Hacker News Reader

Comment by BurningFrog | Hacker News Reader

Since I doubt I'm the only one who didn't know what a "panopticon" is:

A "panopticon" is a concept originally designed as a type of prison by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century. It’s a circular building with a central watchtower where a single guard can observe all the inmates in their cells, which are arranged around the perimeter. The twist? The inmates can’t see into the tower, so they never know if they’re being watched. This setup was meant to induce self-discipline—prisoners would behave as if they’re always under surveillance, even if no one’s actually looking.

View on HN

That summary is technically correct but is missing some context. A famous French philosopher and historian named Michel Foucault popularized Bentham's panopticon as a metaphor for modern society more broadly back in the 60s. IIRC the gist is that the way modern society always watches and monitors us across many aspects of modern life probably has deep but subtle affects on our psyches. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish

The inability of people to go through the power process has deep psychological implications, described in depth in "Industrial Society and It's Future"

Like thinking the “elf on the shelf” Christmas toy is an acceptable thing.

"Hey, what if we marketed a little narc doll that we sold to kids" was probably when I should have realized that the surveillance state will always win

> probably has deep but subtle affects on our psyches

Many religions (basically all the big ones) forcefully indoctrinate members from childhood to believe that their deity is omniscient and is constantly watching them and judging them. It's generally agreed among members that this is a good thing.

I'd be significantly less worried about being in a panopticon if it was going to accurately judge my good and bad deeds and do nothing else.

Though that depends quite a lot on who gets to define what is "good" and "bad".

Seems wise to leave the answering of that question to a transcendent entity

[flagged]

That argument doesn't make it any better. That just makes God a eugenicist.

If the results of that determination only apply after I'm dead, then their definition of good is not entirely relevant to me.

Sounds like we've met. I'd take God in this position over one man or many any day of the week

"Judge me, O God, and plead my cause against an ungodly nation: O deliver me from the deceitful and unjust man. For thou art the God of my strength..."

"...but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."

Agreed. I’ll take a fictional overseer vs an actual one any day of the week.

I was raised catholic and I now consider it a form of abuse. Someone close to me was raised evangelic and thinking about this makes her want to puke.

The psychological damage from this sort of thing is probably so prevalent that it looks like water to a fish. Not to speak of the sleepless nights at 7 years old worrying about eternal damnation.

This is all abuse and it should be treated as such by any decent and civilised society.

I was not raised Christian growing up, but I still recall believing someone was always watching me as a kid. It was likely because so many around me were religious, and I had been told so many dead relatives were "up there smiling down on us" when they died. I thought both that someone was looking through my windows and that people "up there" could see me.

Until I got access to pornography (too early) and then I guess the tradeoffs changed, and I eventually got over it. I do distinctly remember wondering what grandma thinks of me at that time. But not for long, logic kicks in to explain anything away when you've got fast internet to exploit.

> But not for long, logic kicks in to explain anything away when you've got fast internet to exploit.

Not everyone is so lucky; for some, the feelings of guilt and shame never get dissolved through logic, it's just the dopamine loop is strong enough that the person keeps doing things they later despise themselves for.

Guess how that can impact the psyche over a decade or two.

Maybe not psychologically healthy for the individual, but likely provides some social benefits.

Anyway, it doesn't appear to work as well lately so we maybe should come up with another approach for social stability.

> Maybe not psychologically healthy for the individual, but likely provides some social benefits.

I never understood this line of reasoning. What good are "social benefits" if the happiness and well being of the human beings that make up that society are sacrificed? Isn't this the basis of totalitarianism? "Everything for the State, nothing against the State".

Well ya I don't say I condone, I'm very much an individualist (to a fault).

But also, we don't exist in isolation, and there are reasons societies evolve as they do. There has to be some level of social control and belief in being watched over at all times was probably pretty handy for emperors and to some extent those who would be victimized. At least back when it worked wide scale.

Why do we need this myth of things working in the past? It didn't work and was a horror show. This is bordering on the absurd "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" logic that doesn't ever really work outside the heros journey and action movies.

There are reasons things evolved as they did. Societies with forms of social cohesion beat those without. Maybe it's different now but then again, maybe it's not.

I guess I wonder which groups modern groups in your eyes have net social cohesion. Seems highly subjective

As a christian, I can handle this concept. But only in the context where the deity accepts that I can never be perfect and yet can be acceptable. This concept, though biblical, is hardly ever taught because of the fear of it being taken advantage of. The deity requires effort, not perfection. If this is false, then the messiah was a complete waste of time.

> But only in the context where the deity accepts that I can never be perfect and yet can be acceptable.

This is the religion where everyone, over 6000 years later, is being vindictively punished because a couple of their ancestors, in a single instance, broke a rule about eating from one of the trees. The deity, who is omnipotent and could decide stop this all at any time, allows for all manner of terrible diseases and pestilence to be visited on innocent children.

A few thoughts. One is that not all of christendom subscribes to the view that it was literally one man, some take a less literal view. Second, a vast majority of human suffering is down stream of human decisions. Yes it is possible for an omnipotent being to stop all suffering but I would argue it would remove all moral decision making from humans which is important.

> not all of christendom subscribes to the view that it was literally one man, some take a less literal view

I grew up in a Christian country and your "some" is doing a lot of work. Sure, perhaps some specific Christian theologists take that view. But, all actual Christians are taught from childhood that it was one specific man, tempted by one specific woman into eating a literal fruit. The only thing that's generally mentioned as open to interpretation is whether the fruit was an apple. You might get exposed to more nuanced theological views if you study at a seminary, but not while living your life as an average person who identifies as Christian, which is the vast majority.

The majority of Christians (Catholics) are told to not read the bible literally. Taking the bible literally is where logic and critical thinking breakdown.

I thought the apple thing was understood to be a Latin pun between “malum” (evil) and “mālum” (apple). Isn’t it so?

Ah yes, hence "maleficarum" being an alternate name for AppleTalk. :D

(Source: I made this up.)

> One is that not all of christendom subscribes to the view that it was literally one man, some take a less literal view.

That is such a tiny minority I’ve never even heard of that until now

It’s a lot larger than you think.

> Second, a vast majority of human suffering is down stream of human decisions.

This implies there is a small minority, i.e. human suffering not down stream of human decisions - what about that?

I actually don’t want to argue, I can understand that for some people disregarding that part or finding an explanation is enough and still helpful.

My point is to highlight that, similarly, for others, this idea and its interpretations are unhelpful.

> One is that not all of christendom subscribes to the view that it was literally one man, some take a less literal view.

I was raised Catholic (mass every weekend, CCD through 8th grade) and not once were we ever taught your interpretation. It was Adam and Eve, one man, one woman.

It’s not a part of Catholic doctrine. You won’t find the core beliefs of much, much more mainstream sects in Catholic teachings, let alone the more uncommon beliefs that are out there.

That’s exactly what made me renounce christianity. In kindergarten.

Bro. This might be technically correct but you are far from the first person who posited these questions and won’t be the last to be swamped with responses trying to “save” you. Let the morons be morons and just stop poking the hornets nest.

> It's generally agreed among members that this is a good thing.

Some say it is just the way the rich keep the poor from killing them.

Is it ironic or fitting that a man who designed a building where everyone could be observed is now observed himself for eternity. His preserved corpse is on display at University College London.

Am curious. How, with 17th century technology, could you have a geometry where I can see you but you can't see me? Glass treatment? Narrow viewing port?

a circular room looking out from a high point facing an exterior round wall of cells that look in

Don't need any special tech or geometry, just light. If it's relatively darker in the watched-from areas it's harder to see in than out.

Light and perhaps curtains in the central area would probably do the trick.

"By Blinds, and other contrivances, the Inspectors concealed from the observation of the Prisoners: hence the sentiment of a sort of invisible omnipresence."

— Jeremy Bentham (1791). Panopticon, or The Inspection House

Something like a pinhole camera. If you have a piece of card with a pinprick hole in it, you can look through that hole and see a wide view, but a person in front of you wouldn't be able to see much of you through that same hole.

Something like "one way mirrors" should work.

They're really just glass with a partially reflective layer.

When one side is brightly lit and the other side isn't you get the desired effect.

If the internet is to be believed they did not have one way mirrors in the 17th century. They were invented in the early 1900s.

However, looking at the patent for what is supposed to be the first it says that there were earlier attempts--they just sucked because making the partially reflective layer was difficult and expensive and not durable enough when used on outdoor advertising devices.

Yes, you read that right. Advertising. Technology being driven by someone's desire to show ads is not new.

The thing the inventor was building was a case for displaying advertising posters. The case had a glass front, and the poster was behind the glass, with powerful lights behind the poster. When the lights were off the glass would appear to people looking at the case to be a mirror. When the lights were on the poster could be seen.

Plain glass works fine for this, but they were perfectly capable of making one way mirrors at the time. The historical term is "half silvered mirror", which were used in a lot of early scientific research in optics.

Frankly you could just use blinds though.

If the internet is to be believed silvered mirrors also came after the 17th century. Wikipedia has silvered mirrors as being from 1835.

Silvering is a separate and older process than silver mirrors, as in the metal silver applied to a glass surface.

The Wikipedia page on silvering points to the 1400s in Europe, and the 10th century for the eastern Mediterranean : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvering

Prisons in the 1800s were dark

It's a metaphor mostly.

How awfully unfortunate to spend your entire life in a panopticon without ever being told what one is. Perhaps this is a feature.

It is all about informational asymmetry, you know nothing about the people in power, while they (potentially) could know all about you. The idea is to get you to self-police by assuming the gaze of those wielding the power.

You just described my Catholic upbringing

the scarier thing is, prior to the AIs, even if they could get all this information, there was no one to sort through it, so they needed some actual reason to look.

Now they don't need any reason to look, they can just make a bunch of AI sift through it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

Root word comes from the Greek mythological giant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_Panoptes

Whose name itself comes from the ancient Greek words pan (all) and optikon (optics, see).

In the Netherlands 3 panopticon-style prisons were built from 1882 to 1886. This is the one that stands in Breda:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koepelgevangenis_(Breda)

Some years ago, the one in Arnhem, was up for sale, and the local hacker space, hack42, made an attempt to buy it and turn it into the largest hacker space of Europe. The plan did not work out.

Automated review of camera data differs from the classic panopticon, though, in that it's possible for the system to observe every person, every time.

Also a kickass album by Isis (a bit unfortunately named now...).

Not to be confused with ISIS, lmao.

Here is the album: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF6Qzd9BLSQ

That's one GPT-ass paragraph

Maybe, but if so, it was an appropriate use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com