The use of online monitoring activities has a number of limits for broadband users - causing

members of chronically disadvantaged areas increased exposure to its adverse impacts. For
instance, Gangadharan (2012) discusses how the United States has policies designed and
intended to introduce poor, indigenous, and migrant people to the disadvantaged effects of
broadband online surveillance by stating that they will gain economic, social, and political
benefits. Scholars and social scientists support this regard as they argue that online
surveillance data from these targeted people are used to retrieved and track their personal
data that confuses notions of privacy - resulting in the production of non–transparent,
asymmetric power relations between the profilers and profiled, in political, social, and
economic contexts (Turow, 2005); Solove, 2006; Hoofnagle, et al. 2010; Ayenson, et al.
2011). 

Moreover, data profiling has been reinforced by scholars as a detrimental effect of online
surveillance. In general terms, data profiling involves discovering patterns and relationships
within data to make predictive conclusions (McClurg, 2003). When used incorrectly, this
holds great significance due to privacy invasion, whereby the targeted people have their
online data profiled despite age and websites visited. This is further argued by Gandy (2009)
to heighten the current digital social inequalities and exclusions. 

Additionally, Dr. Bill Anderson addresses the digital divide that occurs from digital
technology in New Zealand. In the late 1990s, the New Zealand Government used digital
technology for a range of initiatives - including tertiary sector and compulsory levels of
education that are still in continued use today. Anderson states that these usages caused a
lack of equity in outcomes, commonly referred to as the digital divide. The digital divide is
described as the gap between various groups of people in terms of their access and use of
digital technology. For example, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds did not
have as much access to personal digital technology in comparison to students from high
socioeconomic backgrounds - resulting in disadvantaged learning. It wasn’t until 2005 when
Anderson reviewed this matter and officially stated that certain groups of people were
included and excluded in the new digital environment present in education. 

Recent understanding of the digital divide has led to the terms digital inclusion and digital
exclusion, to draw attention to the social effects of digital technology. Gangadharan (2012)
shares his vision of the future where individuals are referred to as digital citizens and benefit
from internet access as they believe that it will increase their chances of economic
prosperity, political visibility, and level of education. Contrarily, Anderson shares that the
digital divide is also elevated by non-digital users. As described by Anderson, these users are
also disadvantaged as the internet has become a natural environment for many individuals
despite their level of class. Hence, data profiling and online activities are predicted to
become so naturalised that being deprived of them could result in genuine exclusion from
mainstream society (Crothers, Smith, Urale & Bell, 2015, p. 33). Thus, the question arises for
all civilians if we are really safe from online surveillance in the 21st century. 

Reference 
Gangadharan, S. P. (2012). Digital inclusion and data profiling. First Monday, 17(5).
https://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i5.3821