1) Both authors agreed that it is the law enforcement systems—from police to military complex,—and institutions of social and political power that serve as the main facilitators of surveillance these days. However, as one understands the deeper nature of surveillance in itself, it displays itself as a necessary power enabling the societal functioning, the implementation of the normative codes. As we are "looking up" to each other, "watching" each other, "keeping an eye" on each other's belongings, "watching over" those less experienced, we are comitting small acts of surveillance in our daily lives. And that is why, I believe, it could be important to look at the notion of surveillance deeper and scrutinize its most noble, innocent forms; to attempt to define—what is the exact value (mankind's value) that pre-determines our need in surveilling to the extent it gets out of the gentle landscape of presumably helping an individual, as one would guide and feed a baby pet?
2) I appreciated the accessibility of the texts, as the authors do not seem to expect a reader to be acquainted with the field. What shone the brightest for me was the notion of the ethical nuances in the idea of surveillance (Lyon, 14)—particularly, the note about bloggers displaying the most intimate aspects of their lives. Is active consent of the Surveilled to become such enough if they do not have a say in becoming an object of the act of surveillance whether they want it or not? Imagine you offer me a cup of coffee. I say, "No, thank you." But you give it to me anyway. But what if I said, "Yes, thank you"? You would give it to me anyway. Or—you could just place it in front of me, without an utterance. My awareness of your intention to commit a coffee-related action can never change the outcome, and asking me about my volition is a mere formality disguising the deterministic nature of the act inherently ignoring my desires. So is anyone really content to be surveilled by the governmental tools?
It was also interesting to me how it was implied that even in the age of (uncanny) technological supremacy, it is someone's personal presence and contribution that prompt the highest trust (Lyon, 15; the second paragraph—a mention of "human surveillance"). Although technology can and does easily do the job of gathering information about a targeted person, there are still real people—persons!—who are spies. Because, perhaps, we, even if we are playing along with them, are inherently cautious about technology and we know: a laptop camera is better be closed. But a person becomes our buddy, our friend—and who, if not having an experience in believing that pigeons happen to have cameras, would ever be suspicious that a friend might take unsolicited pictures of them and use the history of their interaction as a means of receiving some private information about the accidentally Surveilled?