What does "Non-democratic surveillance" mean and how does it differ from "democratic surveillance"? I ask because I've never heard surveillance split up into democratic and non-democratic.
From the sounds of it I’d guess that “non-democratic” is when it’s forced on a population without their agreement and that “democratic” is when the population are either presented with the idea and agree with it or request it. Am I right?
Well, you're right.
It's just "democratic surveillance" is easier for me to spell than the actual term I need to use: Sousveillance.
Basically, surveliance is viewing from above, while sousvelliance is viewing from below. One is a centralized (usually authoritarian in some way) force that observes people. The other is a participatory panopticon, wherein there is an even distribution of power and observation.
A surveilled society is one of intense power inequity. THEY can watch US and act on that information, but WE cannot watch THEM and act on it. In other words...Orwell, with tellyscreens and everything.
A souvellied society is one of power equality. THEY can watch US, but WE can WATCH right back. That is, shockingly enough, closer to what we have today than Orwell had ever dreamed. Yes, there are security cameras in the BART, but there were enough cellphone cameras to catch video footage of a cop shooting an unarmed man in the head.
Just an example.
Now, some people don't like this equalizing of power.
Why do you think cops hate getting filmed?