From time to time, I dredge up a notion I’ve been intrigued with since a professor at IU mentioned it in class back in ’96 which is that the Internet and related technologies are turning the world into a large version of the Panopticon. The basic notion of the Panopticon was to design a prison architecturally so that the inmates knew that they could be observed at any time but never knew exactly when they were being watched. This would force them to assume that they were being watched at any given time and modify their behavior accordingly.
The Journal & Courier has an opinion piece that’s relevant to that theme, concerning the placement of security cameras at three local parks. The opinion suggests that these might just create the illusion of security without improving it:
But feeling safe and being safe are two different things.
A story published July 9, 2007, at abcnews.com indicates that surveillance cameras are useful in solving crimes, but cameras have little impact on preventing crime.
. . .
ABC news reported that a British study on the effectiveness of surveillance cameras in the United Kingdom indicated that, at best, surveillance cameras had a negligible effect on deterring crime.
. . .
If there are problems at city parks, those who live in the areas might be better served by organizing neighborhood crime watches and working with police to report suspicious behavior.
I didn’t see the original study, but I wonder if it controls for how prominently the cameras are displayed. I can definitely see where small, unnoticeable cameras would have no effect on crime; but I’d think more obvious cameras would deter crime. Whether that deterrence is worth the loss of privacy is certainly a valid argument. Long-term, however, I suspect we’ll find that “privacy” was a bit of an anomaly in human history. We didn’t have any privacy in the village, and I don’t know that we’ll have any in an increasingly wired future, heavily populated with cameras.
I wonder if there is a generational aspect, too. Think of when you were ten and walking around a 7-11. You would notice yourself on the black and white TV image from the security camera and probably get the impression that they can see everything you’re doing. It was a novel thing for us. For today’s young adults, cameras are just part of the background and maybe some of the behavior-modifying element has been lost.
The same type of thing can be seen in today’s live-out-loud, Facebook generation. I had to have a discussion with a patient recently about the difference between a diary and Facebook. If writing in a diary that she wants to punch her boss (something she says she would never really do) makes her feel better, then that can be therapeutic. Writing it on Facebook so her 300 friends (and their thousands of friends) can read it got her fired. The “someone may see you” effect seems to be getting lost.
It is not the issue of giving up privacy that is terribly disturbing, it is the willingness to allow agents of the government, of the police state, to be able to constantly observe you in public, even to film you. The calibre of the people doing this may be objectionable, and the way that Big Brother might use the pictures it is taking of you and your young that is concerning, that is so un-American. Let me close. Thanks.
With the invention of reality tv, it has become apparent to me that people do not give the same amount of “respect” to a video camera that they would give to a live human being.