In recent years, surveillance techniques have been developed, they say for the catching of criminals in criminal acts, further, to provide evidence for their prosecution. I think society at large would argue that that's fair enough. Fingerprint detection after all, seems to be acceptable to most.
In recent times however, these same surveillance techniques are being much used to inform those trying to control dissent. It should be pointed out that dissent and protest are not crimes in the UK …. yet!
Since surveillance has mushroom across western civilisations' public spaces, (and many of its private ones!), awkward questions are being raised about its purpose and to who's advantage it all operates for. Is it 'haves', watching the 'have-nots', 'goodies' watching the 'baddies', Corporations spying on each other and their employees for commercial advantage. Or, perhaps, 'Vested interest' in powerful positions maintaining the status quo and public order?
