In your article, Jen, you have surrendered to the wrong reality:
"We already know that surveillance is disturbing for its two entwined failures: Its vision for us is violently reductive, and it never sees from inside."
A failure is a shortcoming or a problem to be fixed. Assessing these as failures is a spur to address them, to make surveillance both all-encompassing and from the inside out. This is not a desirable outcome.
Another way to frame this would be to say that surveillance is disturbing for its two entwined failures: Our daily lives are becoming property and that property is owned by the state. If we addressed those failures, the outcome would be radically different.
Sorry.
"We already know that surveillance is disturbing for its two entwined failures: Its vision for us is violently reductive, and it never sees from inside."
A failure is a shortcoming or a problem to be fixed. Assessing these as failures is a spur to address them, to make surveillance both all-encompassing and from the inside out. This is not a desirable outcome.
Another way to frame this would be to say that surveillance is disturbing for its two entwined failures: Our daily lives are becoming property and that property is owned by the state. If we addressed those failures, the outcome would be radically different.