CD12- Surveillance
Surveillance plays an important role in how we prevent crime and maintain order in society today. With advances in technology, the ways we monitor people have become more advanced, from CCTV cameras in public places to tracking digital activity online. These tools act as both visible and hidden deterrents, making people less likely to commit crimes because they know they are being watched.
Surveillance helps prevent crime by increasing the chances of criminals being caught and providing evidence to solve crimes. It also allows police to spot patterns, predict potential problems, and better target their resources. Beyond this, surveillance influences how people behave, encouraging them to follow the rules because they are aware they might be watched.
However, surveillance raises questions about the balance between safety and personal privacy. While it can make people feel safer and help fight crime, it can also lead to concerns about misuse of power, loss of privacy, and whether it always works as intended. Exploring the different types of surveillance, how it’s used, and its effects on society helps us understand whether it is a fair and effective way to keep people safe.
Types of Surveillance
Physical Surveillance
Physical surveillance refers to the observable methods used to monitor behaviour, such as CCTV cameras, police body cameras, and the visible presence of security personnel. In the United Kingdom, there is an estimated one CCTV camera for every 11 people, amounting to approximately 8.8 million cameras. On average, an individual is captured on camera 70 times a day during normal activities, emphasizing the pervasive nature of this form of surveillance. These systems aim to deter criminal behaviour by increasing the likelihood of detection. For example, automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology scans around 14 million vehicle registrations daily, tracking movement across the country. While such measures enhance public safety, critics argue that the normalization of surveillance in public spaces has led to an erosion of privacy, making constant observation a routine aspect of life.
Liquid Surveillance
David Lyon, a prominent postmodernist sociologist, conceptualized "liquid surveillance" to describe the tracking of individuals through their digital activities. This form of surveillance is often less visible but equally pervasive. Every online search, purchase, or interaction contributes to an individual’s digital footprint, which is analysed by companies and governments. For example, targeted advertisements on platforms like Facebook are based on users’ browsing histories and online behaviours. Similarly, loyalty card data from supermarkets is used to profile consumer habits and predict future purchases. The Investigatory Powers Act (2016) in the UK exemplifies liquid surveillance at a governmental level, granting authorities access to citizens’ internet history without requiring a warrant. While such tools have been used to disrupt terrorist plots and dismantle criminal networks, they also raise serious concerns about breaches of privacy and misuse of personal data.
Self-Surveillance
Self-surveillance involves individuals monitoring their own behaviour due to the awareness of being observed or judged by others. This concept is closely tied to Michel Foucault’s theory of disciplinary power, which asserts that individuals internalize the gaze of authority and regulate their actions accordingly. In the context of modern surveillance, people alter their conduct out of fear that they might be recorded or judged, whether by CCTV cameras or by their peers through social media. The fear of becoming the subject of viral internet memes, for example, has made many individuals hyper-aware of their public actions. This form of surveillance exemplifies how external observation influences internal behaviour, even in the absence of direct monitoring.
Sociological Perspectives on Surveillance
Surveillance Society
David Lyon’s theory of the surveillance society emphasizes how deeply surveillance is woven into everyday life, especially in societies that rely heavily on technology. According to Lyon, surveillance is no longer just about watching people—it is also a powerful tool for shaping, managing, and controlling their behaviour. This means that the data collected through various forms of surveillance, such as CCTV cameras, social media, and online activity, isn’t just used to monitor individuals but can also influence their decisions and actions.
In today’s world, much of this data comes from what is known as a digital footprint. Every time you browse the internet, make a purchase online, or post on social media, you leave behind information about yourself. This information can be used in many ways. Companies use it to create targeted advertisements, recommending products or services based on your browsing history. Governments use it to monitor potential threats, and law enforcement agencies can use it to solve crimes.
One striking example of surveillance in action was after the Capitol riots in the United States in 2021. Rioters, believing their actions would go unnoticed, posted videos and photos of themselves on social media. Law enforcement used these posts, along with CCTV footage, to identify and arrest those involved. This demonstrates how modern surveillance can make it much harder to hide deviant or criminal activities, as digital and physical monitoring systems are interconnected and far-reaching.
Lyon’s theory also suggests that surveillance shapes behaviour in more subtle ways. People often act differently when they know they are being observed, even if they are not doing anything wrong. For instance, if you know a store has CCTV cameras, you might think twice about acting suspiciously, even if it’s unintentional. Similarly, on social media, users might curate their posts to appear a certain way, aware that what they share could be seen by employers, family members, or even strangers.
Lyon’s work highlights how surveillance has become a normal part of life. While it can prevent crime and help manage society, it also raises important questions about privacy and control. Are we fully aware of how much data we share and how it is being used? And how does living in a surveillance society affect our freedom to act as we wish? These questions remind us that surveillance is not just a tool for safety but also a system with far-reaching implications for how we live.
Disciplinary Society
Michel Foucault’s idea of the disciplinary society explains how surveillance has become a normal part of daily life, shaping the way people behave. Foucault believed that when people know they are being watched—or think they might be—they start to regulate their own actions. This is called self-discipline. People adjust their behaviour to avoid being judged, punished, or seen as breaking the rules, even if no one is directly watching them.
One clear example of this is the use of CCTV cameras in public spaces. These cameras are a reminder that someone could be monitoring what you do. For instance, in a shopping center, knowing cameras are in place might stop someone from stealing because they don’t want to get caught. Even if no one is actually watching the footage, the idea that they might be is enough to influence behavior.
Foucault also talked about how surveillance has spread beyond just the legal system or prisons. He called this the carceral state. In this kind of society, punishment and control happen in everyday situations, not just through courts or police. For example, in some U.S. states, people who receive welfare benefits have to take drug tests. If they fail, they can lose their financial support. This is a form of control that uses surveillance to shape people’s behavior, even though it isn’t part of the traditional justice system.
This kind of constant control can affect how people feel. On the one hand, it might make society safer because people are encouraged to follow rules. On the other hand, it can create pressure and anxiety, as people may feel they are always being watched. Foucault’s ideas about the disciplinary society help us think about whether this kind of control is fair or if it goes too far. It raises important questions about how much freedom people should have and whether surveillance is being used in a way that benefits everyone equally.
Synoptic Surveillance
Thomas Mathiesen’s idea of synoptic surveillance looks at how surveillance works both ways: it’s not just about governments or big companies watching ordinary people, but also about individuals watching those in power. This bottom-up form of surveillance has become much easier with the rise of smartphones, social media, and citizen journalism. These tools allow everyday people to record and share events, holding powerful individuals and institutions accountable for their actions.
A clear example of synoptic surveillance is the public recording of police misconduct. During protests, people often use their phones to film incidents where police may act unfairly or violently. These videos are then shared widely on platforms like Twitter or Instagram, sparking public outrage and sometimes leading to formal investigations or legal action. For instance, the murder of George Floyd in 2020 was brought to light because a bystander filmed the incident and uploaded it online, leading to global protests and a trial that held the police officer accountable. This demonstrates how ordinary people can use surveillance to demand justice and challenge abuses of power.
Another example of synoptic surveillance is how politicians and celebrities are constantly under the watchful eye of the media and the public. John Thompson’s media surveillance theory explains how news outlets, paparazzi, and even social media users scrutinize public figures, reporting on their actions and often influencing their behaviour. For instance, politicians may face backlash if they are caught breaking rules, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic when some leaders were criticized for not following the restrictions they had imposed on others. Public pressure and the fear of being exposed can force powerful individuals to act more responsibly.
Social media also allows ordinary people to share their views about those in power, creating a kind of collective monitoring. For example, hashtags like #MeToo have been used to call out individuals and organizations for inappropriate behaviour, leading to significant consequences for those exposed. This shows how synoptic surveillance empowers people to speak up and hold others accountable.
Post-Panopticon Society
Zygmunt Bauman and David Lyon describe a new form of surveillance that they call the post-panopticon society. This builds on Michel Foucault’s earlier idea of the panopticon, which was a theoretical prison design where inmates could never be sure if they were being watched, leading them to control their own behaviour. In the post-panopticon society, surveillance has expanded beyond this simple model. It is now everywhere—spread across many platforms and technologies—but it is no longer clear who is doing the watching or why.
In this modern version of surveillance, people are constantly monitored in ways they may not even realize. For example, your fitness tracker records your physical activity, sleep patterns, and location, while your smartphone collects data on what apps you use, where you go, and even what you search online. While these devices are useful and marketed as tools for improving your life, the data they collect can be used for purposes you may not expect. For instance, companies might sell this information to advertisers, or it could be accessed by governments to track individuals.
Bauman and Lyon argue that this uncertainty—knowing that you are being watched but not knowing who is watching—creates a new kind of social control. People might change their behaviour simply because they feel they are under constant observation, even if they don't know the specifics. This can discourage crime or deviant behaviour, as individuals don’t want to risk being caught or judged. However, it also raises serious concerns about privacy and human rights. If every aspect of daily life is monitored, do people still have the freedom to act as they wish?
One example of this issue is the use of smart devices like Alexa or Google Home, which can listen to your voice commands to make your life easier. But these devices also collect and store data about your habits and preferences, which some worry could be accessed by hackers or used without your knowledge. Similarly, surveillance cameras and GPS systems track movements, but it’s not always clear who controls this information or how it might be used.
Bauman and Lyon highlight the danger of this kind of widespread surveillance. While it might make people feel safer or help prevent crime, it can also create a society where individuals have little control over their own data. This lack of privacy can lead to abuses of power, as those collecting the data may use it in ways that harm individuals or limit their freedoms. In a post-panopticon world, the balance between safety and personal rights becomes more important than ever.
Actuarial Justice
Feeley and Simon introduced the concept of actuarial justice, which uses data collected through surveillance to assess risks and predict the likelihood of criminal behaviour. This approach is widely used in areas like airport security, where passengers are screened based on factors such as their travel history, country of origin, or even their behaviour in the airport. By identifying patterns or characteristics that are considered "high-risk," authorities aim to prevent crimes such as smuggling or acts of terrorism before they happen.
For example, airport security might pay closer attention to a passenger traveling from a country with high levels of drug trafficking. This risk-based approach can help focus resources where they are most needed, increasing the chances of catching potential offenders. In some ways, it works like insurance companies calculating how risky someone is to insure. The more risks they see, the more scrutiny they apply.
Contemporary Case Studies
The Kilburn Experiment
The Kilburn Experiment, conducted by Newburn and Hayman, investigated how surveillance affects the criminal justice system in a London detention center. This study highlighted the benefits of constant monitoring through CCTV cameras and police body cameras, showing how these tools can provide critical evidence for both sides in a legal case. For suspects, this type of surveillance acts as protection, ensuring that their rights are upheld and that they are not subjected to mistreatment or coercion during detention. For example, if a suspect claimed they were forced to confess under duress, CCTV footage could verify whether this accusation was accurate.
At the same time, surveillance also protects police officers by providing a clear record of their interactions with suspects. If an officer is falsely accused of using excessive force, body camera footage can demonstrate whether their actions were within appropriate boundaries. This balance between protecting suspects and officers demonstrates how surveillance, when used correctly, can make the criminal justice system fairer and more transparent. However, the study also raised concerns about the potential misuse of surveillance and the implications of being constantly watched in such settings, which could contribute to feelings of mistrust or pressure among both suspects and law enforcement.
The Investigatory Powers Act (2016)
The Investigatory Powers Act, often referred to as the "Snooper’s Charter," is another example of how surveillance is used in modern society. This UK legislation allows intelligence agencies and law enforcement to access citizens’ internet histories and other digital communications without needing a warrant. Its main purpose is to help authorities detect and prevent serious crimes such as terrorism, child exploitation, and organized crime. By monitoring digital activity, the act enables officials to identify potential threats before they materialize, making it a powerful tool for preemptive crime prevention.
For example, the act allows agencies to flag individuals searching for materials related to terrorist activities or extremist ideologies. By analyzing patterns of online behavior, authorities can intervene early and possibly prevent dangerous situations from escalating. However, this approach has sparked significant debate about the trade-off between safety and privacy. Critics argue that the act grants excessive powers to the government, allowing them to collect and store personal data without sufficient oversight. This lack of transparency can lead to abuses of power and erode public trust in institutions.
One example of the act's application is the use of mass surveillance to monitor large-scale events, such as political protests. While this can help law enforcement ensure public safety, it has also raised concerns about whether such measures are being used to suppress dissent or unfairly target certain groups. These issues highlight the fine line between using surveillance to protect society and infringing on individual rights.
The Broader Implications
Both the Kilburn Experiment and the Investigatory Powers Act illustrate the dual nature of surveillance—it can enhance fairness and safety but also raises important ethical and legal questions. In detention centers, as seen in Kilburn, surveillance ensures accountability and transparency, yet it must be managed carefully to avoid overreach or misuse. Similarly, while the Investigatory Powers Act helps combat serious crimes, its potential for infringing on privacy has led many to question whether such powers are being used appropriately.
These case studies remind us that surveillance is not inherently good or bad; its impact depends on how it is applied, regulated, and perceived. As technology continues to advance, these issues will become even more relevant, requiring careful consideration of the balance between security and personal freedom.