In a communications studies class and an instance of breaking the academic fourth wall; it was discussed in class as to whether we as a society actually care that we live under Cryptoptic and Panoptical surveillance. Though, the class, by enlarge agreed that it is a concern and that it bothers the population as a whole. I disagree. Surveillance perseveres as a cultural value in the world today because it tempers citizenry into docility for the matter. We merely recognize it and for the most part (and I do not mean completely), are accepting of it. The most immediate example of this is the concept of security theatre.
With the NSA, CIA and Jeremy and of course, corporate surveillance being so prevalent; it is easy to attribute society as being falling under Jeremy Bentham’s Panoptical model of surveillance. Large institutions and Governments act as the centre tower in the Panoptical illustration and the masses are the cell walls. This illustration should be thought of in the Cryptoptical sense as well; this is where I believe is a fundamental break in between most people. Some would argue that there is no gaze of punishment eyeing the consumers to those that act against accorded usage of networks such as social media and shopping networks Example; Facebook and Amazon. I disagree with this assertion. If you say something unpopular on social media or simply do not participate in a public dialogue on a prominent political stance, consequences can besiege you. Not saying anything about a Supreme Court nominee publicly? Co-workers may be hesitant to associate you without knowing your stance on the matter. This is no different without technologies involved. Roman tribes acted the same way without Facebook. In a sense; I am not so sure there truly is a cryptopticon that is different at all from the panoptical model.
In recent decades, both municipalities and market driven conglomerates have been increasing their use of surveillance as a deterrent rather than for investigative purposes. Traffic cameras are the perfect example of this. The airport security measures, such as xray machines fit in this category, right? An example of surveillance that does not underscore the asymmetrical relationship between authority and peer would be the monitoring of credit by banks. Most would see this as a service, but of course, with credit checks, there is always another edge to that sword. Security theatre is the act of putting on a show in order for a populace to feel more secure. Check out the link below:
This controversy with game is an act of security theatre; It only wants to make advertisers feel safe in the same way the TSA wants passengers to feel safe despite not being very effective at preventing security threats. Upon my assertion that the Cryptopticon and the Panopticon are one in the same; We truly are not concerned with mass surveillance as our own consumption, desires and expectations feed the surveillance and births a systemic form of self policing. We may, however, be concerned with abusers of mass surveillance and our concern mainly deals with how to address them.
shamalmadingdong 