Surveillance in different regions has different interpretations for different classes and occupations. But it is very important to distinguish whether the surveillance attributes are good or bad depends on whether there is a reasonable and appropriate purpose for the monitoring behavior.
The article mentions that Eila said that the people who established a certain surveillance method are showing distrust of those being watched, and I do not fully agree with this statement. Distrust may be one of them, but not the main reason. I think the primary reason lies in the monitors themselves. Surveillance can be an effective means of ensuring the completion of the work, and it can also restrict the inappropriate behavior of the monitored people. When the monitor feels distrustful to the person being monitored, it often results in bad results. When the monitoring does not play the role of the monitor, the monitor will take the action of intensifying the monitoring. It should be at this time shows that the monitor may not trust the monitored anymore.
Suspicious people are often treated differently, such as a criminal who has been in prison. When people learn that they have a criminal record, they will unconsciously stay away from him, and be vigilant, and even pay close attention to his every move. This is the price of crime and also the psychologically unconscious monitoring behavior of people. Just like the crime theory mentioned in the article, I think this will inevitably lead to a misunderstanding of surveillance by some people. The misunderstanding is that surveillance is suspicion, which will lead to unpredictable behavior of pessimism. This situation is common in real life. The stigma brought by this suspicion can cause great pressure on the monitored person and it is difficult to relieve. The most common example of removing criminals is patients with mental illness, even if they have recovered. Often it is still impossible to get rid of the label of the mental patient. Family and friends will secretly monitor if they take medicine on time and if there are abnormal behaviors, strangers will give special treatment. For example, the character Zicong in the TV series The Distance Between Us and Evil, the illusion he always produced before holding the kindergarten, was that someone was monitoring him, and in the later treatment period, because of the special care of the people around him, he felt a sense of being watched, which caused his emotions to intensify and he became ill again. For my experience, my grandma always said not to pay too much attention to her, and think carefully that we sometimes make others feel uncomfortable because of excessive care, and people tend to look at things from the perspective that they think is correct, even if they are sometimes biased.
I have some questions about the theory of Panopticon. The theory mentioned in this article has a very important assumption, that is, prisoners will restrain their heroes to achieve mutual surveillance and self-imprisonment when they are not sure whether they are being watched. And the resulting uncertainty is also how the rights of monitors are guaranteed. So what if this uncertainty does not exist? Do prisoners who have already committed law need to worry about being monitored? Unless each prisoner is an honest person who “absolutely does not allow prisoners to do bad things,” the effect of mutual surveillance is difficult to achieve. On the other hand, if the prisoner tests the presence of surveillance by crossing the line just on the line, and the results have not changed, is there any possibility that this uncertainty will weaken over time.
Besides, the digitized Panopticon theory is mentioned in the article. In the Internet era, some people think that big data is gradually forming this theory. But I am a little bit confused. If the collector of big data corresponds to the role of the monitor in the round prison, then as the source of the generated data-we, the monitored, actually do not reach the “self-confinement”. For restraint, it is difficult to be aware of the existence of a surveillance, resulting in no significant withdrawal of uncertainty, and people will still unconsciously expose their privacy. At this level, the theory may need to be more considered, after all, the cultural atmosphere has also changed greatly.
Bring u back to HOME 