State surveillance campaigns recruit citizens while refusing to define suspicious behavior.

Evidence

Another component of a surveillance society is state-sponsored encouragement of Americans to participate in it, giving citizens a sense of control over terrorism prevention. The “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign encourages Americans to participate in citizen surveillance. Citizens are integrated into the security state as de facto agents when they are repeatedly asked by the government to monitor their surroundings to keep America safe. The following statement on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website exemplifies how the state instigates public participation in surveillance: “Prompt and detailed reporting of suspicious activities can help prevent violent crimes or terrorist attacks. If you see suspicious activity, please report it to your local police department. Local law enforcement officers can respond quickly. Once they assess the situation, they can obtain additional support” (Department of Homeland Security 2008). There are no descriptions of the behaviors that constitute “suspicious activities” related to terrorism, yet the state invites citizens to take part in surveillance to curtail it. Government agencies specify “suspicious items” as unattended bags in public spaces, but the public is rarely provided with specific guidelines regarding suspicious behaviors. There is an instructional video on the DHS website associated with the campaign that warns the public not to profile based on religion, race, and gender, yet its description of distrustful behaviors is vague—the video showed individuals dressed in black with ski masks or hoodies leaving a white van or running away from a black backpack. — Saher Selod, Forever Suspect_ Racialized…, 59

Categorization

• XREF: Parallels the DHS countering-violent-extremism messaging Bazian critiques — state summons citizen vigilance without operational definitions.
• QUESTION: The ‘If You See Something, Say Something’ video itself garbles its own anti-profiling message with stereotyped imagery — worth checking the actual video for how anxiety outruns the stated policy.
• DEEPTHINKING: The gap between ‘don’t profile’ instruction and the stereotyped imagery in the government’s own training video is a dense, quietly damning example of how anti-profiling rhetoric coexists with racializing reference.