Response to Part 6 of the Reader Book

Foucault's article is classic about Panopticon, an important social control mechanism that "automatizes and disindividualizes power." Power is visible yet unverifiable, resulting in more self-monitoring on the individual part and more efficient control on the government part. The Internet is a convenient place to set up a panopticon. Knowing that some system can be collecting data behind the scenes about our' activities while we surf online, should we feel more or less secure in the cyberspace? That may depend on who's collecting the data. Unfortunately we don't always know.

In her article, Zuboff described a new kind of organization, the "informated organization," where intellective skill base is the organization's most precious resource, and the distinctions between white and blue collars disappear. I agree with her that human-to-human interaction is important for such learning centered orgazations. "In the information panopticon, managers frequently tried to simplify their managerial tasks by displacing face-to-face engagement with techniques of surveillance and control. As a consequence, they became isolated from the realities of their organizations." (p323)

In his article, Lyon laid out four strands of sruveillance theory: surveillance in relation (1) to the nation state, (2) to bureaucracy, (3) to technological logic (or "technologic"), and (4) to political economy. I share his concern of a dragnet society now that technology has made it possible to happen. Is there a limit how much surveillance a society should allow? If yes, where is the limit?