The principle of the Panopticon still works in today's "big data" society. As we get more and more assesses to information on the Internet, our personal information is also being exposed to others. However, as an user commented, "there is a place for surveillance -- but not when its scope and power has the ability to undermine our networks and connections that are essential for fostering healthy human development and communities -- which is the best protection against harm". The invisibility of the power, to some extent, builds up the self-suiveillance.
"To what extent is it possible - or desirable - to disengage from the growing
cultural database? How do surveillance and "sousveillance" play a role in the
policing of individuals by institutions, and vice versa? Can we disentangle the
issues surrounding localized record keeping from globalized control over the
archives? In this article, we discuss a range of cultural practices, epistemological
regimes and intellectual discourses that have emerged to cope with these
questions, and we assess the strategic options for communitarian and individual
agency in an era we describe as "the end of forgetting."*
I included this link as the article has an excellent model to describe the different strategic responses of agency to the openness of data and the resultant privacy issues.