6 ms·

I'm not sure that panopticon is the right word for this. Bentham's panopticon extended into the prisoners' cells, and with the intent that they would never know

I'm not sure that panopticon is the right word for this. Bentham's panopticon extended into the prisoners' cells, and with the intent that they would never know if they were being surveilled or not. ANPR in the UK doesn't have these characteristics. Firstly, it happens in public places only, and historically we have exactly zero expectation of privacy in public spaces in the UK. Secondly, there's no chilling effect caused by the selective and unknown application of surveillance; the cameras and computers "watch" every car equally. Overall, I can't say I love the number of ANPR cameras we have, but then I'm also not thrilled by the thought of subsidising large numbers of people who aren't willing to hold up their side of the social contract by taxing and insuring their cars.

tredre3 2y ago
> and with the intent that they would never know if they were being surveilled or not. [...] there's no chilling effect caused by the selective and unknown application of surveillance; the cameras and computers "watch" every car equally. I disagree. Nobody expects all camera footage to be reviewed by a person, so you never know if what the camera caught will ever be seen (or used against you). In that sense, it's just like the panopticon. You feel watched so you behave, but whether you are watched or not in that moment is unknown.
- gnfargbl 2y ago
  That's part of my point, though: these cameras are basically never reviewed by a person. So you are reliably watched constantly, but never by a human. This does lead to the problem that the post I replied to was pointing out, namely that people often get automated fines for cloned plates. It's kind of like the opening of Brazil, if you're familiar with that film, but obviously for much lower stakes.
  - curiousObject 2y ago
    But we don’t know the capabilities of the machine systems watching the cameras, although we should assume they are getting more capable. So the results are unpredictable, just as they would be if humans randomly checked the cameras recordings.
jchw 2y ago
I'm pretty confident you also have roughly zero expectation of privacy in prison. Edit: I don't know why this one of all things is getting downvoted, but at least in the U.S., this is legitimately true. > In Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984), the Supreme Court held that people in prison don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_v._Palmer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_v._Palmer
- cwillu 2y ago
  Because it's not particularly relevant. The term comes from the prison system, where there is no expectation of privacy, and is being applied to describe a public setting where there maybe _should_ be some expectation, because we're not prisoners!
  - jchw 2y ago
    ...But, the post I am replying to is literally suggesting that the reason why this system isn't a panopticon is because there isn't an expectation of privacy in public. Yet, the term comes from another place where there also isn't an expectation of privacy. I honestly suspect people are getting a little confused.
    - gnfargbl 2y ago
      I was drawing a contrast between the prisoner in the panopticon (does not have privacy) and the citizen in their home (has privacy). Because of that contrast, I was suggesting that panopticon is an inappropriate term for surveillance that happens only in public spaces.
      - jchw 2y ago
        Going back up a few levels, > I think the crazy thing about ANPR/ALPR is just quite how simple it is to create a massive panopticon. The UK has a fairly established national ANPR system, and it generates on the order of 90M records per day [1]. All of this data is available to various law enforcement agencies. If you drive, you're probably being recorded in a way accessible to the PNC every day. So we're talking about tracking plate numbers, in public. No expectations of privacy. Now regarding what the panopticon was, > The panopticon is a prison design by Jeremy Bentham, characterized by a central observation tower allowing a guard to see all inmates without the inmates knowing if they are being watched, fostering a sense of constant surveillance and self-discipline. So we're talking about monitoring prisoners, in prison cells. No expectations of privacy. --- > I was drawing a contrast between the prisoner in the panopticon (does not have privacy) and the citizen in their home (has privacy). Now we're talking about citizens in their homes. When did that enter the discussion? > I was suggesting that panopticon is an inappropriate term for surveillance that happens only in public spaces. OK... Why?
graemep 2y ago
> historically we have exactly zero expectation of privacy in public spaces in the UK. True, but we also had zero expectation of permanent records being kept of so much of what we do in public spaces, or being under such constant surveillance in public spaces. I think that is a concern. > Overall, I can't say I love the number of ANPR cameras we have, but then I'm also not thrilled by the thought of subsidising large numbers of people who aren't willing to hold up their side of the social contract by taxing and insuring their cars. ANPR does not seem to have put a stop to it. I really cannot understand why. If someone has not made a Statutory Off Road Notification they must pay tax and be insured, and if they are caught on an ANPR camera having made a SORN they are clearly breaking the law With such widespread use of ANPR I cannot understand how people are still able to get away with it.
- henrikschroder 2y ago
  > > historically we have exactly zero expectation of privacy in public spaces in the UK. > True, but we also had zero expectation of permanent records being kept of so much of what we do in public spaces, or being under such constant surveillance in public spaces. I think that is a concern. I've been watching a bunch of "auditor" videos from the UK. These guys are basically trolling by going around with a camera in public, filming stuff, and fishing for reactions that they can then post on Youtube or TikTok or Reels or whatever for views and engagement. One thing that's very consistent across these videos is how many of their victims truly believe that you need permission to film people in public, or that they can walk up to the guy with the camera and demand to know who he is or that he deletes the footage. So a lot of people are acting as if they had much stronger rights to privacy than they really do, people think they're generally safe from being constantly surveilled, when the opposite is in fact true. Another thing that's also hilariously consistent is when these auditors film businesses, and representatives of those businesses, usually the store manager, goes out and tells them they can't film the customers going in and out of the store because that's "against company policy" or "because of respect for our customers' privacy". At the same time, those stores have tons of security camera inside the store, recording every little thing every single customer is doing all the time. The hypocrisy is blatant. Everybody wants to monitor everyone else, but no-one wants to be monitored by anyone.
thatcat 2y ago
Insurance isn't a social contract, it's private business foisted upon you and enforced by the government. Isn't it bad enough that your taxes, which are a real social contract, go to pay government workers to ensure that you're purchasing the required private, for profit, service? Now we're building surveillance infrastructure for them.
- chii 2y ago
  > Insurance isn't a social contract, it's private business foisted upon you so if you had an accident that caused damage to somebody else, and you didnt have money to pay for said damage, who makes the other party whole?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- cwillu 2y ago
  FWIW, there is such a thing as public-sector insurance. The required auto insurance in saskatchewan, for instance, is tied to your registration and administered by the same crown corporation, which doesn't have the profit motive that a private insurer has.
- toast0 2y ago
  The social contract is really to fix the damage your (at fault) collisions cause. At least in jurisdictions I've been in, the state requires evidence of financial responsibility as a requirement for driving. (Enforcement is a separate issue from requirement). A car insurance policy is evidence of financial responsibility, and the most common; but you can also post a bond of something like the minimum insurance amounts. Yes, if you don't have the money to post a bond, you're more or less forced into insurance or not driving (or driving illegaly), but that's we know you'll uphold the social construct of fixing the damages you cause. You don't need insurance to ride a bicycle, because it's not as easy to cause damages with a bicycle.
  - tialaramex 2y ago
tengwar2 2y ago
"expectation of privacy" is one of those slippery terms where lawyers use it differently from the public, and this isn't immediately obvious. Historically, we have expected that people can see us in public. However we have not had the expectation that: - that we are identifiable to people other than acquaintances - that we can be tracked by people not present, either at the time or later - and for someone to physically follow you to track your movements would fairly quickly lead to alarm and summoning the police to remove them. So no, other than lawyer's argot, we have always had a reasonable expectation of privacy in public places. Not absolute privacy, but privacy in the areas that matter to most of us.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
  There's a similar issue around phone metadata. If someone knows that you've made a particular call at a certain time, you wouldn't be concerned about them spying on you, but if they had access to all your phone call records, then they can put together a picture about you and your acquaintances.
  - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
    Yep. Quantity is a quality all its own. Being stalked by a million virtual cops at all times doesn't feel like freedom to me
mywittyname 2y ago
> Secondly, there's no chilling effect caused by the selective and unknown application of surveillance; People carry a cellphone with them, these by-and-large have multiple high resolution cameras along with microphones. Some even have LIDAR. Plus they are constantly emitting pulses that can be captured from several kilometers. A person could be selectively surveilled without their knowing by monitoring their phone. This is ignoring the massive network of internet connected private security cameras and police drones, which are very adept at monitoring people, as well as theoretical technology that we don't know is in use (i.e., using high frequency radio waves to "see" through walls).

tredre3 2y ago

> and with the intent that they would never know if they were being surveilled or not. [...] there's no chilling effect caused by the selective and unknown application of surveillance; the cameras and computers "watch" every car equally. I disagree. Nobody expects all camera footage to be reviewed by a person, so you never know if what the camera caught will ever be seen (or used against you). In that sense, it's just like the panopticon. You feel watched so you behave, but whether you are watched or not in that moment is unknown.

gnfargbl 2y ago
That's part of my point, though: these cameras are basically never reviewed by a person. So you are reliably watched constantly, but never by a human. This does lead to the problem that the post I replied to was pointing out, namely that people often get automated fines for cloned plates. It's kind of like the opening of Brazil, if you're familiar with that film, but obviously for much lower stakes.
- curiousObject 2y ago
  But we don’t know the capabilities of the machine systems watching the cameras, although we should assume they are getting more capable. So the results are unpredictable, just as they would be if humans randomly checked the cameras recordings.

jchw 2y ago

I'm pretty confident you also have roughly zero expectation of privacy in prison. Edit: I don't know why this one of all things is getting downvoted, but at least in the U.S., this is legitimately true. > In Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984), the Supreme Court held that people in prison don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_v._Palmer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_v._Palmer

cwillu 2y ago
Because it's not particularly relevant. The term comes from the prison system, where there is no expectation of privacy, and is being applied to describe a public setting where there maybe _should_ be some expectation, because we're not prisoners!
- jchw 2y ago
  ...But, the post I am replying to is literally suggesting that the reason why this system isn't a panopticon is because there isn't an expectation of privacy in public. Yet, the term comes from another place where there also isn't an expectation of privacy. I honestly suspect people are getting a little confused.
  - gnfargbl 2y ago
    I was drawing a contrast between the prisoner in the panopticon (does not have privacy) and the citizen in their home (has privacy). Because of that contrast, I was suggesting that panopticon is an inappropriate term for surveillance that happens only in public spaces.
    - jchw 2y ago
      Going back up a few levels, > I think the crazy thing about ANPR/ALPR is just quite how simple it is to create a massive panopticon. The UK has a fairly established national ANPR system, and it generates on the order of 90M records per day [1]. All of this data is available to various law enforcement agencies. If you drive, you're probably being recorded in a way accessible to the PNC every day. So we're talking about tracking plate numbers, in public. No expectations of privacy. Now regarding what the panopticon was, > The panopticon is a prison design by Jeremy Bentham, characterized by a central observation tower allowing a guard to see all inmates without the inmates knowing if they are being watched, fostering a sense of constant surveillance and self-discipline. So we're talking about monitoring prisoners, in prison cells. No expectations of privacy. --- > I was drawing a contrast between the prisoner in the panopticon (does not have privacy) and the citizen in their home (has privacy). Now we're talking about citizens in their homes. When did that enter the discussion? > I was suggesting that panopticon is an inappropriate term for surveillance that happens only in public spaces. OK... Why?

graemep 2y ago

> historically we have exactly zero expectation of privacy in public spaces in the UK. True, but we also had zero expectation of permanent records being kept of so much of what we do in public spaces, or being under such constant surveillance in public spaces. I think that is a concern. > Overall, I can't say I love the number of ANPR cameras we have, but then I'm also not thrilled by the thought of subsidising large numbers of people who aren't willing to hold up their side of the social contract by taxing and insuring their cars. ANPR does not seem to have put a stop to it. I really cannot understand why. If someone has not made a Statutory Off Road Notification they must pay tax and be insured, and if they are caught on an ANPR camera having made a SORN they are clearly breaking the law With such widespread use of ANPR I cannot understand how people are still able to get away with it.

henrikschroder 2y ago
> > historically we have exactly zero expectation of privacy in public spaces in the UK. > True, but we also had zero expectation of permanent records being kept of so much of what we do in public spaces, or being under such constant surveillance in public spaces. I think that is a concern. I've been watching a bunch of "auditor" videos from the UK. These guys are basically trolling by going around with a camera in public, filming stuff, and fishing for reactions that they can then post on Youtube or TikTok or Reels or whatever for views and engagement. One thing that's very consistent across these videos is how many of their victims truly believe that you need permission to film people in public, or that they can walk up to the guy with the camera and demand to know who he is or that he deletes the footage. So a lot of people are acting as if they had much stronger rights to privacy than they really do, people think they're generally safe from being constantly surveilled, when the opposite is in fact true. Another thing that's also hilariously consistent is when these auditors film businesses, and representatives of those businesses, usually the store manager, goes out and tells them they can't film the customers going in and out of the store because that's "against company policy" or "because of respect for our customers' privacy". At the same time, those stores have tons of security camera inside the store, recording every little thing every single customer is doing all the time. The hypocrisy is blatant. Everybody wants to monitor everyone else, but no-one wants to be monitored by anyone.

thatcat 2y ago

Insurance isn't a social contract, it's private business foisted upon you and enforced by the government. Isn't it bad enough that your taxes, which are a real social contract, go to pay government workers to ensure that you're purchasing the required private, for profit, service? Now we're building surveillance infrastructure for them.

chii 2y ago
> Insurance isn't a social contract, it's private business foisted upon you so if you had an accident that caused damage to somebody else, and you didnt have money to pay for said damage, who makes the other party whole?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
cwillu 2y ago
FWIW, there is such a thing as public-sector insurance. The required auto insurance in saskatchewan, for instance, is tied to your registration and administered by the same crown corporation, which doesn't have the profit motive that a private insurer has.
toast0 2y ago
The social contract is really to fix the damage your (at fault) collisions cause. At least in jurisdictions I've been in, the state requires evidence of financial responsibility as a requirement for driving. (Enforcement is a separate issue from requirement). A car insurance policy is evidence of financial responsibility, and the most common; but you can also post a bond of something like the minimum insurance amounts. Yes, if you don't have the money to post a bond, you're more or less forced into insurance or not driving (or driving illegaly), but that's we know you'll uphold the social construct of fixing the damages you cause. You don't need insurance to ride a bicycle, because it's not as easy to cause damages with a bicycle.
- tialaramex 2y ago

tengwar2 2y ago

"expectation of privacy" is one of those slippery terms where lawyers use it differently from the public, and this isn't immediately obvious. Historically, we have expected that people can see us in public. However we have not had the expectation that: - that we are identifiable to people other than acquaintances - that we can be tracked by people not present, either at the time or later - and for someone to physically follow you to track your movements would fairly quickly lead to alarm and summoning the police to remove them. So no, other than lawyer's argot, we have always had a reasonable expectation of privacy in public places. Not absolute privacy, but privacy in the areas that matter to most of us.

ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
There's a similar issue around phone metadata. If someone knows that you've made a particular call at a certain time, you wouldn't be concerned about them spying on you, but if they had access to all your phone call records, then they can put together a picture about you and your acquaintances.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
  Yep. Quantity is a quality all its own. Being stalked by a million virtual cops at all times doesn't feel like freedom to me

mywittyname 2y ago

> Secondly, there's no chilling effect caused by the selective and unknown application of surveillance; People carry a cellphone with them, these by-and-large have multiple high resolution cameras along with microphones. Some even have LIDAR. Plus they are constantly emitting pulses that can be captured from several kilometers. A person could be selectively surveilled without their knowing by monitoring their phone. This is ignoring the massive network of internet connected private security cameras and police drones, which are very adept at monitoring people, as well as theoretical technology that we don't know is in use (i.e., using high frequency radio waves to "see" through walls).