"We live in the Empire of the Gaze" Jay (1985). Why do you think that surveillance is increasing in modern societies and organisations?

“We live in the Empire of the Gaze” Jay (1985). Why do you think that surveillance is increasing in modern societies and organisations?

Over the past decade, the use of surveillance has increased dramatically in Western societies around the world, none more so than in Britain, which now has the largest closed-circuit television (CCTV) network in the world. There are now few places in urban Britain where you can go unobserved by CCTV, and with 2.5 million cameras across the country, it isn’t hard to see why. The increase of surveillance in society in general has coincided with an increase in surveillance in the workplace as well. As well as video surveillance, many employees have to contend with the possibility of both their e-mail and phone calls being monitored.

So why this huge increase in societal and organisational surveillance? In trying to answer this question I will first look at surveillance in society, and then I will discuss surveillance in organisations, whilst considering the technological advances as a possible link between the two.

Before I begin to answer the question set, I think it is important to note that surveillance is nothing new. As Ball (2003) notes, “it has always been at the heart of capitalist work and organisation”. For centuries people have had to identify themselves or have been the subjects of observation, but up until the twentieth century this would usually have been for highly specific purposes. Over the last hundred years we have seen that visibility has become “a social and political issue in a new way”. (David Lyon (1) Surveillance studies: Understanding visibility, mobility and the phenetic fix, 2002, P.2)

Worker monitoring is also not a new practice. “The introduction of the factory system constituted an important change in the degree of social control which could be exercised over workers, primarily through new possibilities for visual supervision”. (C ) Frederick Taylor’s scientific management approach bought about an even more significant change in work monitoring as management now had a better idea of how work was carried out and individual tasks within each job now came under scrutiny. Ford’s assembly line approach to production also carried with it increased management control and monitoring as the expected pace at which the employee was expected to work was built into the assembly line allowing management to know if an employee was not working at a sufficient pace.

Whilst we have seen that surveillance has been evident throughout the history of industrialised production, recent years however, has seen the degree of intensity of surveillance in the workplace and in society, rapidly increase. This increase has coincided with the emergence of the electronic age and the possibilities it presents in relation to surveillance.

For decades, many of the leading players in the security and surveillance industry have successfully provided technical systems solutions that have been based mainly on CCTV technologies - technologies that would typically comprise of a collection of static monitors, analogue video recorders and video-cassette recorders, connected by costly and complex coaxial cables. More recently, coinciding with the rise of the Internet, the same customer-base has been equipping themselves with a new type of surveillance system. Internet Protocol (IP) based surveillance products have been one of the main reasons behind the growth of video server industries in Westernised countries worldwide. The main advantage IP based surveillance is that it can be combined with standard analogue cameras making access to CCTV images from anywhere a reality. So there’s the potential for no more video cassettes, CCTV monitors and costly cables, it could be all controlled with surveillance software on the Internet and stored onto hard disk.

Many cities in Britain have made use of the new technology by adding a digital face recognition system to its CCTV network. This works by taking live pictures from the camera and transferring them to a computer where a program checks the faces shown on camera and compares them against a list of active criminals, and if a match evident, the police are alerted and decide how to proceed. Just one of many examples of IP based surveillance being taken advantage of in today’s society.

In London alone there are well over 150,000 cameras – used by ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

In London alone there are well over 150,000 cameras – used by the police as well as businesses and other private organisations wanting to ‘keep an eye’ on their property. The reason for all these cameras is because they are “cited as an active deterrent to crime and an vital tool in detecting criminals.” (Eye Spy, 2001) Crime figures across the country appear to lend weight to this argument and a recent survey of 13,000 residents carried out by Liverpool’s community safety partnership, concluded that 3 in 4 residents would like more cameras watching their streets as they feel safer if they are being watched by CCTV.

However, even though the technology is available to local authorities, many think it doesn’t necessarily mean that it should be used. One of these critics is Roy Coleman, lecturer in criminal justice at Liverpool John Moore’s University who says CCTV has a very limited agenda in terms of understanding public safety. One of Coleman’s main worries is that because the surveillance industry is now such a big business, many CCTV initiatives are being developed by people in the private sector, people who have a profit orientated aim of keeping the cities surveyed. Coleman also cites a study in Glasgow in 1999 that showed that crime actually went up following the introduction of CCTV. He also suggests that fear of crime also goes up with actual crime. “It’s a vicious circle,” he says. (Eye Spy, The Guardian, 1/8/2001). The control of CCTV systems can easily be abused and is another reason that some people do not support their every increasing use.

People’s growing concerns about their safety and that of their property is not the only reason why the use of surveillance in society has increased so rapidly in recent years, “indeed, much surveillance occurs because in the world of modernity people prefer a ‘private’ existence, which prompts the development of systems to authenticate their activities in the ‘public’ world. (David Lyon (1), 2002, P.2) It is ironic that the quest for privacy produces surveillance. In the past, privacy could be sought in the home, it was a place that others could not intrude into, but now with household items such as telephones, televisions and computers, comes a means of surveillance.

“Privacy can no longer refer to fixed spaces.” (David Lyon (1) 2002, P.3) As more and more people travel through airports and stations, have mobile phones and the use of the Internet, people on the move are increasingly likely to be the subjects of surveillance. With the new technologies has come the increasing visibility of people going about their everyday communications and actions.

The case for the increase in surveillance received a boost following the events of ‘September 11th’ which prompted the need to plug the gaps in intelligence and security that allowed this act of terrorism to be carried out. People’s concern about the possibility of another attack of global terrorism has allowed surveillance at airports especially to increase to try and identify persons with a potential risk. The use of CCTV with facial recognition, new ‘smart’ ID systems and upgraded communications intercepting techniques are among the few new measures that are evident at many if not all of the main Western airports.

We have seen how new technologies have affected surveillance in society in general, but how have these new technologies affected surveillance in the workplace? Zuboff’s 1988 work on the implications of computerisation on contemporary workplaces is a good place to start when discussing surveillance in the workplace. She notes that because of new information systems, management control is now free from the constraints of space and time and there have been increasing claims that electronic surveillance has become “a new and successful model of control.” (Thompson, 2003, P.138). Zuboff also introduces the term “information panopticon,” which has its foundations in Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, a design for a prison complex where every cell was visible from this central watchtower where the guards could watch the prisoners but not be seen themselves. This controversial design was never built but his concept of the unwavering gaze and its implications on the watched has been the subject of many studies since. One of those studies was by Michael Foucault (1979) who “adopted the Panopticon as a metaphor for the operation of power in social relations.” (CP.1). Zuboff saw the importance of Foucault’s study and cited his attention to the constant visibility and the unknowingness of whether they are watching as key in trying to understand the implication electronic surveillance in the workplace.

The “information Panopticon” differs from Bentham’s model in a number of ways. One way is that in the workplace, the observer may also be the observed. Because workplaces are hierarchically organised, a middle manager may be observing their staff, whilst also being observed themselves by those above them in the organisation. The “information panopticon” also differs from Bentham’s model in that “in some applications of workplace surveillance, the gaze in not merely a unverifiable possibility but is actually a constant and continuous certainty.” (C P.2) This is the case for supermarket checkout staff that use a scanner. They know that their performance can be monitored by how many products they scan per minute or per hour.

This monitoring of checkout staff’s performance is one of many examples of employer monitoring that has been made possible by the development over the last few years of certain software packages that have significantly expanded the scope of management to collect and process data on their workers. Other common forms of workplace surveillance include monitoring e-mails, the phone line and CCTV, which in many firms in undertaken covertly. Less common types of worker surveillance include the testing of employee’s urine for drug testing, or in the woman’s case, if they are pregnant. There are also some companies who measure your weight going in and out of the building to see if you have stolen anything.

So why are many bosses of Westernised firms turning into ‘Big Brother?’

“They may tell you that electronic monitoring acts as an effective deterrent against fraud, industrial espionage and other illegal activities” (Rogerson & Fairweather, 1998, P. 1&2), but in many peoples view, this does not give them the right to monitor their employees. Rogerson & Fairweather (1998,2) agree; “just because there is the possibility that someone might abuse e-mail does not mean that everyone’s e-mail should be monitored…when there are no such suspicions, the possibility of such abuse of the systems should not outweigh the reasonable expectation of employees to be trusted by their employer.”

Many employees feel that all this monitoring means that their privacy and autonomy is being threatened. Caroline Jones of the Institute of Employee Rights agrees and thinks that all this new surveillance “undermines the concept of autonomy and employee empowerment.” (Guardian, 3/7/1999). Another worry with all types of surveillance and monitoring is that it gives power to those who carry out the monitoring over those being monitored, power that may result in them coming to know intimate information about those being monitored. And if this information was to fall into the wrong hands it could cause a variety of problems for the employee and the employer. Rogerson & Fairweather (1998,2) suggest, “Where technological methods have been introduced for such detailed monitoring and surveillance, they have in some cases been associated with very low employee morale.”

Despite all this, many employers feel it is necessary to monitor employees. Mike Emmott, advisor on employee relations at the Institute of Personnel and Development reminds us that “it is a primary function of management to monitor workflow and quality standards. Any employer who is indifferent to such issues is likely to go out of business.” (Guardian, 3/7/1999). Employers believe that monitoring of an employee’s use of the Internet, for example, is justifiable for many reasons. One reason is that they believe that productivity can be a casualty when employees have easy access to the Internet and all its distractions. A study by XYLO Inc in August 2001 found that 64% of surveyed workers who have Internet access admit to using the Internet at work for personal reasons. Employers also fear the possibility of a lawsuit they may be bought against them following an employee downloading or abusing copyrighted materials.

These reasons seem to justify some degree of employee monitoring of the Internet and cannot be argued against by employees very easily. But there are some reasons that employers give to justify the use of surveillance and monitoring that angers many employees. One of these reasons is that the monitoring and surveillance is for the employees’ own safety and security, especially in jobs that don’t involve any personal contact with the public. Many employees believe that this is just an excuse for employers to monitor them. Monitoring of employees’ phone lines in call centres is often justified by saying that it is for training purposes, when employees know their employers also have ulterior motives. Employers at Powergen have been known to ring up and pretend they are customers as a way of monitoring. This situation that employees face, knowing that at any time they could be being listened to or talking to their boss, is similar to unverifiability of the gaze in Bentham’s Panopticon.

This is evidence of the perception that close technical monitoring takes place more because it is technologically easy than because there is any great need for it and which is where it crosses the line into unethical business practice. The same can be said for surveillance in society in general. Many people believe that there are more cameras and computers watching and monitoring us than is necessary. However, as individuals, we should have the right to walk the street without fear, and if this is aided by surveillance, then it can only be a good thing.

So what does the future hold for surveillance in society and the workplace? We have already seen the huge increase in surveillance in modern societies and organisations mainly due to the advances in technology that have occurred over the last few years. Who’s to say that in the near future, the ‘electronic totalitarianism’ described by Orwell in his book ‘1984’ may become a reality.

Bibliography

Books

David Lyon, The Information Society, Issues and Illusions, Polity Press, 1990.

S Davies, Big Brother: Britain’s Web of Surveillance and the New Technological Order, Pan, 1996.

David Lyon, Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life, Open University, 2001.

David Lyon, The Electronic Eye: The rise of the Surveillance Society, Polity Press, 1994.

David Lyon & Elia Zureik, Computers, Surveillance & Privacy, University of Minnesota Press,1996.

Articles and Websites

Dominic Bruning, From Orwell to Reality, Intersec, Vol. 12, Issue 5, May 2002.

Caroline Jones & Mike Emmott, Are British Bosses Turning into Big Brother? The Guardian, July 3 1999.

Rogerson & Fairweather, Surveillance in the Workplace, IMIS Journal, Vol. 8, No.3, July 1999.

Electronic Surveillance in the Workplace, ( C )

David Lyon (1), Surveillance Studies: Understanding Visibility, Mobility and the Phenetic Fix. Surveillance and Society 1(1): 1 –7

The Basic Debate: The Case For and Against Surveillance,

Pete Hunter & Pat Fry, Surveillance in the Workplace,

Paul Thompson, Fantasy Island: A Labour Process Critique of the ‘Age of Surveillance,’ Surveillance and Society 1(2): 138 – 151.

Benjamin Goold, Public Area Surveillance and Police Work: The Impact of CCTV on Police Behaviour and Autonomy, Surveillance and Society, 1(2) 191 – 203.

Eye Spy, The Guardian, Aug 1, 2001.

David Lyon & Christian Holler, Surveillance Systems – Towards an Electronic Panopticon Society? 22/5/1997

K Ball, Elements of Surveillance: A New Framework and Future Research Directions, Information Communication and Society, 5(4)