Five years of your social media just to visit the US on an ESTA, and 50,922 phone searches at the border in a single year with no suspicion needed. Part 1 of my Five Eyes series: who else gets to see it?
Five years of your social media just to visit the US on an ESTA, and 50,922 phone searches at the border in a single year with no suspicion needed. Part 1 of my Five Eyes series: who else gets to see it?
The Panopticon works by making you worry you are always going to be surveiled even if there’s a statistically small chance you are.
That’s the joke.
Not sure why the Lemmy Privacy Community didn’t quite understand it, besides the obvious
My point is that a small chance of being searched at a border crossing is a far cry from a panopticon.
I’m sorry, do you understand that you are repeating the definition of the panopticon, but say you don’t understand how a panopticon is a panopticon?
I’ve already explained I think there’s a big difference between a chance of being searched at an airport and a chance of being observed at any moment while imprisoned and I’m not sure what else might be unclear.
The definition of a panopticon is not “a small chance of being searched”, just to be clear. It’s a specific thing and you’re saying it’s similar while I’m saying it’s different enough.
You might want to take a quick look at Wikipedia, because you are trying to use inaccurate distinctions.
No, it’s not placed in a prison, it’s about the structure of a surveillance society.
From the first paragraph:
(emphasis mine)
Bentham designed the Panopticon as a prison. It sounds like you’re using the word as a metaphor.
I don’t think such a metaphorical usage is that great in this case. It works OK when you’re talking about big-brother style surveillance that is potentially present in your private life at all times (like the panopticon’s guard can potentially see any one inmate’s private activity at any time) but not when you’re talking about potentially being searched in a specific, limited, avoidable, circumventable circumstance.
Fishface, I linked you to a particular part of the article. Did you miss it by mistake?
Here is the part you failed to read:
If you are able to scroll down even further and continue reading, you’ll also discover workplace surveillance is considered a Panopticon… Even though it apparently fits into your definition of something that is “circumventable”, wherever you pulled that from.
I read that quote from a person other than the originator of the idea, yes. It is espousing that metaphorical application of the panopticon. It doesn’t have anything to say about the applicability of the metaphor to searches in an airport.
I don’t think we’re making any progress here, so see ya.
The word does not belong to the person who “originated” (labeled) it. I’m sorry you don’t like the modern usage and have chosen to die on that hill, but the rest of us are here on the internet, not in the 19th century.
I’m sorry you refuse to make progress.