 |
| JVC Adixxion MT-CH001 by JVCAmerica (CC BY 4.0) |
Perhaps they had ridden here and it served
as the cycling equivalent of a dash-cam, or maybe this was just how they like
to take photos, or it could have been a new toy being taken out for a test run.
I mentally ran through multiple scenarios (all of which I was fine with, by the
way), until I noticed the red blinking LED on the front. They were filming me,
and this made me uncomfortable.
Up until that point, it had been to me an
oddity. I’d never seen one being worn in an urban public space and was idly
curious as to why one would do so, but now that I realised I was being recorded
I was immediately suspicious of their motives, and to a degree offended that
they felt this was appropriate. I did my job, and they went happily on their
way, maps in hand and camera recording whatever and whoever it pointed at (I
saw them an hour or two later and the little red light was still cheerily
blinking). To add a dash of irony to the situation, my
workplace sports a comprehensive array of surveillance cameras, not to mention
security guards and staff (like myself) to keep an eye on things… all of which
I am completely comfortable with.
The concept of ‘sousveillance’ has been
around for some time now and is effectively ‘a form of reflectionism… a
philosophy and procedures of using technology to mirror and confront
bureaucratic organisations’ (Mann, S, et al, 2003 p.333), where in this
particular case* an individual sports their own surveillance camera to emulate
and challenge any institution doing the same. The terminology here, seemingly
pitting the individual against, larger bureaucratic entities brings to mind the
noble image of a restorative action, where a dis-empowered society can reclaim
some semblance of control and at times, justice. Even the word itself contains
these implications where ‘sousveillance has been built to designate the act of
watching (veiller) from below (sous). In the case of
sousveillance, the watchers are socially below those who are watched,
while in the case of surveillance it is the opposite, they are above’ (Ganascia,
J 2010 p.493).
One of the most iconic examples of this was
the 1991 filming of four LAPD officers beating an unarmed Rodney King (with
other officers present), showing what was undoubtedly an excessive use of force.
Despite the video, the four officers were acquitted, however the presence of
the footage in the public domain opened wider discussions regarding police
brutality, and training methods (Mann, S, Nolan, J, & Wellman, B 2003). It is
arguable that had this video not been taken and distributed, then the event
could have been covered up, and no subsequent light shed on poor cultural and
training practices of the LAPD.
Since then, with increasing public access to
affordable and practical surveillance devices (i.e. mobile phones), sousveillance
has become a regular practice, and few of us think twice about individuals
filming and documenting events that they take part in, be it a festival, or
observing how transport officials deal with a passenger with no valid ticket. This
ubiquity of observation would, ‘according to Steve Mann and to others… lead to
a more balanced world state of justice, since everybody would act as if he were
observed by others’ (Ganascia, J 2010 p.493).
I do not share Mann’s optimism on this
subject however. This ‘balanced world state’ seems to rely too much on the
objectivity of the footage and what it reveals, whilst overlooking the lack of
objectivity inherent in the people reviewing it. This is evident in the Rodney
King case where, when the officers were brought to trial their defence ‘never
played the video straight through; instead they stopped and started it second
by second. With the images taken out of context and isolated from the timeline,
the moments shown seemed more defensible’ (Bock, MA, 2016). What was objective
proof, had become subjective narrative.
 |
| we're on the same page... right? Young man and woman taking pictures of each other by ralphbijker (CC BY 2.0) |
There is also the issue of people
moderating their behaviour in the knowledge of being observed. As Walter Kirn put
it, ‘you have two options when you’re under surveillance (and only two); one is
hide. The other is perform’ (Is My Phone Eavesdropping on Me? 2015), and in my
case dealing with the (potentially misidentified) sousveiller, I chose the
latter. It was a similar feeling to when one is driving and spots a police car;
you know that you’ve done nothing wrong, yet you still slow down (well below the
speed limit) and run through that mental checklist of possible misdemeanours,
all the while trying to convey an aura of model-citizenship. With that in mind,
does the footage of my ‘performance’ accurately represent me? A review of the
footage may yield an entire day of interactions with people who appear suspicious
or defensive, when in fact, they may simply feel uneasy with having somebody
film them point-blank with no explanation.
There is a danger in taking the assumption
that ‘data is meaningful’, at face value. ‘Actions cannot be judged out of context, nor can they be assessed
without knowledge of the reasons behind them, and the rights and duties of those
involved’ (Enfield, N 2015). So to my would-be sousveiller. I applaud your right
to take a stand, and encourage you to so. However, please be careful, as the power
imbalance that you seek to redress is potentially embodied in your own actions.
*I am well aware that there could be numerous plausible explanations for her camera-toting antics, but it got me thinking about sousveillance and so, for the sake of this discussion, I'll assume this was the case.
*I am well aware that there could be numerous plausible explanations for her camera-toting antics, but it got me thinking about sousveillance and so, for the sake of this discussion, I'll assume this was the case.
Bibliography:
Mann, S, Nolan, J, & Wellman, B 2003,
'Sousveillance: Inventing and Using Wearable Computing Devices for Data
Collection in Surveillance Environments', Surveillance & Society,
1, 3, pp. 331-355
Ganascia, J 2010, 'The generalized
sousveillance society', Social
Science Information, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 489-507
Bock, MA,
2016, How Video Can Help Police – and the
Public, The Conversation, retrieved 1 August 2016, http://theconversation.com/how-video-can-help-police-and-the-public-61336
Is My Phone Eavesdropping on Me? 2015, podcast, Note to Self, 4 November, retrieved 20 July 2016, http://www.wnyc.org/story/walter-kirn-paranoid-crazy
Enfield, N
2015, Accountability and the Viral Video:
there are still no guarantees, The Conversation, retrieved 28 July 2016, http://theconversation.com/accountability-and-the-viral-video-there-are-still-no-guarantees-49677
0 comments:
Post a Comment