thanks to Dietmar, Kirstie and David for thier
comments... which leads me to suggest that
technology might only be one part of the
analytical problem we should focus on in this and
similar issues...
The fact that such a wide ranging scheme has
been installed at all - thanks to Dietmar for the
posting of the whole scheme - makes me think
about the social discourses of a protecitve
(nanny) state and the attitudes of the
residents... 1. had they have a chance to object?
2. why do they want such a social control? I may
have something to do with the social fabric and
the discourses of community, which seem different
in England and North America compared to Germany
or other parts of conitental Europe. If they want
to regain a sense of communitiy - where has it
gone and why? Why would you like what your
neighbour is doing while on the street... I tried
to figure this out in respect to the situation in
Northern Ireland (see:
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org, 2005
issue on "people watching people")
Other scheme seem imaginable besides CCTV, and
indeed the scheme has more to it, that aims at
education and all that it takes to make good
citizens.. I
In terms of democracy - as the watchers remain
behind closed doors and although everybody may
take a peek at what is happening outside - the
people on the streets still do not know who is
watching... if someone at all - David hinted at
the problem of time or the willingnes to
participate in the scheme individually... and
actually watch and report...
I am still confused by this scheme and can not
really say what I think of it and where to start
with an analysis - but parts of the scheme do
suggest that ideas of gated communities are
standing behind this .... which then opens up
another topic and various other problems of
in/exclusion, community building and the Social
in general..
so much for now.. I hope for more comments..
nilz
>Well, yes, but even opening the control room to
>public scrutiny still puts the onus more
>randomly on members of the public to check what
>surveillance is going on, and how. Surely the
>even more democratic approach would be to ensure
>that those running the control room know what
>they are doing, ought to be doing, and ought not
>to be doing, and why? This gets back to the
>'adequate training' question which Clive Norris,
>inter alia, has addressed so effectively.
--
Dr. Nils Zurawski
Universität Hamburg
Inst. für kriminologische Sozialforschung
Allende-Platz 1
20146 Hamburg
Germany
tel. +49 (0) 40 42838 6185
fax. +49 (0) 40 42838 2328
Projekt zu Videoüberwachung: http://www.surveillance-studies.org
|