The documentary Voyeur (2017) has two subjects. The first is Gerald Foos, a voyeur who secretly observed guests at his motel. Foos built an observation platform above the motel’s rooms and spent decades spying on guests through fake ceiling air vents. In violating the privacy of his guests, Foos witnesses their unmanaged backstage selves in addition to sexual acts, heated arguments, and even a murder. Even more intriguing, Foos considers this to be his “research”
NYT, 2019, 12:15… The surveillance state is the stuff of dystopian novels and futuristic thrillers. Or, as revealed in the Video Op-Ed above, it’s here now. With ad trackers on our phones, facial recognition cameras on our streets and N.S.A. agents listening in on our phone calls, Big Brother is watching. Throughout 2019, The New York Times Opinion department’s Privacy Project has been trying to make the conversation about privacy a little less boring, a little less complicated and a lot more real. We keep hearing, “I’ve got nothing to hide” or “I can’t actually do anything about it.” But when the government fails to protect your privacy, it’s up to you to set your limits. It’s time to decide: Are you really O.K. with being watched?
The New York Times, 2019, 4:28… Police databases now feature the faces of nearly half of Americans — most of whom have no idea their image is there. The invasive technology violates citizens’ constitutional rights and is subject to an alarming level of manipulation and bias. Our privacy, our right to anonymity in public and our right to free speech are in danger.
ABC News Australia, 2018, 27:14… When big government meets big data, you get 'Social credit', China's new amalgamation of all data points collected on an individual and processed to produce a 'score' that ranks you based on 'trustworthiness'. Score high, and you can reap rewards like lower interest rates or speedier services, but fall foul, and you could end up under effective house arrest.
How does the power elite view their employees in 2017? First off, they remove the human element by calling them "performers" (as opposed to people) and are introducing technologies that further solidify a panoptical structure of control... This hour-long episode has shocking examples of economic and employment changes which are discussed in a corporate ideological framework. Technological impacts on education are discussed too. Concepts evident here include the work/life balance, the power elite, neoliberalism, panoptical surveillance, depersonalization, class struggle, and many more...
Available FREE for a limited time on YouTube. Original video link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0990xks/billion-dollar-deals-and-how-they-changed-your-world-series-1-3-work
A timeless example of impression management, the managed self, and front-stage/back-stage behavior. My favorite part of this tantrum is 1:18 when he momentarily snaps back into a composed impression. In 5, 4, 3, ...
“A new law going into effect in the U.K. gives the British government sweeping new surveillance capabilities. The Investigatory Powers Act grants intelligence agencies and local authorities the right to access the internet history of any British citizen they target. It may be the most extreme surveillance act in the Western world. Later this year, the British government will be able to require internet service providers to record the websites and messaging applications their customers visit and keep that information for one year. The data will then be available for use by 48 different national and local authorities without the need for a warrant”.
Here is a frightful manifestation of broken windows policing taken to the extreme. We see a police force largely composed of non-natives to the city set up a panoptical surveillance system in an attempt to combat crime. The city's residents, who were alienated from the decision-making process here, feel as if their community has been invaded by this new police force. Although the crime rate drops slightly, is it worth the social damage to the community?
“Camden, New Jersey is one of the poorest and most drug-ridden cities in the country; its murder rate is 12 times the national average. In 2011, the city cut its police force almost in half, with nearly 80,000 residents regularly being policed by 12 cops at a time. The state stepped in to overhaul the department, introducing an experimental “Metro” security apparatus equipped with futuristic technologies like gunshot detecting, triangulation microphones, and automatic license-plate readers. As similar surveillance systems are implemented across the country, Vikram Gandhi went to Camden to see how these tactics are working, how residents feel about their loss of privacy, and what the future of policing looks like.”
This fascinating video asks a question ripe for sociological analysis-- Why do we accept structural or institutional surveillance but reject individual surveillance? Are they not the same thing? In an age where cameras are ubiquitous this issue lends itself to a discussion students find engaging and meaningful. You can use this to discuss levels of analysis (institutions vs individuals), power and social control (active vs. passive surveillance), the law's ability to keep pace with technological development (personal drones, for instance), and much more...
