1.+Essay+-original-

In our modern society, we have to deal with the notion of being watched on a daily basis much more than earlier generations had to before the turn of the century. George Orwell predicted a society that by the year 1982 would be controlled by the watchful eye of the government and that there would be no privacy outside the home or even within it. Clearly we are not at the point where “Big Brother” is watching our every move, but we are a lot closer to Orwell’s vision of the world than we think. Surveillance is often used to provide security for citizens and is hoped to act as deterrents to crime in certain areas where cameras are placed. However, there is often surveillance equipment in places that are meant to take information about spending habits, social behaviour, societal trends and anything else that helps corporations and governments know more about their citizens. This allows our governments and social structures to properly organize themselves and serve the people with regards to how why and where they spend their money and in what capacity, and also in what scope they contribute to society. [1 ]  Nevertheless, the question remains, how much does this surveillance encroach on the privacy of these citizens? It is important to raise awareness that we are being constantly watched and that our actions and behaviours are being recorded, and that we must take a vested interest in not allowing this type of practice to go on without some sort of guiding hand in its policy, because if we are apathetic about it, we may not have any say in the matter until it is too late. The history of surveillance can be traced back to the origins of the nation state and perhaps even before then. The Nation states of Europe were essentially “Information societies” because they needed to know about the people that inhabited them. Giddens asserts that these nation states had to retain control of both “Allocative” and “Authoritative” resources, which encompassed development and management duties as well as authority and rule, which are both fundamentally gained through surveillance of its people. This has not changed to this very day. Societies of this age are fundamentally the same in that they need to collect, save and manage information so that they can run a qualitative and effective society. [2 ]  The primary stakeholders of surveillance have expanded since the middle part of the 20th century. Where it was solely the government who was keeping a watchful eye on its population, we can now see that corporations are increasingly rivalling government organizations for information on the general public. The utilization of more subtle means of surveillance is used to control the consumer and elicit certain buying habits from them. Companies that wish to assert more social control over the population do so through consumerism, [3 ]  and by finding out what certain people like or are more likely to spend their money on, they are better able to develop a product which will help them achieve this. Because big companies are likely to be campaign contributors to the government or have a guiding hand in what types of policies the government adopts, they can be extremely influential about a great many things. This type of passive surveillance has been going on for quite some time, and even now we don’t often regard it as invasive or think that it can do much harm. Being surveyed about our buying habits and about what products we would be more than likely to spend our money on can have its benefits in terms of them developing products that we wish to own. However, these companies have the position and the power to go even further with their surveillance methods and this is happening right now without fanfare and without awareness from the general population of most major city states. One notable occurrence of an overabundance of surveillance is the growing number of CCTVs in major cities, most notably in the UK where they are so commonplace it is practically impossible to go anywhere without being recorded on some sort of video device. This is raising issues on whether or not people’s privacy is being violated and given the fact that this is merely the tip of the iceberg in most major cities, it is not unheard of that the use of “Biometric, genomic, and location and tracking technologies” are already in use. [4 ]  Furthermore, in Toronto, we have almost 12,000 surveillance cameras on the public transit system attempting to ensure the safety of its passengers as well as their operators. [5 ]  The government privacy policy options in Toronto are exemplified by the TTC and the strict guidelines that are mandated to them by the Privacy Commissioner in which they have to “Delete video data after three days unless it's needed for a police investigation, conduct annual audits to make sure privacy rules are followed and test a privacy-enhancing technology, under development at University of Toronto, that automatically encrypts people's images.” [6 ]   Nevertheless, despite efforts to adhere to a certain protocol of privacy protection, it is likely that there are still those who may fear their privacy is being violated by such an abundant amount of image detection software if they were to use public transit. There were other issues as well that were at the centre of this controversy and roused debate about the ethics and legalities of their use. For instance, in Britain, the opposition to the proposed “National Identity Register” and some kind of mandatory ID card for its citizens has actually yielded some government concessions with that regard. Moreover, there was demand for a compulsory “Privacy Impact Assessment” for any new legislation that has to do with surveillance of people and public places. [7 ]  These victories over potential privacy violations are few and far between and it is usually the private sector that is always the one under observation. Furthermore, there is an inevitable growth of surveillance within our borders because the need to protect our citizens is constantly growing [8 ] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> and as long as there is no objection to the expansion of surveillance cameras within the city, then it can only be assumed that these government policies are welcome. There is virtually no objection to the huge amount of CCTVs in the UK, and the same can be said about Torontonians who are perhaps witnessing the same type of surveillance development without any kind of protest on their part. <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">[9 ] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> Giddens refers to “Internal Pacification” as the basis of the nation state and is something that must first be achieved in order to maintain stability in peripheral areas. <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">[10 ] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> The concept of surveillance within the nation state to achieve pacification is integral to the duties not only of the state but of its citizens as well. <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">[11 ] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> This is all well and good in the attempts to maintain a certain sense of security among society, but when this surveillance encroaches upon the borders of ones private life, there must be certain safeguards in place to ensure that people’s private lives are not being invaded or taken advantage of. Ultimately, the emergence of the surveillance state is something that has been upon us for quite some time and at this point in time, it would be naïve to think that there was anything that could be done to rollback the type of intrusions that have already been inflicted upon the public sphere. Nevertheless, there is quite a lot that can be done with regards to preventing it from getting any worse. When Jeremy Bentham developed his Panopticon, it is unlikely that he imagined his design would become a metaphorical term for the state of our society. Nevertheless, the digital panopticon that we are now a part of is firmly entrenched into our daily lives. It is an unfortunate reality that we cannot go anywhere without being videotaped or have our behaviour recorded through various means. One of the big contributing factors to all of this is that most people don’t even know they are being watched and that their personal information is being shared without their consent. What’s even more troubling is that most people don’t seem to even care. This needs to change right away before it’s too late and people need to start becoming more aware of the type of information they are giving up about themselves. If they are aware and they still don’t mind, then that is their choice. Nevertheless, it is crucial that people are made aware of the surveillance society that has been built around them. In reality, the only thing that can be done to combat this invasion of privacy by the digital panopticon of our modern society is to be aware of it. Awareness is the first step in acknowledging the elephant in the room, and if we know we are being watched and that every piece of information we transmit through cyberspace is being recorded somewhere then perhaps people will be more careful about what they put out into the world. The most effective communication strategy would be to use the tools of technology at our disposal and put them to good use, by explaining to people via websites and ad campaigns that they are being monitored, but that it is within their power to force the government to protect their privacy. Ideally, a successful ad campaign would be the best way to achieve this goal. There is no shortage of artists who are sympathetic to the protection of privacy and would be able to create images that would successfully leave a lasting impression on people. The key messages would simply state that we are being watched constantly and that our privacy is in jeopardy. Furthermore, we have the option to accept that or take a stand and ensure that our government endeavours to do a better job of protecting our right to privacy. The scope of this venture would be as wide as possible in order to effectively attract a large number of people to help ensure that there are no further encroachments on our right to keep certain things private. There is strength in numbers and by having a broad base of supporters who could successfully lobby the government to make changes in these regards would be greatly beneficial and prevent the Orwellian view of the future from becoming a reality. If we simply allow these practices to continue then we are relinquishing our powers within a free and democratic state to shape the society that we inhabit. We have the right and the power to protect ourselves from any violation of our civil rights. It is evident that certain surveillance protocols are necessary and that in some ways the gathering of information can be helpful to communities and individuals. However, if these practices are done in a subversive way, then it is a violation not only of our privacy, but also a sign of nefarious practices that should make us weary of the government and companies that are supposedly their for our best interests. Surely Jeremy Bentham created his panopticon to help those who were defenceless in a society that was not as free and diplomatic as the one we inhabit today. It is unlikely that he would approve of the evolution of his design to take advantage of those he was intent on protecting. The digital evolution of our time has brought us many benefits, but we must ensure that we do not fall prey to its more threatening elements, which if left unchecked, could severely damage the society that we know and love.
 * __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Cultural Transformation; The Rise of the Surveillance State __**


 * __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Work Cited __**

[1] <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 115%;">Webster, Frank 1995, __Theories of the Information Society__. New York: Routledge, 2002. pg. 54. <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 115%;"> [2] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Ibid., Pg. 59. <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 115%;">[3] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Lyon, David. The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 1994. Pg. 61. <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 115%;">[4] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Lyon, David. __Surveillance Studies; An Overview__. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007. Pg. 111. <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 115%;">[5] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> “Ontario Privacy Chief Gives Green Light to TTC Surveillance Plans.” March 3, 2008. __CBC News__. Feb 2, 2010. <[]> <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 115%;">[6] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Gillespie, Kerrie. “Green Light for TTC’s 11,000 Cameras.” March 4, 2008. __The Toronto Star__. Feb 2, 2010. < []> <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 115%;">[7] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> David. “UK Opposition Plans to Roll Back the Surveillance State.” __Notes from the Ubiquitous Surveillance Society__. September 16, 2009. Retrieved March 1, 2010 < []> <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 115%;">[8] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Webster. Pg. 65. <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 115%;">[9] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Kopun, Francine. “Always Under Surveillance.” February 5, 2010. The Toronto Star. March 1, 2010. < []> <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%; line-height: 115%;">[10] <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> Webster. Pg. 66. <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">[11] <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Webster. Pg. 68