenge.” This was because their case was based on fear and no evidence. With an estimated 30 million surveillance cameras now deployed in the United States alone, shooting almost 4 billion hours of footage a week, almost all of America is being watched. At any time, anyone could be investigated by a government agency, for the simple reason that they are a suspected terrorist and without any evidence of actions against the security of this nation.
Similar to how Big Brother has access to all information in the country of Oceania; the Patriot Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. With its ten-letter abbreviation expanded, (USA PATRIOT) the full title is “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001”. This act of Congress allows investigators to access anyone’s information without the approval of a court judge. Many people feel that this is too much power for agencies to have. This power has been abused in the past in ways that have severely upset the public. Warrantless wiretapping, torture, kidnapping, and detention; over-surveillance, No Fly and Selectee Lists, abuse of material witness statute, and attacks on academic freedom are a few examples of government agencies abusing the power given them by Congress. This Act allows these agencies into personal files such as social media accounts, online store accounts, criminal records, social security, banking information, etc. With that information at their disposal any corrupt person could end up leaking that information and in one moment, that person’s reputation is ruined.
The people of this great nation have become a society that is frightfully similar to the Orwellian dystopia described in 1984 because everyone has their own version of the telescreen sitting in their pocket, leaking information to companies that will give away that information to advertising companies to try and separate the user from their money. There is a surveillance camera watching almost every person in the country. They never knowing if they will be sent to prison for something they thought no one would ever see. With the USA PATRIOT Act officials can find information on anyone, abusing their power and running this country as if it were the nightmarish Orwellian dystopia that is present in George Orwell’s 1984.