In this article Julie Cohen draws the connection between the constant surveillance, enabled by digital cameras in public spaces, and the active accumulation of data, available to different organizations. This accumulation of data stored in multitude of databases paints a digital picture of people more revealing than the separate and random surveillance in public spaces. This integration of data in databases pose a privacy threat much more dangerous than Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon and Foucault’s interpretation of it. Cohen draws the connection between observation, surveillance, watching and power. Surveillance not only gathers information about human behavior, but when this information is stored in database then becomes a concrete fact about the past of people.
These databases in combination of different and various types of data is the real threat to privacy. She deduces that physical and online space are one and the same in terms of that they both can generate data and thus is more accurate to think of them as a “networked space” (p.195). Further she examines privacy and surveillance. Cohen distinguishes between spacial and information dimension of privacy. And she examines that surveillance changes the space over which is exerted in two ways. First the idea of power over people, but at the same time offers a sense of security. The conclusion is that surveillance in public spaces produces the same results and effects as online surveillance.
People who critique moving pictures fall into 3 general classes:
1. Reviewers - are generally journalists who describe the contents and general tone of a movie, with only incidental emphasis on aesthetic evaluation.
2. Critics - are also journalists for the most part, but their emphasis is more on evaluation than on mere content description.
3. Theorists - are usually professional academics, often the authors of books on how movies can be studied on a more philosophical level.
I'm a film critic and I like to write about films that are exceptional and stand above the rest.
"The role of the critic is to help people see what is in the work, what is in it that shouldn't be, what is not in it that could be. He is a good critic if he helps people understand more about the work that they could see for themselves; he is a great critic, if by his understandings and feeling for the work, by his passion, he can excite people so that they want to experience more of the art that is there, waiting to be seized. He is not necessarily bad critic if he makes errors in judgement. He is a bad critic if he does not awaken the curiosity, enlarge the interests and understanding of his audience. The art of the critic is to transmit his knowledge of and enthusiasm for art to others." ( Pauline Kael )