Countercontrol: blind pilots

comments 2
1984, Architecture, Architecture & urbanism, Bad design, Britain, Bureaucracy, Circumvention, Civil rights, Control, Creeping erosion of norms, Crime, Deleuze, Design, Design engineering, Design philosophy, Design with Intent, Designed to be unpleasant, Designed to injure, Designers, Discrimination, Discriminatory Architecture, Distasteful corollary, Do artifacts have politics?, Dystopia, Embedding code, Entropy, Erosion of liberty, Exclusion, External Control, Fightback Devices, Foucault, Future, Health and safety, Intrusive technology, Law, Legislation, Liberty, Nonsense, Norms, Oppression, Orwellian, Panopticon, Philosophy of control, Political design, Privacy, Propaganda, Public money, Punishment, Regulation, Restriction, Sneaky, Social engineering, Spatial, Surveillance, Techniques of persuasion, Technology, Technology policy, Technology underclass, Teenagers, Underclass, Urban, User experience, User Psychology

Eye
In a recent post, I discussed a Spiked article by Josie Appleton which included the following quote:

“Police in Weston-super-Mare have been shining bright halogen lights from helicopters on to youths gathered in parks and other public places. The light temporarily blinds them, and is intended to ‘move them on’, in the words of one Weston police officer.”

A friend, reading this, simply uttered a single word: “Mirror”.
What’d happen then? Is the risk of a blinded pilot and a crashed helicopter really worth it?
Or perhaps it’s the state, and by extension Avon & Somerset Police (in this case), who are the real blind pilots, attempting to ‘guide’ society in this way? If not blind, they’re certainly short-sighted.

2 Comments

  1. Pingback: Architectures of Control in Design » BBC: Surveillance drones in Merseyside

Leave a Reply