Difference between revisions of "Sousveillance"

Revision as of 08:40, 11 April 2019

difference between surveillance and sousveillance by Mann's six-year-old daughter

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 said activity by way of a small wearable camera, physically shifting the viewpoint of the recording to a lower position of authority. This concept is fueled by the emergence of small surveillance technologies, and the frustration surrounding authorities being able to surveil. Sousveillance provides individuals with an increased sense of power and attempts to counter previous surveillance bias. However, with the proliferation of surveillance technologies - and considering our current state of being watch constantly - 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 redistributes the power that, historically, had only belonged to authority figures. 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 back 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.

Types of Sousveillance

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 has significantly evolved as a practice since. 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 transformed 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.”

Heart Monitoring Sousveillance

Typically, surveillance is associated with watching with the eyes, but other monitoring methods exist, especially in this day and age.

Fitbits may be considered sousveillance technology as participants of physical activity track their own heart rate, calories and fat burning. Instead of having doctors monitor us constantly, 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. The independent monitoring 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. ^[3]

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)”; it helps build a community, unlike surveillance, which tends to tear 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, Google Glass, or other personal wearable cameras.

Sousveillance in Art

Heart Cam

Steve Mann created several sousveillance devices, each for a different purpose.

In 2001 Mann created a HeartCam, a bra that has a camera imbedded inside 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 document 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 which possesses an invisibility feature that is reflective, acting as a two sided video mirror. This is intended to protect the wearer from 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).”^[4] These developing technologies may protect one's privacy and/or help maintain one's anonymity in an age when the two are so rare.

Ethical Issues

Countering Bias Surveillance

use of sousveillance on law enforcement^[5]

In the past, video surveillance has been extremely biased. The observation process has involved many discriminatory observations, leading to biased conclusions. ^[6] 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 biased arrests. This works because people who know they are being watched are often deterred from doing things they would otherwise do in private, which allows 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 law enforcement as a whole, gather hours of evidence in an attempt to create a more lawful society. Moreover, it helps facilitate fairer treatment toward citizens - as it adds an increased sense of accountability with respect to the officer. Every police officer in New York City has been issued a body camera^[7]. 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 the 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 surveiller. The video reveals the events of the officer shooting Scott and planting the murder weapon on his body.^[8]

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.^[9]

Privacy

While sousveillance has prompted positive ethical implications, like countering bias arrests or providing the average citizen with more power, it is clear that there are major privacy concerns. A study in the Rotterdam city centre found that people actually prefer surveillance cameras to many small sousveillance cameras held in hand by other people in their surroundings. One reason is that surveillance cameras have been around longer and surveillance is usually done by authorities. Another reason is that some people might think compared to authorities, people on the street are more likely to use the recordings for crimes like stalking and harassment.^[10]

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." ^[11] If everyone is both watching and being watched, all the time, we no longer have this right since our privacy is often compromised in public spaces. As a result of personal sousveillance devices, our personal privacy can be violated at any given time or place. In a world where there is little to no online privacy, constant surveillance and sousveillance eliminates the last private space we have: the physical world.

References