**TL;DR Increasing surveillance ensures that more crimes are detected and caught on camera, as well as being a beneficial deterrent for crime in general.** Greater surveillance acts as an increased deterrent to would-be criminals and is more effective at catching crimes when they are committed. Studies based in the UK have determined that surveillance cameras can significantly reduce crime (14/15 studies agree on this). The UK has an estimated number of 4-6 million surveillance cameras and is one of the heaviest users of the surveillance in the world. The study therefore suggests that the number of surveillance cameras must be sufficiently high in order to achieve their full crime-reducing potential, so having greater surveillance is more beneficial to society. [1] In relation to this, Martin Gill and Angela Spriggs’ study on *Assessing the Impact of CCTV* concluded that ‘the more cameras in an area, the more chance of reducing crimes’ in terms of general surveillance. The California Research Bureau’s studies on *Measuring the Effect of Video Surveillance on Crime in Los Angeles* also makes a similar conclusion in regards to surveillance in America, stating that increased surveillance is beneficial and ‘helpful in solving crime if caught on camera’. [2] Both of the studies also determined that if greater surveillance is combined with additional police forces it is even more effective. The likelihood of crimes being caught and prevented is far greater when the two forces are combined where surveillance is also increased. Greater surveillance increases its ability to be a natural deterrent that might prevent criminal activity from occurring. If a crime does occur, surveillance can provide a documented and accurate account of events. [3] The only people who should be concerned and wary about having greater surveillance are those who intend to commit criminal acts. For the rest of us, having greater surveillance allows additional protection to both prevent crimes as well as catch and identify those committing those crimes. [1] ‘Surveillance cameras and crime prevention’, (https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/economics-of-crime/0/steps/20272) [2] ‘Is There Empirical Evidence That Surveillance Cameras Reduce Crime?’, (https://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/knowledgebase/there-empirical-evidence-surveillance-cameras-reduce-crime) [3] ‘16 Pros and Cons of Government Surveillance of Citizens’, (https://connectusfund.org/16-pros-and-cons-government-surveillance-of-citizens)

**TL:DR Greater surveillance exists as a threat to privacy.** Mass surveillance, simply put, impedes individual privacy. Governments record data, exploit it and make conclusions from observable patterns (Babcock and Freivogel 2016), resulting in a reduction of self and diminished individualism. The use of mass surveillance by governments violates the privacy of the population, and through this, individuals lose their sense of autonomy. In terms of crime prevention, the government becomes dependent on the use of mass surveillance, it therefore emerges as a method of state control over citizens. Babcock, William A, and William H Freivogel. The SAGE Guide to Key Issues In Mass Media Ethics And Law. 1st ed. Print.

I find it rather frightening that so much data is collected about us currently. So many organisations collecting data about us from so many sources where we blithely accept the cookie policy pop up. Click on a link at your peril and your choice of clothing, decoration and DIY needs pop up in email and Facebook feeds, not of course your choice but what the "intelligence" suggests you want or need. Just walking the dog I'm popping up on dozens of ring doorbell data to the point where I almost feel the need to smile as I pass. This surveillance is perhaps necessary in some areas of life but I can't help thinking that this monitoring, in the greater part, of law abiding citizens is keeping a whole raft of people occupied in seemingly to me, unnecessary tasks.

**TL;DR Greater Surveillance does not benefit society because it actually limits the sense of control individually and collectively instead of increasing control over what is happening in the world**. In my view, having a sense of control is extremely important for the harmonious function of people's lives and society. Being watched constantly may benefit the fight towards crime, but it also invades our most intimate and private moments / information. It is scary how much this loss of control over own personal data has infiltrated our lives, so much so that we don't really feel violated. According to Jonathan Shaw (Harvard magazine), 'everyday threats to privacy are so commonplace that most people are numb to them', as we even 'allow companies such as Google to scan the content of their digital messages in order to deliver targeted ads'. Indeed, according to political theorist Antonio Gramsci writing after being imprisoned by Benito Mussolini in the 20th century, this form of hegemony makes sure that 'force will appear to be based on the consent of the majority, expressed by the so-called organs of public opinion' (p. 248). Consent and the illusion of freedom is a prerequisite for the existence of surveillance and control. Greater surveillance means being deprived of control over what we do and what we are exposed to. It means that we are not really free, but we just think that we are free, in a dystopia far worse than the world of George Orwell's *1984*. Works Cited Gramsci, Antonio, *Selections from the Prison Notebooks*, ed. and trans. by Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (London: ElecBook, 1999) Shaw, Jonathan, 'The Watchers' (2017) <https://harvardmagazine.com/2017/01/the-watchers> [accessed 9 February 2021]. Suggestions: Orwell, George, *1984* (New York: Harcourt, 1949)

TL;DR - Regardless of how we feel about surveillance, we have to recognize it serves more than one purpose, not only as a deterrent for criminal acts but also as a form of corrective behavior in society. Surveillance targets everyone and is a form of social control, which has brought both positive and negative outcomes. Whether your stance is for or against, there is no denying that the various technologies used for surveillance have exceeded their expectations in not only deterring crime but regulating society's behaviors. The security apparatus targets everyone as it intends to enforce corrective behavior [1]. This is done through the use of disciplinary surveillance, best exemplified by security video cameras, but it is also present in schools, workplaces, and most public areas. Think about going into the grocery store; we can find video cameras in every corner to deter shoplifting and ensure proper behavior from shoppers. At the same time, workers in that store are under constant surveillance through the use of electronic registers, and customer service surveys [2]. In other words, you don't have to be a criminal or do anything bad, since surveillance is not only designed to deter crime, it's also used to regulate all sorts of behaviors in public. Another type is performance monitoring so we can even see surveillance in our personal lives. Childhood development, mental illness, cognitive performance are all highly monitored by health care professionals and social workers for example, and most of us just accept this as normal [2]. Most people don't have trouble following the rules because we've accepted the fact we are being watched; we've been conditioned to accept this as normal at a very young age – this is how constant surveillance regulates our behavior. We fear becoming the wrong kind of person – a failing student, an unproductive worker, a bad parent, for example. The history of mass surveillance is a very recent occurrence. Society has become so obsessed with monitoring every aspect of our daily lives. I'm not necessarily against surveillance since it's the best deterrent we have and the data presented by AnnaHubbard speaks for itself. But we also have to acknowledge that constant surveillance doesn’t necessarily improve our lives – there are both winners and losers. [1] "Modules on Foucault: On Panoptic and Carceral Society." https://cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/newhistoricism/modules/foucaultcarceral.html [2] Foucault – Surveillance and Crime Control https://revisesociology.com/2016/09/21/foucault-surveillance-crime-control/#:~:text=Foucault%20argues%20that%20the%20use,are%20subjected%20to%20disciplinary%20power.

**tl;dr – The people surveilling you probably don't care about what you're doing in your private life. They're too busy looking for specific, generic things, and if they don't find it, they move on – they have a job to do, and they can't waste hours watching you sing (horribly) in the shower, or whatever.** *[ I'm tagging this as commentary because it's just a hunch, and it makes me feel better about the whole thing. ]* The truth of the matter is, 90% of the time, the people monitoring us probably *don't care what we're doing* unless we're doing something wrong. Let's face it – the average person's daily life is *boring*. It's so boring, in fact, that someone monitoring you will barely pay attention to anything you're saying or doing, because they're too busy looking for other things – police only look for criminal activity, and marketers only look at the products and services you use. To these people, you are data. You are a statistic. The things you say and do, they've seen a million times – they've seen it so much that they auto tune it out, and just focus on doing their jobs. So, in truth, your private life remains blissfully unwatched. At least, this is how I know *my* brain works. I imagine sitting there in front of a screen, viewing footage or data that all looks the same, day in and day out. I would be so bored by the end of *hour one* that you could be dancing naked in front of your TV, and I wouldn't even notice, because I'd have tuned out way before then – I'm just crunching numbers at that point, and looking at the clock feverishly in anticipation of my lunch break. Then again, that kind of work isn't for me. Maybe the people doing surveillance find it all fascinating. I have a friend who absolutely *loves* pouring over endless statistics and data. I'd rather scrape off my skin with a cheese grater. But that's just me.

Terrorism is almost non-existent in the west thanks to increased surveillance. But then there is a level of privacy that you expect... I think there is a level that is too far but there is also a place for surveillance to play an important role in our safety.