Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Surveillance and privacy
Technology and public administration
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Surveillance and privacy
2. Do new technologies of surveillance encourage self-regulation? Discuss
A fundamental dimension of modernity is the emergence of coordinated administrative power. The nation state is the prime site if such power but is also a part of modern organisations in general. Administrative power is based upon the control of information. Administrative power is enforced through surveillance where information is routinely used to monitor the activities of a subject population. No less than capitalism or industrialism, surveillance is a tool in levering the modern social world further away from traditional modes of socialisation.
Over the last twenty years the progress in the technologies which handle information have appeared very dramatic and has therefore posed a threat to information privacy. Analysis of this progress reveals that this progress is not in terms of new technologies being invented but those technologies already known have increased dramatically in their power while also falling dramatically in their prices. This has happened to such a degree that the market penetration could only have been dreamed about by the most optimistic of market analysts a decade ago. The countries that are predominately concerned are those of the developed first world but as a result of the tremendous market penetration of these products their prices have now fallen to such a level that it cannot be long before the technology spreads progressively through the developed world also.
From the moment we leave the privacy of our own homes we are almost under constant surveillance by cameras. Closed circuit television (C.C.T.V) are deployed and monitored in town centres, shopping centres, railways and tube networks. Traffic cameras monitor car speeds and drivers compliance with red lights. Leisure centres, hospitals and universities are increasingly under the spotlight. A combination of modern video, powerful computers and telecommunication systems are capable of turning our cities into electronic grids which allow information which includes images to be passed around a multiplicity of social actors who are separated in the forms of time and space. The direct supervision of the subject population no longer requires the physical presence of an observer and images can be lifted out at any required time with authoritative interventions made at some future time and place.
Since the installation of Britain’s first street based closed circuit television system in Bournemouth initiated by vandalism on the seafront the local council and police decided to install eight C.C.T.V cameras. Sixteen years later there are now 203 cameras situated around the town centre, beaches and car parks.
Although they can be easily tracked, people overlook the invasion of privacy possibility because of the convenience they bring to every day life. Systems like OnStar installed in cars have made the tracking of stolen cars practically effortless. Similar tools are being used by law enforcement, Penenberg stated “cell phones have become the digital equivalent of Hansel and Gretel’s bread crumbs” (472). He then goes on to discuss how in Britain in 1996, authorities installed 300 cameras in East London. Although this didn’t affect the terrorism, it did affect the crime rate which fell 30 percent after the cameras were put into place. Penenberg closes his essay by mentioning that the surveillance is not only used to watch the citizens but also for citizens to keep an eye on the government. Through his organization, relevant information, and professional tone, Penenberg creates an effective
“With surveillance technology like closed-circuit television cameras and digital cameras now linked to the Internet, we now have the means to implement Bentham's inspection principle on a much vaster scale”(Singer) Bentham's inspection principle is a system that allows the collection, storing and dissemination of data on individuals, corporations, and the government. This collection of data has large implications in regard to privacy and security. “There is always danger that the information collected will be misused - whether by regimes seeking to silence opposition or by corporations seeking to profit from more detailed knowledge of their potential customers.”(Singer) What is done with the information collected is the main issue in terms of privacy. We do not want to be marketed to, or inundated with spam from third-party sources. We also do not want our private social circles and experiences to appear that they are being monetized or subjected to surveillance outside our control. In addition, surveillance has a large effect on the government that can beneficial or detrimental to democracy. Exposure of government secrets may make officials tread carefully when making decisions, ensuring that politicians are nothing but just and fair.“The crucial step in preventing a repressive government from
James Stacey Taylor's article, "In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Government Surveillance" begins reviewing the concept of "Big Brother" as it was originally presented in George Orwell's 1984. The Big Brother started off as a fictional character in 1984-- a dictator of Oceania within a totalitarian state. Set within a society in which everyone is under complete surveillance by the authorities, mainly by telescreens, the people are constantly reminded of this by the phrase “Big Brother is watching you” (Wikipedia) . Taylor goes on to explain some examples of recent surveillance technology and how it is applied in lives today. An interesting note and comparison between today’s technology and that of the telescreens in 1984, is that people could be sure that they could not be watched by Big Brother’s telescreens by going out of the cities into the country, where they only had to take care that their conversations were not monitored by hidden microphones (Taylor 227). He contrasts the two, highlighting the fact that “Such an escape is not impossible, for spy satellites can be used to monitor people wherever they go” (277). From there, Taylor perpetuates the framework for his position on the Big Brother notion. Taylor argues that, "rather than opposing such an expansion of surveillance technology, its use should be encouraged -- and not only in the public realm" (227). Taylor’s argument presented in a more formal construction is as follows:
Presently 98% of the households in the United States have one or more televisions in them. What once was regarded as a luxury item has become a staple appliance of the American household. Gone are the days of the three channel black and white programming of the early years; that has been replaced by digital flat screen televisions connected to satellite programming capable of receiving thousands of channels from around the world. Although televisions and television programming today differ from those of the telescreens in Orwell’s 1984, we are beginning to realize that the effects of television viewing may be the same as those of the telescreens.
The twenty first century in the century of technology, where technology is heavily used in the people daily lives. One of the field where technology is being utilized in is monitoring people through cameras and phone calls. Although it might be interfering with people privacy, but it has its advantages that might outweigh the disadvantages. This essay will discuss both points of view, and try to decide which one is more reasonable than the other.
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.
The personal connection Americans have with their phones, tablets, and computers; and the rising popularity of online shopping and social websites due to the massive influence the social media has on Americans, it is clear why this generation is called the Information Age, also known as Digital Age. With the Internet being a huge part of our lives, more and more personal data is being made available, because of our ever-increasing dependence and use of the Internet on our phones, tablets, and computers. Some corporations such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook; governments, and other third parties have been tracking our internet use and acquiring data in order to provide personalized services and advertisements for consumers. Many American such as Nicholas Carr who wrote the article “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty, With Real Dangers,” Anil Dagar who wrote the article “Internet, Economy and Privacy,” and Grace Nasri who wrote the article “Why Consumers are Increasingly Willing to Trade Data for Personalization,” believe that the continuing loss of personal privacy may lead us as a society to devalue the concept of privacy and see privacy as outdated and unimportant. Privacy is dead and corporations, governments, and third parties murdered it for their personal gain not for the interest of the public as they claim. There are more disadvantages than advantages on letting corporations, governments, and third parties track and acquire data to personalized services and advertisements for us.
When George Orwell wrote his acclaimed novel “Nineteen Eighty Four” in 1949, even he would be surprised at how things he wrote then would become part of society 60 years on. Results of the “Big Brother” effect which he predicted in his novel are now to be seen frequently in our daily newspapers. With the crime rate in Ireland, particularly the alarming increase in burglaries, home-owners are becoming more and more worried. Thousands of people are investing in high-tech security systems to protect their houses from being burgled. With S.S.I.A.’s still maturing at the moment, electronic gates, high fences, motion sensors and C.C.T.V. cameras in particular are popping up in communities around the country. These systems are installed to deter thieves from entering people’s homes but home-owners don’t seem to realise that by having such high security, they are literally telling people that they have something to protect. Apart from this, these systems also have side effects on the people who have them installed. Gone is the feeling of neighbourliness and community that rural Ireland boasted about for so many years. With the increasing number of ribbon developments in rural areas, things are getting to a stage where people have never even met their neighbours. Sturdy doors and strong gates may keep unwanted visitors out but they also discourage people from “popping round for a chat.” One has to wonder where this is going to end. It has been proven that over 55% of people who installed house alarms in 2005 did so after being burgled themselves.
Part of the allure of the Internet has always been the anonymity it offers its users. As the Internet has grown however, causing capitalists and governments to enter the picture, the old rules are changing fast. E-commerce firms employ the latest technologies to track minute details on customer behavior. The FBI's Carnivore email-tracking system is being increasingly used to infringe on the privacy of netizens. Corporations now monitor their employees' web and email usage. In addition to these privacy infringements, Internet users are also having their use censored, as governments, corporations, and other institutions block access to certain sites. However, as technology can be used to wage war on personal freedoms, it can also be employed in the fight against censorship and invasion of privacy.
In the modern day era, we find in society a ubiquitous usage of technology that seems to be never ending and forever growing. Included with this notion, the broad subject of surveillance is of course included. Contemporary surveillance, or more specifically technological surveillance, has been described as ambiguous; meaning that it is often misunderstood or open to different interpretations. The representation of surveillance within popular culture has played an impacting role on how we as a society perceive it and this raises certain questions that may reflect back on to society. The 1998 film Enemy Of The State directed by Tony Scott, Starring Will Smith, Gene Hackman and Jon Voight is considered to be a ‘spy-thriller’ blockbuster. Its central themes explore a range of surveillance techniques and equipment and also provides some insights, no matter how realistic or unrealistic they may be, into the real life security organisation; The National Security Agency (NSA). Using this film as an example and analysing how these themes are represented will hopefully allow us to key these ideas back to modern surveillance theories and practices.
Ever since day one, people have been developing and creating all sorts of new methods and machines to help better everyday life in one way or another. Who can forget the invention of the ever-wondrous telephone? And we can’t forget how innovative and life-changing computers have been. However, while all machines have their positive uses, there can also be many negatives depending on how one uses said machines, wiretapping in on phone conversations, using spyware to quietly survey every keystroke and click one makes, and many other methods of unwanted snooping have arisen. As a result, laws have been made to make sure these negative uses are not taken advantage of by anyone. But because of how often technology changes, how can it be known that the laws made so long ago can still uphold proper justice? With the laws that are in place now, it’s a constant struggle to balance security with privacy. Privacy laws should be revised completely in order to create a better happy medium between security and privacy. A common misconception of most is that a happy medium of privacy and security is impossible to achieve. However, as well-said by Daniel Solove, “Protecting privacy doesn’t need to mean scuttling a security measure. 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 computer is considered one of the most important technological advances of the twentieth century. Security and privacy issues have been in existence long before the computer became a vital component of organizations' operations. Nevertheless, the operating features of a computer make it a double-edged sword. Computer technologies with reliable error detection and recording capabilities, permit the invasion of a supposedly secure environment to occur on a grand scale and go undetected. Furthermore, computer and communications technology permit the invasion of a persons' privacy and likewise go undetected. Two forces threaten privacy: one, the growth of information technology with its enhanced capacity for surveillance, communication, computation, storage and retrieval and two, the more insidious threat, the increased value of information in decision making. Information has become more vital in the competitive environment, thus, decision makers covet it even if it viol!
...m’ characterises our society, which also reflects the transition to modernity. ‘Syn’ is a Greek term which stands for ‘together’ and ‘opticon’ connotes the ability to see an object or a person. In many words, what Mathiesen (1997) aimed to illustrate with this concept was that it in today’s society the many see the few, thus we live in a ‘viewer society’. He elaborates on this notion by placing analysis on broadcast television as the mechanism through which the many saw the few (Meyrowitz 1985). Furthermore, the monitoring of the powerful has been eased by the proliferation of relatively inexpensive video cameras. These allow the general public to tape instances of police brutality, and have given rise to inner-city citizen response teams which monitor police radios and arrive at the scene camera-in-hand to record police behaviour (Haggerty and Ericson, 2000)
There are an estimated 30 million surveillance cameras in the United States, proving to be a normal feature in American lives (Vlahos). This is no surprise because in the past several years, events such as the 9/11 attack and the availability of cheaper cameras have accelerated this trend. But conflicts have come with this and have ignited, concerning the safety of the people versus the violation of privacy that surveillance has. Although camera surveillance systems are intended to provide safety to the public, the violation of privacy outweighs this, especially in a democratic country like America.