Can Singapore be described in terms of a Foucauldian “disciplinary society” or a Deleuzian “control society”? Deleuze proposes that we are in the midst of the transition from Foucault's “society of discipline” to a “society of control” (1992: 3). Unlike the “disciplinary society”, in which subjects progress from one “shaping” institution to another (schools, universities, factories, offices, etc.), a “control society” is characterized by constant modulation ( Wise, 2002: 32). According to Rose, control operates by affiliating subjects with a variety of practices that, by design, encourage adherence to certain norms in modern liberal societies (2000: 325). This is what Deleuze meant by “control society”. Best believes that it is necessary to adopt the Deleuzian concept of the “society of control” to explain the societies that emerge in the context of the increased surveillance and networking enabled by new ICTs (2010: 9). On the other hand, Hardt and Negri propose that The “control society” is simply an “intensification and generalization of the normalizing apparatuses of disciplinarity,” which now go beyond the institutions that initiated them and extend into fluctuating networks (2000: 23 ). Similarly, Munro believes that Foucault's disciplinary mechanism needs to be updated to suit the capabilities of modern technologies, and not replaced (2000: 693). It is necessary to distinguish between unconscious social control and social control in relation to the institution, the latter being the planned management of a socialized human activity (Lianos, 2003: 415). Institutional control is an integral part of specific activities, is usually bureaucratic and “is part of both the logic and the outcome of these activities” (Lianos, 2003: 415). Lianos uses the example of… middle of paper… Google offers “free” storage space, along with other privileges and useful tools, in exchange for personal information that it could use to market targeted goods to its users (Andrejevic, 2007 : 296). People sent their data to Google and Facebook not out of fear or a sense of duty, but to enjoy the benefits offered. Although Singaporeans value their privacy, they are willing to trade that privacy for financial rewards or convenience (Hui et al., 2007: 27). These authors also report growing discontent with the growing amount of information required by websites. However, it was the amount of information requested, rather than the sensitivity of the information, that had a significant influence on compliance (Hui et al., 2007: 27). This is certainly in line with the “attraction model” proposed by Whitaker (1999: 141).