Wednesday, December 4, 2019

Surveillance and the

Question: Discuss about the Surveillance in Supermarkets-Should Employees Needs to be searched? Answer: The current dispute about Surveillance in Supermarket is overwhelming and it indulges me to think on this matter (Gunarathne 2015, p.8). The topic reminds me of an incident which happened with a friend of mine in front of our group, five years ago when we visited a supermarket for the first time. This supermarket was under Surveillance systems for protection. We were doing window-shopping when one of my friends needed to visit the changing. The first time, she did not notice anything in the changing room until she again went to the changing room, this time, she came back shouting and holding a little-hidden camera, which was in video mode to record the activity in the changing room. We were outrageous and took the matter to the mall manager who first refused to believe the incident happened and told us that all the employees in the mall are honest and loyal, but then, after noticing the little-hidden camera as proof, he told us that he would take necessary actions. We agreed and watched the Surveillance system footage and identified the man as one of the sales staff who is responsible for the incident. Instantly the manager dismissed him from his job and kicked him out to reinstate the mall's reputation. My friend wanted to complain but the manager pursued her not to take the incident to the higher authority. My friend had avoided the humiliating situation, but there should be a rule or tightened security for the "mall's employees" so that they cannot bring any stuff to record customer's activity. I think we need to have a tightened security for searching the employees so that they cannot go against the moral of the company he is working and bring some stuff that can record something when there are mall's surveillance systems to protect (Mali MB 2015, p.13-15). I think many employees in supermarket, mall cannot agree with me, and I guess their reactions will be that only one incident cannot prove anything that employees need to be searched as well as customers. However, what if my friend cannot notice the hidden camera and later on this recording could have been posted in any online sites by the perpetrator? How much would have been the damage then? Foucault elaborates on Benthams theory of surveillance. There is a type of power, strategy and a kind of technology when everyone is potentially under surveillance. Foucault involves formal and evident institutions where there has to be an ideal system. The main aim according to Foucault is the prosperity of the society in a nation. The view is applied to panopticism in relation to rise in the use of CCTV cameras. The watcher is not visible by the others. The recording can be stored that allows the spectator become omnipresent in nature not only in space but also in time. The CCTV is the perfect example that proves Foucaults analysis on the surveillance. Nevertheless, this surveillance has also helped to provide discipline to infrastructures. The system of power lies with the ad hoc and informal networks of the infrastructures. As a result, the controlling of societies does not just implement a different way of governing and thus forms a fault line in thinking about surveillance in p laces. Deluze along with Guattari develops the analysis by Foucault. They diverge from the panoptic vision and propose a number of latest places of power where the socio-technical landscape has changed. The difference is in the way that the modulation by them is visible for the citizens and the subjects concerned. The point made by Deluze in relating to surveillance was about the individuals becoming less relevant when they are the subjects of surveillance. The power has shifted towards the controlling access. The notion of dividual by Deluze gazes towards individuals not as uniform beings but as individuals who perform different roles at different places. He focused on open places. Surveillance cannot be limited to only physical places as prisons, hospitals, factories and so on. Haggery and Ericson proposed on a concept of the surveillant assemblage, which was inspired, by the concept of Deluze and Guattari. This is referred to as the multiplicity of heterogeneous objects where the unity arises from working together. These are visible in recording machines that make and record discrete observations. The assemblage has a leveling effect on the hierarchies of surveillance due to the new target in population that is being monitored by the help of the innovative and intensified technological possibilities. Therefore, surveillance nowadays is used to construct and monitor the consumption patterns, construct consumer profile to limit the access to places and information. Due to this leading purpose of contemporary surveillance, the monitoring is directed towards the human body for canalizing access to the places and the information and production of consumer profiles by reconstruction of the behavior of the people. The surveillance is done by reassembly and de-territorialisation. Surveillance can be enjoyed as watching and exposing oneself can be a form of entertainment at times. It plays an important function in establishing and reinforcing public equalities. However, there is a negative impact of surveillance also as it may be a concern for the individuals who are being monitored. The individual may not accept the intrusion of their privacy. Hence, when the methods of surveillance are applied the matter of the privacy of an individual entity should also be kept in mind. Thomas Scanlon responds with the argument that analysis by Thomson was counter-intuitive and complicated in nature. Instead, he proposed that there are zones, which are socially defined that enables to act with assuming that one is not being monitored. James Rachels (Rachels1975, p.17), responds to both Scanlon and Thomson with the help of the argument that privacy is a subject of relationships when one defines ones relationship with others there is the use of varying degrees of privacy that establishes intimacy. There is a high degree of privacy with an unknown person or a stranger. While with a close member of the family, one expects to have less amount of privacy. Not all customers are shoplifters and to prevent shoplifting from the supermarket or mall they used surveillance systems (Chotipanich and Issarasak 2017, 236-253). So why not search the employees so that it would prevent any such incident from happening with any other customers such as my friend, who after the incident was terrified to visit malls for the succeeding years. It will also help for better security of customers and employees References Bentham, J. (2010). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Principles of Morals and Legislation. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Aug. 2017]. Chotipanich, S. and Issarasak, S. (2017). A study of facility management operation strategy in shopping malls.Property Management, 35(3), pp.236-253. Gunarathne, U. (2015). Why Customers Going Supermarkets? (Comparative Study of Motivation Factors Affecting to Visit Supermarkets).SSRN Electronic Journal. Macnish, K. (2002). Surveillance Ethics. Environment Encyclopedia Philosophy. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Aug. 2017]. Mali MB, C. (2015). A Review on Surveillance and Protection System for Malls.International Journal of Advancements in Technology, 06(01), pp.13-15.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.