Winner's Response to Scott's Research Topic

Langdon Winner questions the idea that certain objects are inherently political. Winner states that most objects are not political but their users may make it appear this way. However, under certain conditions technologies themselves can be political. I believe that Winner would respond to my research topic: It is not right for colleges to monitor student emails, by asking me to delve into the context that the technology was developed and its intended purpose.

The United States Constitution is very broad concerning privacy; the United States Supreme Court came up with a two-point system to establish the right to privacy regarding illegal search and seizure. The two points system required that the individual believed what they were doing was private and that society accepts that the individual's assumption of privacy was reasonable.  Applied to email monitoring, it is a reasonable assumption that students' emails are private. One method of getting around this legality is the employment of waivers by colleges.

This is where Winner would agree that the monitoring software in effect becomes political. Colleges make students sign a waiver that asserts that students may not assume privacy in their emails. This allows college administrator to monitor student emails and do with this information what they deem necessary. However, students may not monitor their administrators' email. Winner states the objects may be inherently political if they meet one of two conditions. One of these conditions being "if a given technological system actually requires the creation and maintenance of a particular set of social conditions" (31). The fact that by allowing the administrators access to students emails, but not vice-versa establishes a power structure, where the administrators are in charge of students emails. Due to the fact, that the monitoring software is only effective if only the administrators possess the technology makes it political.