Cameras and abuse are part of the same language of power, control, and mistrust. Discretion is a matter of trusting power, and as I've mentioned, discretion sh

Cameras and abuse are part of the same language of power, control, and mistrust. Discretion is a matter of trusting power, and as I've mentioned, discretion shrinks in front of a camera. When cameras provide the kind of ammunition to humiliate, sue, or pressure for job termination, then your discretion is compromised. Why did one forgive one youthful offender of marijuana possession and not the other? Was it race? These are potentially humiliating questions. We can also contemplate what it means for employers to extend monitoring to social media, and whether that compromises your willingness to express your thinking in forums, and whether monitoring employees has anything to do with control and trust. Recently US border patrol agents were found discussing Latinos and other minorities in depraved ways. Does observation of their social media restrict their individual expression? Yes it does. As to the fact that judges and other parties have discretion, well, I have at least forwarded one example of judges sentencing more harshly based on whether they've had lunch. That is part of discretion -- that some people get to enjoy the sweet fruits and others do not. This humiliating fact about judicial discretion would not have been known without observation.