![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sousveillance
Nov. 20th, 2007 10:22 amWe're currently studying privacy and surveillance in my information policy class, and we discussed two interesting points. One is that the argument for privacy laws is more effective when one considers the detrimental effects of surveillance on society rather than individuals. The individual argument doesn't hold up well, but the chilling effects of a surveillance mentality on society as a whole are a compelling argument. I think that the "social effect" argument is actually becoming more and more mainstream these days.
The second point is the whole concept of "sousveillance," or giving up on privacy and embracing the transparency created by surveillance culture. Some proponents of sousveillance do stuff like perform in front of security cameras or tape security guards in department stores. Others - for instance, a lot of people in my generation - share their lives on the internet and effectively have no shame, because they don't believe they have anything to hide. Even reality shows are a form of sousveillance.
I am for the sousveillance argument too, because the availability of cameras in the internet makes sousveillance a widely available option. There are websites where people can upload videos or digital snapshots of police brutality, for instance. When it's not just the state, the corporations and the media who have cameras and methods of distribution - when regular people have those things - it changes the balance of power in surveillance. The Big Brother or Panopticon model (both things we talked about in class) aren't really adequate, because they assume that surveillance power is centralized.
Part of the idea of Big Brother or the Panopticon is to make people afraid they are being watched. But what happens when people know they are being watched and don't care?
The second point is the whole concept of "sousveillance," or giving up on privacy and embracing the transparency created by surveillance culture. Some proponents of sousveillance do stuff like perform in front of security cameras or tape security guards in department stores. Others - for instance, a lot of people in my generation - share their lives on the internet and effectively have no shame, because they don't believe they have anything to hide. Even reality shows are a form of sousveillance.
I am for the sousveillance argument too, because the availability of cameras in the internet makes sousveillance a widely available option. There are websites where people can upload videos or digital snapshots of police brutality, for instance. When it's not just the state, the corporations and the media who have cameras and methods of distribution - when regular people have those things - it changes the balance of power in surveillance. The Big Brother or Panopticon model (both things we talked about in class) aren't really adequate, because they assume that surveillance power is centralized.
Part of the idea of Big Brother or the Panopticon is to make people afraid they are being watched. But what happens when people know they are being watched and don't care?
