The development of this new form of surveillance, has been rather interesting and somewhat disturbing, in a somewhat conservative Asian country like Singapore has, at least for my friends and I, made us feel the need to mind our p's and q's, creating in us the fear of possible public humiliation. This style of journalism was made possible as camera phones are more accessible than in the past.
Personally, this trend worries me more than state surveillance, as we could still possibly argue that the state only has power to use those videos for those specified in the relevant legislation. However, with citizen journalism, where can we draw the line and say that is getting out of control. "Privacy" is now a word with meanings that are rather limited in application.
Good distinction to make between state surveillance and citizen surveillance. Around what terms does citizen surveillance differ do you think?
ReplyDeleteto me, the most obvious factor on which they differ is that of the way footages are taken. state surveillance tends to be on the passive side, where cameras are placed at various areas and record images, whether or not incidences are occurring. citizen surveillance, on the other hand, is more mobile and footages only come about when the 'citizen' decides to film the incident down.
ReplyDelete