Shanel: Lundemo Automated Pattern of Recognition

According to Lundemo, how does the “automated pattern of recognition” and ”digital technology lead to new techniques of surveillance”? (110-113) Shanel

In analog film, the movement that was depicted on screen was made in the spaces between frames. However, in digital video, movement within a particular frame is automatically detected. The section that was detected to have movement is updated frame to frame, but the portions that are not automatically detected to have movement are not. The image "stills" that are used in surveillance are not authentic depictions of a certain time and place. Rather, they are distortions using "immobile" (as defined by the coding) surroundings created by automation and without direct human intervention. We don't think to question surveillance stills believing they are neutral and objective. However, this is dangerous if we don't understand the technology behind the capture of movement on film. 

Resisting or pushing back on digital technologies that are causing harm can be incredibly difficult for those who aren't privy to the inner workings of digital tools. I have a theoretical understanding of many of these technologies, at best, and can understand how intimidating it is to push back against a supposedly "neutral" tool. Information about digital tools and their processes exists, but how accessible is it, really? Without being couched in a theoretical framework such as this, I wouldn't be able to easily grasp the gravity of the automation of movement recognition.

How many situations with digital tools are just like this, but the public isn't given the information they need to be well-informed digital citizens? Is it possible to use humanities and theory to shine a light on injustices that can be caused by automation such as this?