Surveillance and sousveillance are two related concepts that involve the monitoring and observation of individuals or events, but they differ in who is performing the act and the direction of the observation. Let's explore each concept.

Surveillance refers to the monitoring, gathering, and analysis of information, activities, behaviour, or communications of individuals, groups, or objects. It is usually conducted by authorities, organisations, or institutions to maintain control, security, or gather intelligence. Surveillance is top-down, meaning it is carried out by those in positions of authority or power over the subjects being observed. Examples of surveillance include government agencies monitoring citizens' communications, security cameras in public places, and employers monitoring their employees' activities.

Sousveillance is a term coined as the opposite of surveillance. It involves individuals or groups monitoring and recording. Unlike surveillance, which is conducted by those in authority, sousveillance is bottom-up and initiated by individuals or communities seeking transparency, accountability, or protection against potential abuses of power. The term "sousveillance" is derived from the French words "sous" (meaning "under") and "veillance" (meaning "watching").

Both of these concepts are significant in the context of privacy, transparency, and power dynamics in society. While surveillance is often seen as a tool for control, security, and intelligence gathering, sousveillance can act as a means of citizen empowerment and holding those in authority accountable.

Surveillance in the Workplace

An example of the evolving dynamics of surveillance can be observed in the fusion of time-tracking applications and payroll functionalities. While initially appearing as a leap forward in efficiency and convenience, this amalgamation conceals the contours of an unsettling trajectory within it. Consider how modern apps allow employees to clock in using any device, aiming to streamline the process. These applications, however, extend their reach beyond mere timekeeping, delving into a realm where data-driven surveillance and compliance converge.

One striking feature is the integration of GPS tracking during an employee's clocked hours. The allure of precise oversight is undeniable, but the implications become disconcertingly apparent when framed within the marketing claims accompanying these features. Employers are presented with the means to ensure "employee compliance" and "real-time visibility," phrases that evoke not collaboration but a one-sided imposition of control. The very language used underscores a power dynamic that tilts the balance away from autonomy and towards supervision.

A deeper exploration of these applications reveals an array of functionalities designed to monitor and manage employee behaviour to an unprecedented degree. Automated calculation of hours and pay, tracking of unpaid breaks, and the enforcement of geofencing — these are all mechanisms that, while touted as time-saving and error-reducing tools, reverberate with the potential to reshape workplace dynamics. The creeping encroachment on employee agency becomes more pronounced when these systems promise to eliminate infractions like absences and time theft, thus perpetuating the notion of constant oversight.

Underneath this veneer of efficiency and control lies the erosion of the boundary between professional and personal life. The delineation between work hours and personal time blurs as real-time tracking transcends traditional workplace boundaries. The essence of trust between employers and employees is recalibrated in favour of continuous surveillance.

This transformation in workplace dynamics raises questions about the evolving nature of labour relationships. These applications' presumed conveniences are juxtaposed against a backdrop of increasing employer intrusion and surveillance. The delicate balance (or lack thereof) between worker rights and corporate interests is pushed further in favour of the corporate, and the repercussions will ripple through the socio-economic fabric.

It's Not About Our Safety

Surveillance extends beyond ensuring safety and security; it is about safeguarding the interests of those in positions of power. This raises concerns about the broader implications of surveillance practices and how they impact society.

While surveillance technologies are frequently justified as necessary tools to protect citizens from threats such as terrorism, crime, or public health concerns, the widespread surveillance infrastructure in place today raises valid questions about its true motivations and effects:

The use of surveillance can create an imbalance of power, where those in control can gather, analyse, and potentially manipulate vast amounts of personal data. This information can then be used to influence public perception, maintain control, or suppress dissent. Modern surveillance technologies have the capacity to invade personal spaces and gather intimate details about individuals' lives, eroding the boundaries between public and private spheres. This invasion of privacy can be exploited by those in power to exert control or manipulate individuals. To make matters worse, Australia lacks a clear and explicit declaration of freedom of speech within its constitutional or statutory framework.

The collection of massive amounts of data through surveillance can provide insights into social behaviours, preferences, and activities. This data can be monetised by corporations or used by governments to influence policy decisions, often without the consent or awareness of the individuals being monitored.

Surveillance systems are often controlled by entities with their own interests, such as governments, corporations, or institutions. These entities can selectively apply surveillance to serve their agendas, thereby protecting their interests rather than promoting a balanced approach to public safety.

The widespread use of surveillance can discourage people from expressing dissent or engaging in activism due to fears of backlash. This is particularly pronounced in Australia, where anti-protest laws introduced since 2019 have added to these concerns. For example, in 2022, the NSW Parliament enacted legislation introducing severe consequences for peaceful protesters. Those participating in peaceful protests could face fines of up to $22,000 and a potential prison sentence of up to 2 years.

Furthermore, surveillance systems can disproportionately target marginalised communities, exacerbating existing social inequalities. This can lead to over-policing and discriminatory practices, further marginalising vulnerable populations.

The lack of transparency and oversight in surveillance practices can result in unchecked power and a lack of accountability for those responsible for monitoring. This lack of accountability can enable abuses of power without consequences.

An Issue of Power Dynamics

The narratives put forth by politicians often serve as distractions that keep people engaged in perpetual arguments about the same issues. Whether it's the debate over allowing gay marriage, identifying the causes of climate change, or calculating the extent of money "wasted" on the unemployed, these talking points can sometimes divert our focus from more fundamental concerns.

Nevertheless, the core challenge before us extends beyond a mere decision between privacy and transparency; it hinges on the distinction between those in positions of power and those without such authority.

The concept of complete transparency, while seemingly beneficial, loses its value when it encounters groups of individuals who lack the means to act upon the information. These individuals, who often find themselves devoid of power, include people like us.

Consider the scenario of being stopped by a person in a policing role. In this situation, we inherently face a disadvantage. Even if we manage to glimpse their name and related details, which could be used to conduct online searches, our capacity to act on that information is limited. Conversely, these figures of authority possess access to a more extensive network of databases than we do. They can delve into government and private repositories, accessing sensitive information such as arrest records and citizenship status. Furthermore, their authority extends to detaining, questioning, and even arresting us if necessary.

Even if we reverse roles and imagine these figures facing a compromised situation — perhaps even using unwarranted force against someone who isn't resisting — our recording and dissemination of the incident might result in mere symbolic consequences for them. (I mentioned some examples in Hindsight is 20-20, Part I: The Virus and the System.) This leniency can be attributed to their alignment within a power structure, where the preservation of collective interests often supersedes individual accountability.

On the other hand, when we share such recordings online, we unwittingly become adversaries of this authority. This antagonism can trigger various forms of backlash, including harassment and defamation. They could potentially leverage experts to dispute the authenticity of the recording, casting doubt on our intentions or even insinuating that we instigated the violence.

The stark imbalance of power is the principal reason why the realisation of comprehensive transparency remains an elusive aspiration. This imbalance is also the reason why the repercussions of actions committed by individuals of power and affluence are often significantly milder than the penalties we would face for similar behaviour. This preferential treatment is an inherent facet of their privilege.

Furthermore, the sheer prevalence of such scandals involving the powerful has rendered them commonplace and, in some ways, mundane. The public is no longer startled by accounts of political misconduct, shady business transactions, celebrity controversies, or police brutality. As a consequence, the public's attention is conveniently diverted from more critical matters.

Compounding this situation, the gravest offences perpetrated by the powerful have largely escaped the scrutiny of sousveillance. This is primarily because those lacking authority are rarely granted entry into the realm where such abuses occur. In essence, they remain excluded from the sphere of oversight.