Beyond the scope and scale of a panopticism prison or school, but as a cultural and a societal norm, surveillance, which is neither good or bad in its own right, is only given approval or disapproval when the masses speak, and if millions protested that there was no civil right to track the lives of individuals, then governments would establish policy, but as much as some don’t like the idea of their shrinking private world, there’s only a few standing in the way.

I like my privacy, but I’ve come to learn and understand that if I want to live in a place as free as Canada that I need to appreciate the systems and mechanisms that are in place for our freedom. Somewhat circular logic I know, but the more secure the perimeter, the safer and the more freedom we have inside, and if we want less security and more freedom we can leave.   

Whether this perimeter is the national border, a prison, or your Terms and Conditions Agreement, No one has forced this upon you. You still have to make the choice. And if the terms and conditions of society are too much for you then go stake a claim on a piece of land and do it all on your own. Nobody has a gun to your head; likely in large due to these systems. But, this doesn’t mean you will be completely free from surveillance however.

There’s just so many different forms and levels of security that it’s nearly impossible to monitor all of them unless you choose to make a career of it – actively pursuing new stronghold technologies. Thus, we have overlappage – local police and national police – Vancouver police and RCMP for example – ruling out probabilities of embezzlement, fraud, corruption, and untimely failure of either local or national system.

Prisons need walls and monitoring as much if not more than the center of the panopticon.The problems with the image of panoptic prison is that prisoners don’t sit in their cells all day every day, it’s illegal these days and moreover, inmates far too profitable to have them locked up 24/7. Prisons and prisoners are rendering services and products sold to market, and their paid well to do these jobs.

One way or another, we are all prisoners to surveillance, and thus being experimented on as if in a laboratory, for narcissistic and holistic reasons. Some just want to understand how to make the workplace a better functioning organismic operation, while others just want more control and power.

I think this is why most people don’t read their terms and conditions – they’ve already surrendered to the notion of handing everything over to the watchful eye. Some T&C I read thoroughly, others not at all knowing they’re going to do what they want with my info, and if I want to participate then I must surrender.

We all have our own threshold of tolerance for privacy and surveillance, but act in another way altogether. Who doesn’t have a Facebook account? I can only image the levels of hierarchy in surveillance in which we live. But, one way or another, one needs to find a comfort level that works for them. You may not be able to control who watches you, but you can control the extent of your knowledge by employing systems of your own, or giving in altogether by kick’n it in the forest.

That being said, Foucault argues that no matter how you break it down, no matter how distant you may be from society and the watchful eye, you are still going to have a surveillant eye over yourself; that you will succumb to panoptic power even in the absence of prison walls and street cameras. The whole ideology of self-control, or discipline, is in itself surveillance – self-surveillance. Self-surveillance seems as rudimentary as not eating all your harvest in the first months, yet ultimately, it’s only an extension of illuminati. Diets, New Years’ resolutions, schedules, even personal grooming enters this realm, and as my professor says: “”we” (the modern subject) are impossible without disciplinary regimes and self-surveillance. Strip those away, and what are we left with?”

I believe Garrett Kiezer said it’s a “choice or a lie” and “this is why we have scholars and jurists,” we choose to be submissive.