Järelevalvevõimaluste ja praktikate mitmekesisuse tõttu on tegemist paljudel juhtudel millegi igapäevasega. Tundub, et pääsu sellest ei ole ning pragmaatiline on mõelda, et tegemist ei olegi jah-ei küsimusega, vaid pigem skaalaga. Küll aga on põhjust nii riigil, organisatsioonidel kui üksikisikutel olla tähelepanelik nii andmete koguja kui kogutava perspektiivist. Avaliku juhtimise rolli järelevalves on raske sõnadesse panna või mõõta, kuid oleks rumal seda rolli ka eitada. Sestap siinviidatud essee oma koha leidiski.
For many, the surveillance and “dataveillance” that now pervade everyday life seem similar in intrusiveness (though perhaps different in pathways) to Orwell’s predictions. However, feelings are often complex regarding surveillance and privacy-breaching data practices because they may carry benefits, such as enhanced law and order, safety, customer service, and convenience.
Teisenev tähendusväli ehk Orwell või Kafka
Some have argued that our new dataveillance society is less like Orwell’s Big Brother (where an overlord scrutinizes and controls citizens’ moves) and more like Franz Kafka’s protagonist, Josef K. in “The Trial” (Bluemink 2015; Naughton 2014; Solove 2004).
Viited K. Marxi kirjatöödele:
Our inquiry into surveillance and its dynamics is guided by Marx’s view of surveillance as the “scrutiny of individuals, groups, and contexts through the use of technical means to extract or create information” (2016, 20). He clarifies that while surveillance is essentially neutral, involving merely the “gathering of some form of data connectable to individuals,” its meaning and implications are highly dependent on “context and comportment” (2015, 733–737).
Avaliku juhtimise roll modernse järelevalveühiskonna arengus
The purpose of this essay is to argue that public administration has been central to the evolution of modern surveillance society, and that surveillance is inevitable in the modern state.
Järelevalve areng võimutehnikaks
For instance, eighteenth century philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham proposed a correctional facility with a circular pattern of buildings around a central tower (Bentham and Božovič 2010). From the tower, one supervisor could readily inspect all the cells while not being viewable to those watched, a “ubiquitous hidden gaze” for controlling the many (Yekutieli 2006, 84). This attention by a noted social theorist was later echoed when Michel Foucault analyzed the “panoptic” measures taken in a seventeenth century crisis: “the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” (Foucault 1995, 201).
For instance, in the United States, the federal government started the national census in 1790 and asked only four questions. By 1890 the number of questions had grown considerably (e.g., diseases, disability, finances) and there was understandably some public outcry over the intrusiveness of the data collection effort.
Some methods of surveillance may present as manifestly inappropriate (e.g., intrusive, nonconsensual surveillance) while others may be benign in their original use and implementation, but later they morph into problematic uses (e.g., inappropriate use of gathered data). Unfortunately, it is far too easy for any given administrator to assume they are the “hero” in this morality play.
Second, in practice settings, general managers and administrators must become aware of those downside risks and make more informed decisions about what is potentially lost, rather than just focusing on the potential gains from widespread adoption of surveillance and its related techniques. In decision-theoretic terms, public administration decisions based on expected utilities necessarily understate the risk of negative events—especially ones that may be rare but carry high negative damage.
Yates, J., & Whitford, A. B. (2022). Surveillance as the Past and Future of Public Administration. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac022