Paranoia in the Panopticon: The Psychology Of Surveillance States

"This is why no one wants to dance anymore." One commenter remarked under a TikTok post. Recording a video of two unsuspecting individuals, the video garnered a substantial amount of engagement on the social media platform. Some weighed in by ridiculing the pair, others inventing hearsay about their actions, and–a few–questioning the principle of subjecting unknowing strangers to the array of criticism and appraisal present online. A survey conducted by Censuswide found that half of club-goers say phones are "ruining" their experience, with 55% conceding that they themselves have used their phones while dancing, 34% using them to share content online or communicate (Pilley, 2025). In a world where any embarrassing moment of yours could be immortalized on the internet and judged by hundreds of thousands of people, it is no wonder people are becoming uncomfortable loosening up in these spaces. Ironically enough, this study was commissioned by Meta Ray-bans, glasses that can covertly record people and places with high resolution. Meta models have LED lights that supposedly show when the owner is recording, though this feature is objectively very easy to bypass; a disconcerting number of Amazon sellers provide stickers advertised specifically to conceal that light, enabling the user to record others without consent (Greenwald, 2026).  

The Invisible Audience 

It's only human nature to seek acceptance and, accordingly, fear the negative judgements and perception of others (Gao et al., 2025). Evolutionary scientists consider it an adaptation that, for our ancestors, social rejection was likely synonymous with instant death–that's certainly how it can feel sometimes; however, research overwhelmingly indicates that Gen Z is substantially more anxious compared to previous generations at the same age. A multitude of factors are suspected to be behind this, including rising costs of living, global crises (e.g., pandemics), and less stigma surrounding mental health (Dwidienawati et al., 2025). However, when considering how Gen Z's childhood–one of the most developmentally important times for social self-awareness–was characterized by the introduction of social media platforms centered around public image and perception, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in his book The Anxious Generation, posits that the mid-2010s transition from a "play-based childhood" to a "phone-based childhood" spearheaded this global surge of anxiety. Many Gen-Zers were active on these apps from childhood through adolescence. Approximately 40% of children aged 8-12 report using social media, as well as 95% of teenagers (OSG, 2023), where they had to navigate a social landscape where you, your posts, and your appearance have the potential of being constantly watched, judged, and criticised by your peers at any time and without your knowledge. Kids learnt to perfectly curate their public image in a way that is most socially acceptable. However, research shows that suppressing elements of your personality or "self-concealment" correlates to higher self-reports of anxiety and depression (Larson & Chastain, 1990). Social media created a digital Panopticon, where the crime is being yourself.   

The "Panopticon" was a model developed by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and Michel Foucault, wherein prisoners presume themselves to be in a state of constant surveillance. Their cells surround a single guard tower. The prisoners cannot see into the guard tower, so they cannot tell when they are being watched. This ambiguity compels them to behave as though they are constantly being observed and perform integrity due to social pressures to conform or fear of consequences (Ruth, 2022). It is no profound revelation that many existing structures we live in are microcosms of the Panopticon: policing, military barracks, and open-concept offices. But, if living under a digital panopticon contributed to this anxiety-ridden generation, what effects does the reality of real, constant surveillance have on the individual psyche? 

From Surveillance state [Digital illustration], by A. Simpson, 2013, The New York Times 

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/07/21/books/review/0721-bks-SHONEcover/0721-bks-SHONEcover-superJumbo.jpg). 

Copyright 2013 by The New York Times Company.

Neurological Impact of Overt Surveillance

Flock surveillance cameras are currently facing significant opposition in the United States since the company installed over 100,000 cameras across the country. The Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) captures details of cars such as license plates and specifications (color, model, etc.). Obtaining tens of billions of data points per month, Flock has been investigated as reports emerged of police officers inappropriately using the cameras to track people like former romantic partners (Brown, 2026). Journalists like Benn Jordan argue that, despite the company's claims, their "Condor" cameras "use AI to zoom in and follow you around whether you're a person of interest or not." Flocks Condor is an AI-assisted camera that has been accused of following human movement and streaming it to authorities in real time–authorities including police and ICE (Koebler & Cox, 2025). Journalists noted several capabilities of the cameras, such as zooming in on faces, even close enough to read content on individuals' phone screens, as well as livestreams and archived footage being accessible on the internet with no form of encryption (Keefe, 2026). An additional example of surveillance in our age of technology includes cookies. These innocuously named tools track users' web activity by storing small text files on their device. Specifically, third-party cookies follow the users' behavior across multiple websites to create a profile that advertisers can use to target their products accordingly. These profiles can contain sensitive data that threatens anonymity, as details such as demographics and personally identifiable information (PII) can be collected and shared without the users' informed consent (Porter, 2026). Comparing these systems to a Panopticon is generous really, when they are hardly illusions of surveillance, but plain, unabashed surveillance technology. 

Research conducted by Jung et al. (2020) found that  "peer-to-peer surveillance", which they describe as smart glasses and wearable cameras with which individuals can unsuspectingly record others, led to increased stress levels and reduced group satisfaction. They had participants work in group settings either in the presence of peer-to-peer surveillance or more minimal surveillance. The results illustrated that peer-to-peer surveillance heightened feelings of being watched and increased stress and discontentment with the collaborative work. Further, studies show that people are less willing to search for and read about politically sensitive topics when they are under the impression that government agencies could be monitoring them. Often referred to as the "chilling effect", online research and civic participation, by extension, can be reduced as a result of people believing their online behavior is being monitored. For example, traffic to terrorism-related Wikipedia pages dropped by nearly 30% after the infamous Snowden leaks in 2013 (Penney, 2016). Fascinatingly, being under surveillance can also affect people on a subconscious level. The presence of cameras and the knowledge of being watched has been shown to elevate individuals' awareness of other people's gazes. Neuroscience researchers Seymour et al. (2024) had participants perform a visual task; one group with, and one group without, the presence of CCTV cameras in the room. The group in the presence of security cameras exhibited hyperawareness of the rapidly displayed faces, which was not present for any other image type (like geometric shapes), suggesting that surveillance triggers a neural circuit related to social processing, creating hyperawareness of the gazes of others. Hyperawareness of gazes is a trademark characteristic of mental health conditions such as Anxiety Disorder and psychosis. The researchers concluded that these conditions share the sensation of being "intensely scrutinized, leading to heightened anxiety and paranoia", and that rife monitoring could be an environmental stressor and exacerbate a variety of mental health issues. Their findings demonstrated that being under surveillance does not only impact conscious behavioral decisions, but also unconscious cognitive processes–like involuntary visual processing. 

From Peepers creepers [Digital illustration], by T. Hartman-Simkins, 2026, Futurism

(https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/ice-facial-surveillance-glasses). 

In-text elements from Meta and Getty Images. 

Copyright 2026 by Recurrent.

Rules for Thee, Not for Me

At the societal level, interpersonal trust may erode as a result of increased surveillance and monitoring of one another's behavior, especially via peer-to-peer surveillance technologies and the emergence of a culture of policing and shaming others on social media. Interestingly, individuals are generally more accepting of surveillance directed towards "outgroups" (Amnesty International, 2015), like foreigners or political adversaries, creating an environment of conformity whilst reinforcing social division between the "ingroup" and "outgroup". 

The main argument for increased surveillance from people like Garret Langley, CEO of Flock, is that it reduces crime. Granted, the watching-eye effect in psychology does posit that people act more altruistically and less anti-socially when exposed to depictions of being watched–even when the cues are images depicting eyes–It's proposed that the presence of these symbols that make indivduals feel observed increase self-awareness and reputation management; studies have found that the feeling of being watched led to people being more generous and sharing (Haley & Fessler, 2005) (Rigdon et al., 2009) (Powell et al., 2012). And, less likely to commit low-level offences like litter or petty theft (Nettle et al., 2012) (Francey & Bergmüler). 

But our age of rapidly evolving surveillance technology begs the question: are the ends worth the means, if it means we can't dance anymore? 

From Government Surveillance [Digital illustration], by C. Virginia, 2025, The Verge 

(https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/STK471_Government_Surveillance_CVirginia_C.jpg). 

In-text photos from Getty Images. 

Copyright 2025 by Vox Media.

References 

Amnesty International. (2015, August 17). Global opposition to USA big brother mass surveillance. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/03/global-opposition-to-usa-big-brother-mass-surveillance/

Brown, T. M. (2026). Flock cameras are getting mobbed. Cable News Network (CNN). Retrieved July 31, 2026, from https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/30/us/flock-camera-vandalism-protests-cec

Dwidienawati, D., Pradipto, Y., Indrawati, L., & Gandasari, D. (2025). Internal and external factors influencing Gen Z wellbeing. BMC Public Health, 25(1), 1584. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-22124-5

Francey, D., & Bergmüller, R. (2012). Images of Eyes Enhance Investments in a Real-Life

Public Good. PLOS ONE, 7(5), e37397. 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037397

Gao, W., Li, Y., Yuan, J., & He, Q. (2025). The shared and distinct mechanisms underlying fear of evaluation in social anxiety: the roles of negative and positive evaluation. Depression and Anxiety, 2025(1), 9559056. 

https://doi.org/10.1155/da/9559056

Greenwald, W. (2026, May 25). Are you being secretly recorded? Here’s how to spot smart camera glasses in the wild. PCMag Middle East. https://me.pcmag.com/en/smart-glasses/37346/are-you-being-secretly-recorded-heres-how-to-spot-smart-camera-glasses-in-the-wild

Haley, K. J., & Fessler, D. M. (2005). Nobody's watching?: Subtle cues affect generosity in an

anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(3), 245-256. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.01.002

Jung, Y., Choi, B., & Cho, W. (2020). Group satisfaction with group work under surveillance:

The stimulus-organism-response (SOR) perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 58, 101530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101530

Keefe, B. (2026, June 15). Flock says its cameras don’t track people. Its own training videos say otherwise. https://www.investigatetv.com/. https://www.investigatetv.com/2026/06/15/flock-says-its-cameras-dont-track-people-its-own-training-videos-say-otherwise/

Koebler, J., & Cox, J. (2025, May 27). ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows. 404 Media. https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/

Larson, D. G., & Chastain, R. L. (1990). Self-Concealment: conceptualization, measurement, and health implications. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(4), 439–455. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1990.9.4.439

Nettle, D., Nott, K., & Bateson, M. (2012). ‘Cycle Thieves, We Are Watching You’: Impact of a

Simple Signage Intervention against Bicycle Theft. PLOS ONE, 7(12), e51738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051738

Office of the Surgeon General (OSG). (2023). Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S.

Surgeon General’s Advisory. US Department of Health and Human Services.

Penney, J. (2016). Chilling effects: online surveillance and Wikipedia use. Schulich Law Scholars. https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/scholarly_works/1801/?utm_

Pilley, M. (2025, December 15). Half of all clubbers think that phones are ruining the dancefloor. NME. https://www.nme.com/news/music/half-of-all-clubbers-think-that-phones-are-ruining-the-dancefloor-3918512

Porter, A. (2026, January 21). A taste of surveillance: The Truth about Third-Party Cookies. BigID. https://bigid.com/blog/what-are-third-party-cookies/

Powell, K. L., Roberts, G., & Nettle, D. (2012). Eye Images Increase Charitable Donations: 

Evidence From an Opportunistic Field Experiment in a Supermarket. Ethology, 118(11), 

1096-1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12011

Rigdon, M., Ishii, K., Watabe, M., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Minimal social cues in the dictator 

game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(3), 358-367. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.02.002

Ruth, M. (2022). Panopticon | History | Research Starters | EBSCO Research. EBSCO. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/panopticon

Seymour, K., McNicoll, J., & Koenig-Robert, R. (2024). Big brother: the effects of surveillance on fundamental aspects of social vision. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2024(1). https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2024/1/niae039/7920510?login=false