This article might lead a reader to think that surveillance is in itself a problem, using terms like ‘invasive’, and ‘normalising’ (as though the thing being ‘n

This article might lead a reader to think that surveillance is in itself a problem, using terms like ‘invasive’, and ‘normalising’ (as though the thing being ‘normalised’ is undesirable). While it does appear to distinguish between surveillance and breach of privacy, it doesn’t do so carefully enough. What I actually want are devices that let me surveil MORE of my life, but in ways that respect my privacy, that leave me in control of that data. There are so many benefits that we can receive if companies/software/products were to offer us greater insights(/‘invasive surveillance’) into our lives without breaching our privacy or trust. When I am surveilling my own life, with devices that only share my data in ways I happily consent to, there is no problem. I can reap great benefits through this. I can take photos of myself and my family. I can monitor my heart through a device on my wrist. I can write personal notes in a journal (whether on paper or digitised) for later reflection. I can keep a history of sites I’ve visited in my browser. What a company like Apple claims to be doing is to try and bring us the benefits of surveillance without the breaches of privacy — without the forced and reluctant consent to share our data with everyone. Surveillance isn’t the enemy, it’s companies trying to make a product out of that data that really we’d prefer not to share at all.