The Psychology of Mass Surveillance
What the Flock is going on?
Flock cameras seem to be going up in shocking numbers lately, as seen in the image below, and stories of abuse by law enforcement are flooding the internet. YouTubers like Benn Jordan, along with groups like DeFlock, are sounding the alarm. Whichever way the debate goes, the use of mass surveillance by law enforcement is as much a question for psychology as it is for civics.
Source: https://maps.deflock.org/
Psychological Safety
A common argument from the pro-surveillance side is that, “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about”. This statement is not exactly true in light of multiple studies indicating that all humans, guilty or innocent, are affected by being watched. We’re anxious creatures even when our anxiety is irrational. In the case of Flock and mass surveillance, there’s plenty of rational “worry”, however.
The anxiety that comes with constant surveillance takes a toll at a time when social anxiety is already on the rise, especially for our young adults. In one study out of Canada, lifetime prevalence of social anxiety disorder among this demographic has risen 71% since 2002. Long-term surveillance is linked to lower mood, feelings of helplessness, and reduced life satisfaction. The innocent suffer this anxiety alongside the guilty.
Skills Atrophy
The mind can atrophy just like a muscle. A clear example of surveillance-induced skills atrophy can be seen in cities with extensive CCTV and facial recognition networks. Law enforcement officers (LEOs) increasingly default to reviewing footage rather than honing traditional investigative skills such as interviewing witnesses, reading behavioral cues, or cultivating community trust. Over time, this leads to a measurable decline in situational awareness and de-escalation abilities. When technology fails or is unavailable, response effectiveness suffers.
This assistance paradox is already playing out on our highways as well. As cars become loaded with advanced driver-assistance systems, drivers are showing measurable declines in core skills such as hazard anticipation and reaction time. Studies from the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute reveal that heavy users of these systems are slower to intervene when automation fails and make more errors in dynamic, low-tech situations. They lose the very human capabilities that no technology can fully replicate. The result of the assistance paradox is a workforce that is more dependent and less capable when the system inevitably falters.
The Panopticon Effect
Country music star Ricky Skaggs once made an incredibly perceptive observation on the nature of morality in his 1991 hit, ‘My Father’s Son’:
Well, a rich man writes the book of laws a poor man must defend,
But the highest laws are written on the hearts of honest men.
The first line speaks to external authority: top-down rules imposed by system power. The second points to internal morality: the deeply held sense of right and wrong that guides us even when no one is watching.
Laws were intended to punish external wrongdoing, not to replace personal conscience. However, modern systems increasingly rely on pervasive monitoring to guarantee compliance. When we allow constant surveillance to enforce those external rules, we stop relying on our internal moral compass. When the mere fear of being watched, rather than personal integrity, drives our behavior, we see the Panopticon Effect at work.
Named after Jeremy Bentham’s prison design and later expanded by Michel Foucault, this dynamic is well-supported by empirical research. In a longitudinal study of workplace internet monitoring, Alder et al. (2008) found that employees’ reactions to surveillance were strongly shaped by their pre-existing ethical orientation. Those with stronger internal moral frameworks experienced greater psychological strain and resistance, while others gradually shifted toward simple external compliance.
As pervasive surveillance reshapes how individuals relate to their own ethics, morality itself risks becoming performative rather than principled.
The Faustian Bargain
Mass surveillance doesn’t just watch society, it reshapes society psychologically. While I am personally against the use of tools like Flock, at least as they are being deployed currently, the science of psychology cannot make moral determinations like “right” or “wrong”. What psychology can do is make us aware of how such technology impacts humans, especially on the massive scale by which these tools are being deployed.
These impacts affect the guilty and the innocent alike. It affects those doing the watching as well as those being watched. While some surveillance systems can function as a valuable tool for crime reduction, the choice between liberty and safety is a Faustian bargain that seems to be being made for us. A surveilled society may be easier to control, but it will be less capable, less trusting, and ultimately less secure.
This article was also published on my X: The Emerald Coast Consultant