Rethinking Surveillance: Trust, Community, and Secure Technology
Surveillance technology often flourishes where fear and mistrust have taken root. In many authoritarian or militaristic systems, huge data-collection networks and CCTV cameras become the default “solution” to insecurity – even as they erode privacy and community bonds. Yet peace activists and scholars argue that this kind of top-down monitoring is actually a symptom of deeper problems, not a cure. A society built on trust “should have no need for surveillance,” whereas a culture of distrust readily justifies “control, monitoring, and verification”diva-portal.org. In other words, heavy surveillance usually reflects a crisis of trust. It’s important to say that this perspective does not dismiss the vital, legitimate roles that police, mediators, soldiers and others play in keeping communities safe. Rather, it highlights that excessive, indiscriminate surveillance – especially when driven by fear – undermines the social fabric.
For example, one resident shared that after installing security cameras to catch squatters and thieves, he ultimately found greater safety by removing the cameras and investing time in community dialogue and trauma-healing workshops instead. Over months, neighbors began to watch out for each other, and he felt safer leaving doors unlocked than he ever did under camera surveillance. This real-life story echoes research: surveillance often destroys trust. Scholar Fredrika Björklund observes that surveillance regimes are “built on a basis of distrust,” and that higher trust in institutions normally makes people less uneasy about monitoring(diva-portal.org). In practice, however, blind surveillance creates a “solvent of trust,” as sociologist David Lyon puts it(comment.org) – by constantly signaling that nobody can really be trusted. Lyon explains that sprawling data-collection “makes mistakes that finger innocents… We feel uneasy, uncertain… and we start to doubt the system that is supposed to protect us. Trust is broken”comment.org. In short, the more a state spies on its citizens (or neighbors on each other), the more paranoia and resentment can grow.
Michel Foucault famously analyzed this dynamic in terms of the Panopticon – a prison design where a hidden guard watches every inmate. In Bentham’s original plan, “a supervisor in a central tower” could “observe… the small captive shadows in the cells”fs.blog. Foucault used this as a metaphor: by making people feel they could be watched at any time, power becomes internalized. “He is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication,” Foucault wrote… In other words, constant visibility forces people to police themselves. Over time, the prisoners “began to regulate their own behaviour” out of fear of being watched… Thus modern surveillance – CCTV, social-media monitoring, biometric databases – can turn whole societies into self-disciplining “prisons,” long before any crime is committed. (fs.blog)
This pervasive watchfulness has deep psychological costs. As Lyon argues, every time we rely on hidden cameras or tracking devices rather than on each other, bonds of mutual trust weaken. (comment.org) Parents who spy on their teen drivers, for instance, or smartphone apps that log private activities, send the message that “nothing and no one is to be trusted: not them, not us, and especially not the rest of the world,” as writer Judith Shulevitz warned. Bell Hooks similarly critiques this “dominator culture” of fear. She notes that oppressive systems “have tried to keep us all afraid, to make us choose safety instead of risk, sameness instead of diversity,” and that moving through that fear – by embracing each other’s differences – is how we build real communitiestheguardian.com. In her words, confronting fear and connecting across divides “gives us a world of shared values, of meaningful community”(theguardian.com). This insight underlines the idea that security through distrust is ultimately self-defeating: it may impose short-term order, but it prevents the creation of genuine, long-term peace.
Building Trust and Healing Communities
True safety requires addressing the root causes of conflict and fear – which often lie in trauma, injustice, and social alienation. Many peace-building frameworks now emphasize healing and relationship-building rather than surveillance. For example, restorative justice programs focus on repairing harm and rebuilding community bonds. Instead of punishment alone, they bring victims and offenders together in mediated dialogue to “repair the harm, restore relationships, and rebuild communities”psychologytoday.com. Research shows victims in such programs often feel more heard and satisfied, and both sides can recover a sense of closure and mutual respect.
Dialogue Circles & Mediation: Create safe spaces where people can speak openly about fears, misunderstandings, or grievances. Trained mediators and community leaders can facilitate conversations that humanize “the other.” This mirrors practices in post-conflict zones (like survivor-perpetrator circles in Rwanda) where dialogue has helped villagers move past suspicion and resentment.
Trauma-Informed Healing: Communities fractured by violence or crime can benefit from counseling and collective healing events. As the Karuna Center for Peacebuilding reports from Rwanda, unaddressed psychological wounds “can be passed on to the next generations—and could fuel future violence.” Their project brought survivors and former perpetrators together in trauma-healing workshops, showing that joint recovery work can build reconciliation—karunacenter.org. Participants learned to use their shared experiences of pain and loss as common ground, which helped restore trust at the grassroots.
Community Engagement & Solidarity: Local initiatives like neighborhood watches, mutual aid networks, or faith-based community groups can replace fear with solidarity. When people know their neighbors, they naturally look out for one another and rely less on automated surveillance. In one example, a group helped a troubled family directly rather than calling police, which prevented escalation and strengthened bonds.
Bell Hooks reminds us that sustainable community requires “vigilant awareness” of how social norms can teach us to perpetuate dominationtheguardian.com. In practice, this means constantly working to undo prejudice and fear. Trust-building is a slow process: it demands patience, empathy, and often personal risk. But history shows it can succeed. In places where long-standing conflicts seemed intractable, investment in justice, education, and economic opportunity (rather than cameras and checkpoints) has led to dramatic reductions in violence. When neighbors learn each other’s names, share meals, or collaborate on local projects, the invisible walls of suspicion begin to fall. In such environments, people genuinely feel safer – often so much that they can afford to loosen locks and step outside with confidence, as the homeowner’s story above illustrates.
Technology and Global Solutions
On the global stage, new technologies can either widen the surveillance net or empower individuals. A key strategy is to harness technology for trust and privacy rather than control. Cryptography and decentralized networks are crucial tools in this shift. For example, end-to-end encryption – as used in apps like Signal and WhatsApp – ensures that only the sender and intended recipient can read a message. As the ACLU observes, this kind of encryption “empowers citizens to communicate freely without fear of surveillance, censorship, and warrantless searches”aclu.org. In other words, strong encryption acts as a digital shield for human rights, protecting free speech, privacy, and political dissent from abusive powers. aclu.orginternetsociety.org ( 5 years of collaboration between the global encryption coalition and internet society chapters )
Beyond messaging, cryptographic tools can secure entire information systems. Decentralized identity systems (DIDs) use cryptography so that individuals can prove who they are without revealing private dataoasis.net. Zero-knowledge proofs allow one party to verify something (like age or credit) without seeing the underlying data. In a trust-based society, such technologies could underlie a globally connected web where transactions and communications are transparent only to the parties involved, not to prying authorities. For example, blockchain-based platforms can be designed with privacy-by-default, embedding strong encryption and anonymity into their architectureoasis.net.
International cooperation is also scaling up around these ideas. In 2020 the Global Encryption Coalition was launched to defend strong crypto worldwide. As of 2025, 93 of the Internet Society’s 110 country chapters are involved in this effort(internetsociety.org). Local chapters on six continents have mobilized to fight laws that would force backdoors or weaken encryption. In one case, activists in Belgium convinced lawmakers to remove a mandate for forced decryption, arguing that such a law would “have detrimental effects” on security and trustinternetsociety.org. Globally, hundreds of grassroots events (for instance, on Global Encryption Day) now raise public awareness that “encryption is key” to personal and collective security. The Internet Society notes that encryption “helps protect private information, sensitive data, and can enhance the security of communication between two parties”(internetsociety.org). In short, a worldwide movement of technologists, lawyers and citizens is striving to build an information infrastructure that reinforces trust, privacy and human rights—rather than eroding them.
Toward a Culture of Trust
Shifting from surveillance to trust is not an overnight fix. It involves cultural change, political will, and a willingness to confront difficult social issues. But evidence shows it leads to more lasting safety. As bell hooks urges: if we truly want a “beloved community,” we must be prepared to stand for justice and mutual care(theguardian.com). Instead of defaulting to suspicion, we can choose the “slower path” of dialogue, healing and inclusion. This path may seem daunting at first, but it builds resilience: once neighbors trust one another, crises can be handled without panic, and emergencies can be met with cooperation rather than chaos.
Ultimately, surveillance is a symptom of fear. By treating it as such – and redirecting efforts toward its roots – societies can break the cycle. In the digital realm, that means building cryptographically secure platforms and networks that respect individual rights. Locally, it means investing in community ties, mental health, and restorative practices. Together, these approaches turn the Panopticon inside-out: instead of everyone watching everyone else, people watch out for each other. That is how real, sustainable safety emerges – and how global societies can move from suspicion back to solidarity.
Sources: Sociologist David Lyon and scholar Fredrika Björklund on trust and surveillancediva-portal.orgcomment.org; Foucault’s analysis of the Panopticonfs.blog; bell hooks on fear, safety, and communitytheguardian.com; Karuna Center on trauma healing and peacebuildingkarunacenter.org; Psychology Today on restorative justicepsychologytoday.com; ACLU on encryption and privacyaclu.org; Oasis Labs on cryptographic privacyoasis.netoasis.net; Internet Society on global encryption effortsinternetsociety.org; and Marge Piercy on imagining better futuressocialist.ca. Each supports the view that trust-building and secure, rights-preserving technology offer a healthier path than fear-driven surveillance. (also https://www.effectivealtruism.org/, https://www.eff.org/)
