All Knowing, All Seeing, Sound Familiar?

Cameras and computers have the ability to record and store an endless amount of information. Information is processed by the viewer and biases are taken into account while watching. Fiske explains that the use of cameras creates a greater amount of racial profiling that is already evident in western society. The viewers of the security cameras become more alert when a visible minority is in the frame and treat this person as if they are not the norm. What exactly is “the norm”? Could it be the beliefs of past generations? This article is based out of the United States and it is well known that racism was a large part of their nation’s culture until the 1960’s and still is entrenched within their society today. Fiske explained this by using many different examples such as the Rodney King incident and others that were featured on Oprah. Racism and discrimination should not be a value within a society dominated by surveillance.

A camera is impartial to its observers, and a security guard (viewer) should be as well. By not allowing their biases get in the way of fairness they are allowing justice to occur. I am talking about security as the form of surveillance here. A truly fair and just security system would be impartial to those that are being watched. As shown in examples by Fiske, acts of prejudice leading to violence were performed and videotaped in some cases. This shows that there are many flaws within the policing and security system due to bias..

The use of “videolow” appears to be beneficial for use of recording incidents. Lack of editing and effects of this low cost method creates an authentic feeling to it. “Videohigh” cost a great amount of money and is more commercially used. It is “videolow” that is mostly used by the “underdog” to prove guilt against those in power. This is an essential usage of surveillance because it is takes power from the authority and brings it to the powerless. In the cases described in Fiskes article the minority gains power against the white authority figure by using surveillance.

The first half of this course has described surveillance as being able to be used for good and bad purposes. I am unsure whether the good outweighs the bad or vice-versa. Our western civilization looks to be moving in a direction that depict surveillance as all powerful and the answer to many of society issues. It is up to the public to fight back against our right to privacy or lack thereof.

Help!

Gilles Deleuze explains societies of control. He says that we are in environments of enclosure such as the prison, hospital, factory, school, and family. Ideally we remain in these environments our entire life. This is how we are taught to live. I understand that we move on from one environment to the next throughout our lives, but I see a different idea. It appears in our society that many are free to choose what they want to do with their lives, and are not placed within the molds of a society of control.

This theory has been floating around for a while and has been brought into the media in the form of books, movies, and etc. It is too extreme to describe it as everyday life, yet it is frightful enough to scare. Using ideas such as “Keeping people employed until the installation of the new forces knocking at the door”. This invokes fear due to the fact that the individual is not in control of his own life.

Deleuze states that the factory was a place where its workers were treated equally and production was high but wages were low. He says that the corporation has replaced the factory in the society of control. Is this transferable to any aspect of life? I don’t understand why these ideas are limited to just the workforce. It really makes the idea much more difficult to comprehend and apply to our society.

Our society’s institutions have transformed from a mold to a modulation which forces us to adapt and adjust to the world around us. In the past the institutions (enclosures) such as schools and workplaces have forced us to act in such a way that can be described as a mold.

The film by farocki was very interesting because it allowed the viewer to not only see the soccer game in different perspectives, but allowed for viewing of cameras all around the arena. Seeing the coaches with a layer of what looks like play drawings on top changed the perception of the game for the viewer. This creates a new way to view the game which is not only appealing but is new and invigorating for the sports viewer.

Someone Should Tell Them

This problem, this situation that you mention in your question appears to have a relevant place in our world. Whether it be now, 5, 10, or 300 years from now; this virtual reality of a hostile takeover of our privacy is plausible and may become our reality. Yet in this insecure world where most of the human beings on the planet being are being manipulated to sign up for a rewards card and actually believe it is just a rewards card. It is not common knowledge that their purchases are being tracked. Their every move studied, analyzed, and decrypted.
This is where the problem lies, but an education of what the companies are actually doing for those unknowing people who simply want a free trip to that hot, hot island that lies just down south might just change their opinions on these cards. Would cardholders freely give up this knowledge if they knew what was really happening? Or would they feel that this is an intrusion of their privacy. I believe it is that latter and the problem remains that people do not know they are being tracked.
As more and more of these rewards programs become popular; it seems that we as humans will be increasingly more desensitized to the surveillance that is already lingering everywhere we go.
As common sense has always said (or maybe just my mothers words), "nothing in life is free". We have to give to receive and that will be forever entrenched in our beliefs, and so for the heads of the rewards companies, they are doing nothing wrong.