Difference between revisions of "Sousveillance"

Revision as of 16:56, 29 March 2019

Sousveillance, coined by Steve Mann, refers to the concept of “inverse surveillance.” Derived from the French word “sous” meaning below, this term contrasts the typical surveillance, which comes from the word “sur” meaning above. Sousveillance means that the participant of an activity records that activity usually by way of a small wearable camera, physically shifting the viewpoint of the recording lower. This concept is fueled by the emergence of small surveillance technologies, and the frustration of only authorities being able to surveil. Sousveillance provides power to the people and attempts to counter previous surveillance bias, but in the constant state of watchood, personal privacy and anonymity are sure to be compromised.

History

Steve Mann is a Canadian technology researcher and a strong advocate for privacy rights. Together with Professor Ian Kerr, he has written extensively on surveillance and developed the concept of sousveillance. Mann believes that sousveillance will make it easier for people to access and collect data about their own surveillance and attempt to counter it. ^[1] Sousveillance spreads the power that historically only belonged to authority figures to the people. In the past “security operate[d] by tracking everything that move[d] (Lyon),”^[2] but while this still exists in the era of sousveillance, now subjects of surveillance are able to do their own surveilling. Those who practice sousveillance exercise their own democratic rights because they are taking the power into their own hands. Common examples of sousveillance devices are cell phone cameras, bodycams, and heart monitoring devices, which people use to document their experiences from their own personal perspective..

Camera Sousveillance

In the most traditional sense, surveillance entails watching by means of a camera or video recorder. Because of this, it is not shocking that inverse surveillance is exercised in the same fashion. Sousveillance originated with cell phone cameras, and evolved from that point. Most people carry a cell phone on them at all times, which give individuals the ability to record their surroundings at any given moment. Sousveillance evolved the surveilling society into a constant watch party. Mann said, “we now live in a society in which we have both the few watching the many and the many watching the few.”

Countering Bias Surveillance

In the past, video surveillance has been extremely biased. The observation process has involved many discriminatory observations, leading to biased conclusions. ^[3] Sousveillance has brought to light many of these issues and sparked action. Police departments have implemented police bodycams, an instance of sousveillance, in order to attempt to prevent bias arrests. This works because people who know they are being watched are often deterred from doing things they would otherwise do in private, which helps the officers to survey their actions on their own. In a more formal sense, body cameras can be used for Alibi Sousveillance. Because of the recent Michael Brown case and other similar incidents, there has been a strong call for police officers to wear body cams while on duty. This helps the police officers, and general law enforcement as a whole, gather hours of evidence in an attempt to create a more lawful society. Every police officer in New York City has been issued a body camera^[4]. According to Police Commissioner James O’Neill “Body-worn cameras enhance the safety and accountability of the dedicated men and women of the NYPD.”

In the Eric Garner case in 2014, the subject's friend used sousveillance tactics to capture the whole incident on video. Because of this, evidence was not only from police officers point of view, but also from a bystander's as well.

In 2015 when Walter Scott was shot in North Carolina, the circumstances of the murder would not have been revealed if not for a local surveillar. The video reveals the events of the officer shooting Scott and planting the murder weapon on his body.^[5]

The emergence of sousveillance and the information and evidence it has brought to society in the 21st century is beginning to change the biases lens of surveillance. Surveillance provides a one sided view of subjects which creates firm biases, but bringing the cameras down to eye-level has begun to counter some of these biases.^[6]

Heart Monitoring Sousveillance

Typically, surveillance is associated with watching with the eyes, but their are other ways to monitor especially in this day and age.

Fitbits are the definition of sousveillance since participants of physical activity track their own heart rate, as well as calories and fat burning. Instead of having doctors monitor us constantly, with technology like fitbits, we are able to monitor our own health on a day to day basis. Traditionally, EKG’s are taken once, and patients only have one timestamped piece of information regarding their heart health. In the time of sousveillance, this adaptation to monitoring independently through a personal device allows individual patients to store and process information regarding their own health.

The Holter Heart Monitor is a small device that can watch cardiac actions for 24 - 48 hours. This device can add additional tracks to an audiovisual cyborglog which can attribute to personal safety. ^[7]

Personal Sousveillance

Personal sousveillance is “bringing cameras from the lamp posts and ceilings, down to eye-level, for human-centered recording of personal experience (Mann).” Personal sousveillance creates the ability to build a community, unlike surveillance which tends to breaks communities apart. During a phone call if one of the parties involved records the phone call, that is considered sousveillance. If the phone call is being recorded by someone outside of the conversation, that is surveillance. One ethical issue that arises is that the other person in the conversation can have no idea they are being recorded. Similarly, a person filming their own experience in a public place can make the other inhabitants of that space uncomfortable, or worse if the other parties are unaware and don't consent to the surveillance. This could occur via GoPro’s or other personal wearable cameras.

Sousveillance in Art

Heart Cam

Steve Mann created several sousveillance devices.

In 2001 Mann created a HeartCam. This is a bra that has a camera imbedded inside, created to revert the male gaze. The HeartCam counts how many times someone looks at the wearer's breasts. Since the camera is placed on the chest it is clear how many eyes are in the wrong place. In a philanthropic act, Nestle released a similar device in order to raise awareness for breast cancer. Besides helping documents acts of objectification, sousveillance can also be used to help raise awareness for important causes in society.

Mann also created a self defense suit called the Aposematic Suit. The suit has an invisibility feature that which makes reflective, acting as a two sided video mirror. This is intended to protect the wearer from potential predators because a potential attacker will see themselves rather than a victim. This mode is activated as someone gets in close proximity to the suit. “Souveillant technology takes the typical surveillance technology a step further by placing an individual in control of how they will be seen, if at all (Flynn and Mackay).”^[8] This technology that Mann and many others have been developing gives users their privacy and anonymity back, in an age where very little of that is available.

Ethical Issues

While sousveillance has definitely provided ethical benefits to society, like countering bias arrests as well as providing power to the average citizen, it is clear that there are major privacy and several other ethical issues involved. Floridi argues that "the right of privacy is a right to personal immunity from unknown, undesired, or unintentional changes to one's own identity as an informational entity." ^[9] We no longer have this right since many people’s privacy is now compromised in public spaces because everyone is both watching and being watched. For example, in criminal situation both the suspect and the police have cameras on them constantly, which means neither can go about their lives privately, and both parties are constantly under scrutiny. Because of personal sousveillance devices, in any place or time someone’s personal privacy can be violated. Even though the intent is to document personal experience, these devices compromise anonymity of all innocent bystanders. In a day and age where there is little to no online privacy, constant surveillance and sousveillance eliminate the last private space we have: the physical world.

References