Too often privacy and security are considered to be opposed values. But a more realistic balance between these two can be realized when we acknowledge that both concepts have different meanings. They root in various forms of surveillance, that are embedded in western culture. 
Surveillance is historically connected with colonialism and bureaucracy. The panopticon was an institutional design, which could be applied in the army, hospitals and construction sites. The ‘discipline’ as described by Foucault was a technology of permanent measurement and comparison. This regime was performed par excellence in the colonies, where the new surveillance regime changed the form of exploitation. Following this development fighting surveillance technologies were refined in bureaucracy. 
The static panopticon and bureaucracy changed into liquid surveillance: agencies that traced flexible patterns of behaviour by focusing on the mobility of people. Surveillance is not only about routes but also about routing. 
These characteristics of surveillance enable us to discuss how to balance safety and security with values such as privacy. The all-pervasive nature of the concepts safety and security fosters surveillance, which penetrates all activities. But how to prevent ‘safety hypochondria’? Our statement is that safety and security do not have an absolute value, they must be put into proper perspective.