Beware The Seductive Power Of Surveillance
from the once-it-starts... dept
Jessie Hirsh has a great blog post about the seductive power of surveillance, covering how surveillance systems put in place with limitations and for the best of intentions almost always get abused, as it just becomes too tempting to use them to a much greater level. The example he discusses, of course, is the recent webcam scandal involving a school that used webcam images of a student at home in a disciplinary action. In that case, the "surveillance" was intended for recovering lost or stolen laptops only, but the mandate was allegedly "expanded" when an image taken (supposedly because a "loaner" laptop had been taken off campus) also showed the student eating candy that the school administrators thought were drugs.Hirsh also points out that, beyond the temptation to just expand what's monitored, being able to watch over someone just has it's own (potentially dangerous) addictive quality as well -- by noting "the intoxication people feel from being the watcher." That also, I believe, is a part of the reason why law enforcement is always so keen on increasing surveillance efforts. It's just incredibly powerful to be able to watch over others.
It's definitely something that needs to be thought about carefully, as we become an increasingly watched society. But how do you deal with it? Hirsh brings up the idea -- proposed many times before -- of being able to watch the watchers or even to open up the surveillance process to the public to have them help out. This horrifies some people, but it's at least something that people need to think about. Greater amounts of surveillance in society aren't likely to go away any time soon -- so recognizing the risks associated with it and coming up with unique and innovative solutions to deal with (or minimize) those risks makes sense.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cameras, surveillance, webcams
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about red light cameras? I want those to go away. If anything they cause more accidents than they prevent or at the very least they cause the worst kinds of accidents, where people are potentially hit into intersections by the cars behind them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find it interesting..
I have setup security systems with cameras...
IF you ask me, I will send you to a few locations..
But its funny to me what a person can do with a few Hundred dollars... OVER what the STATE can do..
for under $500 I can setup a system with 8-16 cams and protect everything...
The state cant..
Under $1500, I can use HIGH range gear that has FOCUS/TILT/ZOOM...
They cant...
Under $2500-3000 I an do 16 cams, and do it all...
they cant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops
The reason most cops become cops in the first place is because they're power junkies. Of course they're going to want cameras! (in your home, not theirs)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sicko
Is there a name for this condition?
In many circumstances it is supposed to be a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sicko
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The trick is how do we manage this?
I think h310ise is on to something, open access is key for check and balances, it will ultimatily lead to the lowest denominator for what it is acceptable to survey or use in court.
The law will have to change to include to deal with gray areas, nothing will be black and white, if someone can see everything others do, he will be able to find ways to coerce others if the law is to strict.
In certain ways I do believe this is an evolutionary step for society as a whole. Do I like it? No but I'm very aware that it will happen, everything will be integrate and will dispense some form of feedback and people will be able to infer behaviour through it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dont mind
Cameras in the park, are nice to have.
The problem is that there FEW cops and to many people to monitor, to many things happening..
But, I want AS MUCH monitoring on THEM, as they are doing to US.
Abuse of the systems is to easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like a great TV show idea...
A win/win/win situation. Appease the masses with TV, increase the eyes on security, and generate extra revenue for the security division.
The new reality TV. (Just like 'Series 7'.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But if someone knows they are being watched, it's always a bit 'different'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]