Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Technology as a threat to our privacy
Electronic surveillance and privacy
Privacy being invaded by technology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Technology as a threat to our privacy
Every aspect of a person’s life is being surveilled. People are always watching and documenting someone’s every move. Modern technology has made it easy to surveil people and track them. Michel Foucault believed that surveillance “compares, differentiates, hierarchizes, homogenizes, [and] excludes” people. (Foucault, 1977, p. 183) Surveillance is used to categorize people who do not fit society’s norm. This happens because information is retained and stored, which it then can be used to place different people into different categories. Surveillance is used to control the behavior of, label, and hierarchize people. In Discipline & Punish, Michel Foucault describes how the first prisons used surveillance to watch the prisoners in the 1600’s. …show more content…
The government retains the data so that it could be used in the future. “The amount of data currently collected as we go about our everyday lives—intelligent highway systems, consumer transactions, traffic patterns on the Internet, medical, educational, financial, and insurance, and so on—strongly suggests we are moving into a Panoptic society” (Blanchette, 2000, p. 34). The government monitors people’s every move, but people don’t know when the government is actually listening and when they aren’t. This is just like Foucault’s Panoptic prison idea with the guard tower watching the prisoners. Furthermore, Lessig (1999) believes that “individual behavior is regulated in four ways, by law, norms, technology and the market” (as cited in Blanchette, 2000, p. 40). Individual behavior is regulated by law because people are afraid to break the rules due to constant surveillance. Individual behavior is regulated by norms because people are placed into like groups due to categorization from surveillance. Individual behavior is regulated by technology by the advances of surveillance technology to be used to help categorize people. Lastly, it is regulated by the market
Jeremy Bentham, a leading English prison reformer of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, developed an architectural plan for an ideal prison that he called the Panopticon. Such a prison would consist of a ring of individual cells encircling an observation tower. Each of the cells would open toward the tower and be illuminated by its own outside window. So, by the effect of backlighting, a single guard in the observation tower could keep watch on many prisoners--each of whom would be individually confined--without himself being seen. And because the prisoners could not see their supervisors, they would have to assume that they were being watched at all times--even if they were not. The Panopticon was designed to maximize the power of a dominating, overseeing gaze upon a transparent society of inmates. The purpose of the Panopticon was not so much to punish wrongdoers as to prevent wrongdoing by immersing prisoners in a field of total visibility in the expectation that the possibility of constant surveillance would serve to restrain the inmates (Foucault, 1980). Such surveillance would be aimed toward the interiorization of the supervisor's gaze so that each prisoner would, in effect, become his/her own overseer. Thus, through self-policing, surveillance would become permanent and pervasive in its effects--even if it was not continuously exercised.
Ever feel as though someone is watching you? You know that you are the only one in a room, but for some reason you get an eerie feeling that you are not alone? You might not see anyone, but the eyes of a stranger could be gazing down on you. In Foucault's "Panopticism," a new paradigm of discipline is introduced, surveillance. No one dares to break the law, or do anything erroneous for that matter, in fear that they are being watched. This idea of someone watching your every move compels you to obey. This is why the idea of Panopticism is such an efficient form of discipline. The Panopticon is the ideal example of Panopticism, which is a tool for surveillance that we are introduced to in “Panopticism.” Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron," has taken the idea of surveillance one step further. The government not only observes everyone, but has complete control over society. The citizens of the United States cannot even think for themselves without being interrupted by the government. They are prisoners in their own minds and bodies. The ideals of “Panopticism” have been implemented to the fullest on society in Vonnegut’s "Harrison Bergeron," through physical and mental handicaps.
This method of surveillance effectively curtails negative social behaviour by keeping the population under constant fear of being watched. The objective of this intense surveillance is to create a modern Panopticon, a prison designed by British architect Jeremy Bentham in the late 1700s. This prison featured a centralized guard tower surrounded by brightly lit cells. Due to the difference in the quality of light, the prisoners were not able to see the guard tower so, “not knowing if they are being watched, but having to assume that they are, the prisoners [adjusted] their behavior” (Jan Kietzmann 135). This method was adapted by many societies including soviet Russia where the people were so afraid of being spied upon that they would only meet their friends in public to avoid being suspected of private conspiracy (Enteen 209). As in communist Russia, the governing body’s manipulation of surveillance is in an effort to ensure that no citizens are doing, or thinking of doing anything contrary to the goals of the party. This omnipresent surveillance has been shown to cut down on crime, however this comes at the cost of the citizens’ freedom and spontaneity, turning vibrant humans into fearful
Richards, Neil M. "The Dangers Of Surveillance." Harvard Law Review 126.7 (2013): 1934-1965. Academic Search Elite. Web. 8 Feb. 2014.
The feeling that someone is always watching, develops the inevitable, uncomfortable feeling that is displeasing to the mind. For years, the National Security Agency (NSA) has been monitoring people for what they call, “the greater good of the people” (Cole, February 2014). A program designed to protect the nation while it protects the walls within as it singles people out, sometimes by accident. Whether you are a normal citizen or a possible terrorist, the NSA can monitor you in a variation of ways. The privacy of technology has sparked debates across the world as to if the NSA is violating personal rights to privacy by collecting personal data such as, phone calls and text messages without reason or authorization (Wicker, 2011). Technology plays a key role in society’s day to day life. In life, humans expect privacy, even with their technology. In recent news, Edward Snowden leaked huge pieces from the NSA to the public, igniting these new controversies. Now, reforms are being pressed against the government’s throat as citizens fight for their rights. However, American citizens are slammed with the counterargument of the innocent forte the NSA tries to pass off in claims of good doing, such as how the NSA prevents terrorism. In fear of privacy violations, limitations should be put on the NSA to better protect the privacy of our honest citizens.
The government has total control: every room has telescreens with hidden cameras, everywhere people look, propaganda posters are hung with the slogan “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU,” (Orwell, 1) and Thought Police snoop through people’s
Howard Rheingold notably mentioned, "You can’t assume any place you go is private because the means of surveillance are becoming so affordable and invisible." Judging by the efficiency of American surveillance, it would seem that Rheingold’s outlook stands as of today. Technology has advanced so powerfully that surveillance has become predominant in our society. On nearly every front, American citizens are under a great threat of control as well as persistent, high-tech surveillance.
Foucault once stated, “Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance; under the surface of images, one invests” (301). By this, he means that our society is full of constant supervision that is not easily seen nor displayed. In his essay, Panopticism, Foucault goes into detail about the different disciplinary societies and how surveillance has become a big part of our lives today. He explains how the disciplinary mechanisms have dramatically changed in comparison to the middle ages. Foucault analyzes in particular the Panopticon, which was a blueprint of a disciplinary institution. The idea of this institution was for inmates to be seen but not to see. As Foucault put it, “he is the object of information, never a subject in communication”(287). The Panopticon became an evolutionary method for enforcing discipline. Today there are different ways of watching people with constant surveillance and complete control without anyone knowing similar to the idea of the Panopticon.
Surveillance has been embedded in our society since the beginning of modern civilization; new media has just enabled society to use surveillance for a different purpose. Surveillance is not new to our society. The concept of God, a supernatural being carefully monitoring our every action, shows the incorporation of the idea of surveillance into early society. Surveillance was essential for the production and distribution of goods - to ensure that wo...
Many people live in fear that they are constantly being watched. Michael Jackson sang it best in the 80 's by saying, "I always feel like, somebody 's watching me," in his hit song with Rockwell. That 's exactly what the NSA and other government organizations are doing today with domestic surveillance. Everywhere Americans go and every corner they turn there is a camera, and every website or email they send is being monitored closely. So what can society do about this? Educate others on the situation and stand up for what is right. Some people believe they must give up some freedoms for protection, but at what cost? What is happening in America is not what the founding fathers fought for. Domestic surveillance should not be allowed because
People are exposed severally on the government gallery, and they are little things they can always do to protect them from such. Unregulated surveillance could in a greater manner strip individuals of their privacy rights, and by addition, restrict coming together of people, organizations and in such a comprehensive way that could vindicate us back to the most grievous errors in history swinging back to the present day (Boghosian 89). People, non-governmental institutions are living under such oppressive realms but cannot clearly articulate their concerns and issues that affect the society for fear of state cameras (Song
...f surveillance might serve to have real impact on people’s life chances owing to such institutionalized prejudice. For example, a recent study found that CCTV operators were disproportionately monitoring the young, the male and ethnic minorities “for no obvious reason” (Norris & Armstrong 1999). That is, in the absence of suspicious behavior they were choosing to focus their attention on these categories of people. The result is that anyone falling into these categories is more likely to be caught if doing something wrong than someone else, thus perpetuating the stereotype. Furthermore, as these groups were being watched more frequently than others, they were more likely to be seen as doing something suspicious. This in turn could lead to disproportionate response rates by security forces on the ground, contributing to a sense of alienation and rejection by society.
Privacy is one of the severe issue in today’s Modern Technology era, tied to human right around the world. Most countries have started thinking differently regarding between the people’s right and national security, and trying to leverage on new technology to detect potential national threats without hurting people’s privacy. However, there's a blurred line between privacy violation and government surveillance. (Sánchez, Levin & Del, 2012) It would be a learning process for governments to seek an optimum balance between retain integrity of privacy right and eliminate national threats in order to make the country better.
Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place. ”(“5 Myths about Privacy”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
Using surveillance and investigation the government would be able to detect if someone has committed a crime and imprison them based on the evidence. If the person did not commit the crime they would go free and their name cleared. Yet these suspects have not been jailed before hand. In this scenario, why is it ethical for the government to surveill these people? The reason that this is considered ethical is because the government knows how to carry out surveillance and the proper people trained in information gathering are carrying it out and the information is being properly handled. Police officers, detectives or other officers of the law, those who carry out surveillance are trained in it and know how to handle the information gathered. They are the correct people to verify someone’s innocence because they know how to verify innocence or guilt. Surveillance does have a valid purpose of verification and justice, and if the alternatives are worse, nonexistent or need surveillance to supplement the evidence then it would be necessary to use surveillance and the purpose is proportional to the means of surveillance. Their cause is valid, if a crime has been committed to maintain justice and the safety of the people it is