THE EVOLUTION OF SURVEILLANCE IS NOT limited to issues of new technologies and how they may be used. There is a qualitative difference between monitoring the movements of a single individual or a small group at specific times and maintaining constant community wide or nationwide surveillance.
There is also an important question about relationship surveillance and oppression. An oppressive society requires a system for watching what people are doing and, if necessary, taking action against people whose behavior does not reflect officially sanctioned values.
Surveillance operations such as those discussed above are, in effect, tactical and not aimed at enforcing a “social credit” system as seen in contemporary China. In fact, the Chinese system raises the question of whether or not a government can collect information for purely benign purposes. If the information is stored as a permanent record of the individual’s behavior, can it be utilized at a future date to pose an indictment against that person? Even if it is not, the citizen’s knowledge of this system is likely to affect his behavior and deter him from expressing negative opinions about official policies. Thus, it facilitates social engineering and behavioral conditioning without actually imprisoning its targets. Chinese people see the impact of state-run social engineering efforts and realize its impact when people with low “social credit scores” are unable to travel or enjoy other benefits.
CCTV systems are increasingly being introduced into school. In 2021, the Springfield, Massachusetts School Board announced that it had joined with local police in installing a CCTV system in their high school and that it would be coupled with devices to detect weapons taken into the school or the use of vaping in school toilets. This program is consistent with the many camera-share initiatives that have been created throughout much of the United States whereby the public can be directly involved in law enforcement.
Popular involvement in law enforcement is being enhanced by the introduction of high-tech policing into smaller cities and towns. Data-driven policing, once confined to big cities, is becoming available in smaller jurisdictions. The Forsyth County, North Carolina Sheriff’s Department is like other small communities that have fewer resources but are attracted to images that will transform them into a “modern” environment of mass surveillance normally associated with places like New York City. When the Pasco County Florida Sheriff’s Department adopted a data-driven predictive policing system designed for at-risk young people, it announced that the data would be drawn from risk factors such as students’ bad grades and arrest records. Even though technologically enhanced policing is attractive because it sounds modern, it raises questions about privacy and surveillance.
More and more people look at this system of massive surveillance and are pleased rather than terrified. They see the “kind hand” of a system that helps you locate the products you want even before you realized you wanted them. A device like Alexa is seen as your friend and servant, although it is essentially a wiretap. It is simply the latest form of corporate surveillance. It is always observing your behavior but, a person concludes, it is for your own good.