Joowon Jung

Until the 2000s, the Chinese had a culture of trust that could not build trust to strangers because of the cultural basis of 关系 guānxi. So, for a while after the appearance of online purchasing, people use "Huò dào fùkuǎn" (貨到付款) way. In which the delivery guy paid after delivering them. Because of these cultures, e-commerce in China in the 2000s always faced two problems, firstly, how do you know if you will pay? Second, how would you know if you would send me the goods when I paid? Then, in 2010, a simple payment card was connected to the system, and a payment and mobile QR code were available for mobile payment.

People now pay with QR codes even in traditional markets.

Korea, Japan, and China are the three major countries in Northeast Asia, and Korea is geographically located between the two countries. It has been a long time since we had a mutually influential relationship. There are similar characteristics, but there are also differences and the deeper layers on the back of the parts.

I think freedom, privacy, surveillance are concepts those which are closely linked, and I have thought that the current situation in China may be indirectly expressing this. As Erich Fromm stated in , humans may be quite far away from freedom. Freedom has enormous responsibilities and sacrifices, and so is privacy. I agree with the author Andres Weigend, who argues that it is better to actively abandon privacy and take advantage of opportunities wisely because people cannot fundamentally restrain the creation and sharing of data. If digital panopticon cannot be avoided, his argument is to enjoy it. Andreas Weigend argues that since the era of privacy is over, the important thing now is to understand how businesses and governments collect, analyze and use our data, and to control the consequences properly. So that it is not exploited.

Here is a brief explanation of the privacy paradox. The term privacy paradox refers to the phenomenon that people say that privacy is essential, but if they provide a little profit, they easily offer all personal information. People claim that control over the companies that access my personal information is critical, though they have a problem that they do not try to understand or take much time to understand the privacy policies of those companies.

The preceding paragraph in Korea in late January when the virus crisis broke out is an example. The state or local government emphasizes 'risk' (the spread of infectious diseases) itself. Because they asked to consider a lot of people's safety. However, it also imposes 'another risk' (could be the disadvantage of quarantine or exposure of part of personal information). A few sacrifices for the majority of safety may be necessary to maintain a community. Or, you may have already decided to endure being a member of the community.

Tracking a person who is diagnosed as positive on the virus, his movement trajectory was collected via GPS, credit card receipt. And call 20 or 50 people who have contacted him and asks them to be examined. Of course, we do not disclose the name but as a confirmer number. When the 'Patient No. 31' trajectory was released on public, the criticisms such as why the person went to another place during hospitalization and why he went to a hotel restaurant, were flooded. Since the age, nationality, route of infection, and confirmation date were opened to the public. They faced the problem that the privacy of the confirmed patients was not guaranteed. So currently, some of the ways in which information is disclosed have been changed. And now, blame game targets have changed to those due to the influx of people coming from abroad. Jones & Nisbett, explained this with actor-observer bias, that people think like, as I am an actor of my own behavior, so I know well about the contextual constraints imposed on my behavior. However, the other person's problem is that, as I am only an observer, so it is difficult for me to know about the situational constraints.

In any case, I think transparency is vital in leveraging between personal information and freedom. And I don't believe the act of collecting this personal information is wrong. An incident in my summer of 2019 gave me a firmer belief in this idea. And I wanted to express this idea as a work (I don't know if there will be time to actualize it, but the mechanism has been completed).

To take a seat at a cafe in Korea, you put your belongings there and go to order. There is a lot of CCTV in my life in Korea, though I don't know if people's morality is carried out with the fact that they are being monitored. I've been doing this, and it hasn't been a problem until then, so it was kind of a tacit agreement. Living abroad, I thought I had to be more cautious about my belongings, but in Groningen, where I lived, I didn't think of things to be stolen. Through the ING transfer details, I noticed that he use my card at Burger King for three times. Yes, maybe I could be generous on this like, 'robber must be hungry'. But in Korea, if someone steals your belongings, the robber never dares to use a card. I was really shocked.

And while I was in the Police office to make a police report, I notice that there was a surveillance camera. And as I talked about this incident with people around me, I found that my views and perceptions of privacy were very different from theirs. For example, "It is better without a surveillance camera than took our freedom and our privacy.". I know there is a surveillance camera that contains a photo of the thief. Nevertheless, Police never give information about the procedure, and the case became a cold case. So, I made this project.

'Even if I know your face, I don't know who you are, and I won't know you, no matter what I do.'
To one avoiding surveillance cameras, just because it doesn't want to be the subject of surveillance, I wanted to throw a message that no one is looking at you nor is trying to find who you are is.