Marres' article (2015) reasons that when governmental institutions fail to solve a problem, it is time for the public to step in for the sake of democracy. The negative effects of media, technology, and surveillance that exacerbate the issues of mass incarceration and the carceral state are a complicated issue that can enable public involvement in politics, like Marres describes. In the last section, I will discuss a few proposals for the public to counteract the issue, where both reformist and abolitionist approaches are important and worth advocating for. 

We should call for an expansion of access to digital technology in the correctional facilities for incarcerated people to be brought up to speed with the outside world. Once they can come into contact with more information and knowledge, it will be beneficial for their education, improve the probability of successful reintegration into the society after release, reducing the rates of recidivism. Moreover, access to computers and the internet might help more incarcerated people, such as jailhouse lawyers to find the corresponding resources to appeal their cases.  

Discriminatory and punitive technologies need to be either corrected or abolished. For instance, electronic controls used in community supervision should be removed because they invade people’s privacy and physical space, punish people on probation or parole for small technicalities, and prevent them from getting back to a normal life. Technologies in and outside the correctional facilities like the surveillance networks and databases should either be revised to facilitate rehabilitation and reparation or discontinued. Both people subject to the scrutiny of surveillance technology  and those who invent and produce surveillance technology must be cautious about the effects of such products and make every effort to make sure it is not biased. 

People who are concerned about the cause can also contribute through the power of digital media to amplify their voice through activism, civil discourse, and disobedience. Online platforms like Twitter can serve as a space to gather and organize people with similar stances. It can help people make their stories and viewpoints heard, which is one way to battle problematic media portrayals and expose the exploitation of prison labor. We need to shift the public’s attention to the truth of the criminal punishment system and call for prison and police reforms, and ultimately, abolition. Online platforms are also a space for international or intersectional support and collaboration. Organizations like Global Prison Abolitionist Coalition and events/Twitter hashtags like #EyesOnICE promoted by Miente brings people from different continents or of diversified backgrounds together. Their online presence unites activists and organizers with a common ground and provides a means for them to work towards the same goals – the total deconstruction of mass incarceration and the carceral state. 

Technological access and knowledge are also important in this case because it can be used as a tool for activists and protestors to mask their identity, cover their tracks, and protect themselves from the state surveillance networks to some extent online and in real life. Unlike the designs criticized by Monahan for their anesthetization of resistance (2015), there are some pragmatic solutions that might be beneficial. I have noticed projects that are dedicated to inform and educate citizens on cybersecurity and self-preservation in another cultural context and have been looking for similar ones in the US. Using encrypted channels to communicate sensitive information, masking one’s IP with VPN, bringing a separate phone for protests – such counter-surveillance knowledge and measures are things we as activists, protestors, and average citizens need, and digital media provide us just the place to get ourselves educated. However, they are not ideal and cannot achieve total countervisuality or resolve the predicament altogether. Monohan (2015) argues the concept of "the right to hide" and related resistant practices overlooks the toll of marginalizing surveillance and the deeper root of the problem – the illegitimacy of invasive state surveillance. He also points out that the notion assumes the inevitability of surveillance and relies on the deficiency of universal rights. 

Surveillance technology, and mass media cause and exacerbate some issues in mass incarceration, but we can also utilize technology and media in our favor to combat the harm of punitive and racist products and call for the end of mass incarceration. In order to achieve this, we need to be aware that technology is a human product, so it is inevitable it reflects human biases and discrimination. We should stop holding on to the belief that technology is neutral and that technological advancement such as surveillance networks and digital media are always a form of progress – the context in which they are used is important. For now, a reformist approach to reconstruct and improve the environment of the correctional facilities and criminal justice system is helpful and viable. However, we should not forgo an abolitionist perspective and strive for its realization – we should be able to contemplate if some of the technologies are really needed and imagine a world without them, just like how we reached the conclusion that prisons are unjust insinuations that can benefit the society more than harming it if they cease to exist. In Angela Davis' Are Prison Obsolete, she points out that we once could not imagine the removal of slavery and racial segregation from the society, but they were ultimately abolished to create a more just and humane world – I think the same argument can be made for some of the oppressive and punitive technologies.