Surveillance Systems

Even if you do nothing wrong, you will still be watched.

Edward Snowden

In 1787, philosopher and social analyst Jeremy Bentham developed the concept of the "ideal prison," the main idea being that one guard would be in the center but invisible to the prisoners. The inmates do not know exactly when they are being watched, and they are given the impression of constant surveillance. Thus, they become ideal prisoners. This system assumes that, knowing they are under constant observation, prisoners will behave more disciplined.

In developing the concept of power, French philosopher Michel Foucault used the principles of Bentham's panopticon. The panopticon gives social reality the property of transparency, while the power itself becomes invisible. In his view, power is now concentrated not in the right to punish, but in the right to oversee. Power works like "Sauron's Eye."

The panopticon is a utopian representation of society and a type of power that essentially embodies the society we know now, a utopia brought to life. This type of power can be called "panopticism." We live in a society where panopticism reigns. This is a type of power over individuals, exercised in the form of constant surveillance and control.

Interestingly, such grim reflections on total control visited Foucault long before the advent of the Internet. On October 15, 2016, it was the 90th anniversary of Michel Foucault's birth, and our world has hardly changed much since then.

The Panopticon in Modern Society

In a panoptic society, it is not necessary to have a shepherd dog; it is enough to create a feeling among people that they are under constant and total surveillance. An example can be given of Moscow, where half of the speed radars are dummies, and people do not know when exactly they are being watched.

States often justify the implementation of total surveillance in the interests of national security and crime control. Mass surveillance and data collection systems allow governments to respond quickly to potential threats and can also be used to make more informed decisions in various areas such as healthcare, education, the economy, and others. However, such measures often provoke discussions about the balance between the need to ensure security and the protection of civil liberties and privacy. Often, the information collected ends up in the hands of not only the state but also banks or, worse, criminal groups.

The modern degree of public surveillance becomes incompatible with fundamental human rights. When people expect that every step they take will be under close scrutiny, they feel the need for self-restraint and censorship. This trend is confirmed by cases of systematic intimidation and persecution of dissidents, informants, and journalists in the USA and other countries.