this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2026
142 points (92.8% liked)
Privacy
51661 readers
792 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My point is that a small chance of being searched at a border crossing is a far cry from a panopticon.
I'm sorry, do you understand that you are repeating the definition of the panopticon, but say you don't understand how a panopticon is a panopticon?
I've already explained I think there's a big difference between a chance of being searched at an airport and a chance of being observed at any moment while imprisoned and I'm not sure what else might be unclear.
The definition of a panopticon is not "a small chance of being searched", just to be clear. It's a specific thing and you're saying it's similar while I'm saying it's different enough.
You might want to take a quick look at Wikipedia, because you are trying to use inaccurate distinctions.
No, it's not placed in a prison, it's about the structure of a surveillance society.
From the first paragraph:
(emphasis mine)
Bentham designed the Panopticon as a prison. It sounds like you're using the word as a metaphor.
I don't think such a metaphorical usage is that great in this case. It works OK when you're talking about big-brother style surveillance that is potentially present in your private life at all times (like the panopticon's guard can potentially see any one inmate's private activity at any time) but not when you're talking about potentially being searched in a specific, limited, avoidable, circumventable circumstance.
Fishface, I linked you to a particular part of the article. Did you miss it by mistake?
Here is the part you failed to read:
If you are able to scroll down even further and continue reading, you'll also discover workplace surveillance is considered a Panopticon... Even though it apparently fits into your definition of something that is "circumventable", wherever you pulled that from.
I read that quote from a person other than the originator of the idea, yes. It is espousing that metaphorical application of the panopticon. It doesn't have anything to say about the applicability of the metaphor to searches in an airport.
I don't think we're making any progress here, so see ya.
The word does not belong to the person who "originated" (labeled) it. I'm sorry you don't like the modern usage and have chosen to die on that hill, but the rest of us are here on the internet, not in the 19th century.
I'm sorry you refuse to make progress.