The Evolution of Surveillance Technology
In the 21st century, visual surveillance has permeated all aspects of daily life. We are visually surveyed on our commutes, while we run errands, and even while we work. As a silent enforcer of the law, video surveillance encourages citizens to police their behavior, with varying success. For this reason, we generally understand visual surveillance as a safeguard; it records not only the bad things we do but also the bag things done to us, although it sometimes fails to do so. Despite its inability to consistently to police and protect, surveillance is stable in its ability to collect data on the activity of citizens. As surveillance becomes increasingly ubiquitous, and the goals of surveillance shift, concerns arise for our freedom, safety, and privacy.
Surveillance has long been understood as a means to police the behavior of the masses. This policing can take the form of repercussions for recorded behavior; however, it is more common that citizens police themselves in front of the camera. The notion of self-policing has long been a central component of surveillance. The Panoptic Penitentiary was a prison design proposed by Jeremy Bentham in the 1800s. In this design, a central watchtower was to be surrounded by inward facing cells in a circle, enabling the lookout to see into any cell. The lookout would be equipped with a light to shine in on the cells, concealing the watcher. This light would stay on even when no watcher was present, making prisoners feel the presence of the watcher at all times. Betham’s intention behind this design was to encourage prisoners to “modify their behavior,” for the better (University College London, 2010). The modern day use of surveillance cameras reflect the original psychological intentions behind the Panopticon’s design. When citizens know they are being recorded, they are supposed to police their behavior and avoid engaging in activities that would compromise them. However, the presence of a camera does not always result in changed behavior. As Ripley and Williams discuss in “Body Cameras Have Little Effect on Police Behavior, Study Says,” body cameras, worn by policemen to “civilize” their behavior, actually have little bearing on their actions (Ripley and Williams, 2017). The ineffectiveness of body cameras speaks to the notion that cameras alone are not always enough to force positive changes in behavior. That said, cameras used for the sake of policing bring about concerns for our freedom to behave in the ways we would like.
The policing effect of the surveillance camera serves to protect citizens, not only from their own bad behavior but from the bad behavior others. The article, “How Many CCTV Camera’s in London,” discusses the growing popularity of surveillance cameras “to improve … security,” “deter crime,” and “ensure safety,” (Caught on Camera, 2019). Today, surveillance cameras act as a public eye to protect our bodies, our homes, and our businesses. However, much like they fail to police us, they can also fail to protect us. Another article dealing with body cameras, “Body camera footage shows moments police opened fire in controversial Yale shooting,” Levenson discusses the lack of clarity brought by body cam footage (Levenson, 2019). In many situations, footage from surveillance cameras is ambiguous and is not useful in helping decipher events. As Ripley and Williams note, unclear surveillance footage has “repeatedly failed to persuade juries,” (Ripley and Williams, 2017). While video is often considered a truth, surveillance footage is inconsistent in its ability to protect those it depicts because of this ambiguity. Though it might be able to depict situations vaguely, it cannot always keep us safe from ourselves, or each other, as we expect it to.
While visual surveillance can be used, with varying degrees of success, to police and protect us, it is consistently powerful as a means to collect data on citizens. In “Made in China, Exported to the World: The Surveillance State,” Mozur et al. note numerous nations have adopted Chinese surveillance technology as “the future of governance,” (2019). This futuristic means of governing relies on the technological control and monitoring of citizens. Chinese visual surveillance technologies have permeated urban centers. The average London citizen is caught on camera 300 times per day (Caught on Camera, 2019). In Ecuador, cameras are planted throughout urban centers to monitor and fight crime (Mozur et al., 2019). However, these surveillance technologies pose a new risk for citizens. The footage recorded throughout Ecuadorian cities is sent not only to the police, but placed in the hands of domestic intelligence agencies, potentially for “following, intimidating and attacking political opponents.” Throughout other nations, these technologies are used and abused for the sake of collecting data on the activities of citizens, who are unaware of how that data might be used against them. Citizen’s blindness to the kind of data that is collected about them, the destination of that data, and the purpose of that data brings about concerns for our freedom, safety, and privacy.
As surveillance technology develops and becomes more and more ubiquitous, we must continue to be wary of its goals. While I initially understood surveillance as a means of protection and policing, understanding its development as a means of data collection has made me far more aware and afraid of it. Our lack of knowledge about the extent and purposes of data collection is alarming. I used to believe that if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of. However, exploring surveillance has brought about numerous concerns for the future of global safety, freedom, and privacy to the forefront. We are entering an age where it does not necessarily matter what you have done; what you believe, say, and think may come cause for intervention. Ultimately, as surveillance technology continues to progress, we need to think critically about why and how it is used to protect ourselves from consequences we may be blind to.
Works Cited
"How Many CCTV Cameras in London?" Caught on Camera. 2019. Web. 5/15/2019 <https://www.caughtoncamera.net/news/how-many-cctv-cameras-in-london/>.
Levenson, Eric. "Body camera footage shows moments police opened fire in controversial Yale shooting." CNN. 4/26/ 2019. Web. 5/15/2019 <https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/23/us/yale-police-shooting/index.html>.
Mozur, Paul, Jonah Kessel, and Melissa Chan. "Made in China, Exported to the World: The Surveillance State." The New York Times. 4/24/ 2019. Web. 5/15/2019 <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/technology/ecuador-surveillance-cameras-police-government.html>.
"The Panopticon." University College London. 2010. Web. 5/15/2019 <https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bentham-project/who-was-jeremy-bentham/panopticon>.
Ripley, Amanda, and Timothy Williams. "Body Cameras Have Little Effect on Police Behavior, Study Says." The New York Times. 10/20/ 2017. Web. 5/15/2019 <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/us/police-body-camera-study.html>.