Topics: Security & Insecurity, Insights, Privacy & Liberties, Interesting Tech, Networked World, Television, Culture, Surveillance, Technology, "privurity"

Interesting and profound cultural observations in the essay "Seeing & Believeing" on The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society" site. Peter Suderman examines how two popular US television shows -- "24" and "The Wire" -- handle technological surveillance in their plot-lines.

Both programmes extensively depict the use of surveillance technology. But "24" and "The WIre" differ greatly how tech surveillance is portrayed. Suderman observes:

---
Fox's 24 bows in awe of the omnipotence and omnipresence of satellites and fiber optics, while HBO's The Wire regards phone taps and recording devices suspiciously, as flawed tools that reveal the corrupt nature of bureaucracy and are, at best, necessary evils. Thus, the difference between the two shows is one of belief: one's view of surveillance technology is based in faith, the other’s in doubt.
---

After the essay contrasts how the two programmes differ, it makes several interesting observations about surveillance, identity, and society:

---
In the end, both 24 and The Wire traffic in a sort of meta-voyeurism: Their appeal is based in no small part on giving us the ability to watch others watching. Both shows recognize the power granted by surveillance technology; it gives its users the ability to peer into others’ lives. These shows
replicate and multiply that power for the viewer, reeling us in with a multi-layered voyeurism that, through television, brings that power into viewers' homes.

At its core, the power of surveillance is the power to know others. The most basic function of surveillance is to tell who someone is—whether a terrorist, a drug dealer, an informant, an enemy, or a friend. Both shows reflect this: Their use of surveillance is inextricably linked to questions of identity.
[...]
In these shows, the old adage is most certainly true: It's not what you know—it's who you know.

In our hyperconnected age, we too increasingly know others through electronic means: blogs, websites, text messages, profiles on social networking sites. More than ever, their reliability, scope, and control are issues of daily importance in determining who we know and what we think we know about them. How do we know when to trust what we find in search engines or streaming news sites? When should we discount our electronic eyes and ears, treating them as imperfect creations of imperfect beings? And when should we bow before their power to inform us? If so much interaction depends on electronic tools, can we ever truly know anyone? The Wire acknowledges our fear that we never will; 24 gives us hope that, with faith, we might.
---

Although I find the above explanation of the "core power of surveillance" somewhat flawed, the commentary is good though-provoking one.

Regarding surveillance's "core power", there is also the ability to communicate the nature of relationships among the observers and the observed. This communication or "education" is a key intent of Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon concept. The process of surveillance and responses based upon it were to morally re-shape the observed people. In his Panopticon Letters, Bentham notes, "You will please to observe, that though perhaps it is the most important point, that the persons to be inspected should always feel themselves as if under inspection, at least as standing a great chance of being so, yet it is not by any means the only one." This communication may be more powerful and problematic than the power of identification.

There are views of surveillance, including sousveillance, that seek a more equal relationship between the observers and the observed. But many organisations prefer the "one-way gaze". The degree of openness and accountability for the observers as well as the observed will be a simmering issue for the next few decades.

"Here's looking at you..."
J.D. Abolins