3 ms·

This discussion makes a good point about how surveillance is deployed into society, first targeting prisoners and refugees, then low-level wage workers. For ex

This discussion makes a good point about how surveillance is deployed into society, first targeting prisoners and refugees, then low-level wage workers. For example, I wonder how these grad students would react if they were subjected to the Amazon warehouse surveillance system: > "...how the distance assistant works: green circles surround workers if they maintain six feet of distance. If workers get too close to each other, the circles light up red." > "...Drivers for Amazon, many of whom are third-party contractors driving Amazon vans, learned earlier this year that their vans would start to feature a four-part camera with biometric feedback indicators." https://www.businessinsider.com/how-amazon-monitors-employees-ai-cameras-union-surveillance-spy-agency-2021-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-amazon-monitors-employee...

don-code 4y ago
I was writing a response to this, the point of which was going to be that there's a gradient with regard to the amount of respect shown (or not shown) to people as they climb the social ladder, but at the same time, there are some forms of surveillance which by nature _can't_ be so selective in who's targeted. Now I'm not sure that's true. My argument was going to center around common places where surveillance happens - engagement tracking at grocery stores, license plate readers on traffic light cameras, and the like. It's hard to opt out of roads or grocery stores. But then I realized that even these reflect the gradient. Maybe big box stores like Walmart are deploying these technologies - are white-collar workers actually shopping there, or are they instead going to smaller, boutique-y shops who don't install them? Are traffic light cameras going into upper-class suburban settings, or are they first being deployed to major roads and arteries? So... I've more or less proved my initial thought wrong - this gradient does indeed persist, because people at higher rungs of the ladder are self-selecting for experiences which don't feature these kinds of surveillance (even if that is not their primary reason for doing so).
itronitron 4y ago
I feel like when the surveillance is set up within an organization (prison, school, company) it's done in order to enhance the power imbalance rather than enforce any particular behavior.

don-code 4y ago

I was writing a response to this, the point of which was going to be that there's a gradient with regard to the amount of respect shown (or not shown) to people as they climb the social ladder, but at the same time, there are some forms of surveillance which by nature _can't_ be so selective in who's targeted. Now I'm not sure that's true. My argument was going to center around common places where surveillance happens - engagement tracking at grocery stores, license plate readers on traffic light cameras, and the like. It's hard to opt out of roads or grocery stores. But then I realized that even these reflect the gradient. Maybe big box stores like Walmart are deploying these technologies - are white-collar workers actually shopping there, or are they instead going to smaller, boutique-y shops who don't install them? Are traffic light cameras going into upper-class suburban settings, or are they first being deployed to major roads and arteries? So... I've more or less proved my initial thought wrong - this gradient does indeed persist, because people at higher rungs of the ladder are self-selecting for experiences which don't feature these kinds of surveillance (even if that is not their primary reason for doing so).

itronitron 4y ago

I feel like when the surveillance is set up within an organization (prison, school, company) it's done in order to enhance the power imbalance rather than enforce any particular behavior.