3 ms·
To reply to csallen's question about why being watched is evil - these answers are in part elsewhere in the discussion that's gone on about my comment already,
by maudineormsby 17y ago
To reply to csallen's question about why being watched is evil - these answers are in part elsewhere in the discussion that's gone on about my comment already, but bear repeating.
1) It's not being watched that's evil. It's watching - my argument is that being watched consistently has negative effects on a person.
2) I haven't said that collecting data is evil - by all means collect data. Data about a specific person or tied to a specific person on the other hand, is a mode of control of a person, whether or not there is intent to control the person with the data.
This fact, while not empirical, is reflected in the literature about humanity. Foucault, as I already mentioned, wrote extensively about the modes of security that a nation employs (note that security is a technical term that Foucault has defined to mean the ways that an entity in power may maintain that power, roughly). One such way is surveillance of the citizenry. Another is through spectacle (drawing and quartering). He argues that as a society, we've switched to a disciple/rehabilitation focused system of control. If you want to read more on this, see his work "Discipline and Punish".
Even fiction authors have found it fit to point out the control one possesses over another when they know things about someone. In "The Wizard of Earthsea" series, for example, knowing someone or something's name gives you power over it - and not just because of a mystical quality to a name. By the time the series is over, LeGuin has made her point that the name of a thing allows you to control it in part; at least make requests or commands of it, whereas when you did not know it's name you had no such power.
I could write a dissertation on this (and in fact, I did), but there's no point. I just figured that a question deserved a response. I'd love to hear if some disagree with me on this and why. Always love a discussion on Foucault.
- dejb 17y ago> This fact, while not empirical, is reflected in the literature about humanity. It seems to me that when you compare what is happening in reality to the 'literature about humanity' they are very different. People are increasingly comfortable with allowing information about them collected and made public online. They are often prepared to give up significant aspects of their privacy for the slightest additional convenience. Check out Google Latitude or Rescuetime for some extreme examples. I fully expect this trend to continue to the point where significant chunks of people's life experience will be stored online. I'm not sure what humanist literature will have to say about this. If you have an interest in where the world is headed with regards to issues like these you would be better to read some good transhumanist literature instead.
- dhimes 17y agoI think what a lot of these people do regarding giving up their privacy is short-sighted, thoughtless, and stupid. Perhaps they are simply ignorant of the implications. Let's not give up our rights based on an early derivative of the behavior of the masses, please.
- maudineormsby 17y agoThanks for the suggestion. I'm vaguely familiar with Ronald Bailey from one of my undergrad surveys - I will have to follow through with that promise to myself to read more of his work.