Sousveillance

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 digital technologies, and the frustration of only authorities being able to surveil. Sousveillance provides power to the people, but with power and cameras ethical problems are sure to arise.

HISTORY

Steve Mann is a Canadian 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 “enhance the ability of people to access and collect data about their surveillance and to neutralize surveillance.” Sousveillance spreads the power that historically only belonged to authorities onto the people. In the past “security operates by tracking ‘everything that moves (Lyon).’” With Sousveillance this still exists but now that tracked are able to track. Sousveillance highlights and protects democracy. Common examples of sousveillance devices are cell phone cameras, bodycams, and heart monitoring devices.

CAMERA SOUSVEILLANCE

In the most traditional sense, surveillance involves watching by means of a camera or video recorder. Because of this, it is not shocking that inverse surveillance is done in the same fashion. Sousveillance originated with cell phone cameras. Since most people carry a cell phone on them at all times, most individuals have the ability to record their surroundings at any given moment. Steve Mann said, “we now live in a society in which we have both the few watching the many and the many watching the few.” In recent years, there have been many video leakages of biased arrests by way of cell phone cameras. Many of these videos focus on the actions of the typical surveiller and highlight misjudgment of authority. Because cell phone cameras give watching power to everyone in addition to authority, in one sense they create a more ethical society. Since everyone is constantly watching, everyone is being watched, which creates less space for ethical issues. At the same time, many people’s privacy is now compromised in any public space since both the people and the police have cameras on them constantly. In a day and age where there is little to no online privacy, we do not need our on ground privacy being compromised as well.

Countering Bias Surveillance

In addition, bodycams implement sousveillance and attempt to counter bias arrests. Instead of authorities watching the participants, people are now able 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 several other 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 which can help create a more lawful society. Every cop in New York City has been issued a body camera. According to Police Commissioner James O’Neill “Body-worn cameras enhance the safety and accountability of the dedicated men and women of the NYPD.” Looking back at the Eric Garner case in 2014, his friend used sousveillance tactics to capture the whole incident. Because of this, video evidence was not only from police officers view point, rather there was footage from a bystander as well. Similarly, 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 officer shooting Scott and planting the murder weapon on his body. The emergence of sousveillance and the information it has brought the world has inspired surveillance to take more measures to become less biased. Surveillance provides a one sided outlook of crime which creates filmer biases, but bringing the cameras down to eye-level, counters some of these biases.

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. One prime example of this is Fitbits. 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 seeing through a personal device allows the individual patient to store and process information regarding their own health. Similarly, 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.

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 is known for building a community, unlike surveillance which breaks communities apart. For example, during a phone call if one of the parties involved records the phone call that is sousveillance. If the phone call is being recorded by someone outside of the conversation, that is surveillance. One ethical issue with this 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. This could occur via GoPro’s or other personal wearable cameras. Even though the intent is to document personal experience, these devices compromise anonymity of all innocent bystanders. Because of personal sousveillance devices, in any place or time someone’s personal privacy can be violated.

SOUSVEILLANCE IN ART

In addition to developing the term sousveillance, Steve Mann also created several sousveillance devices. In 2001 Mann created a HeartCam. This is a bra that has a camera imbedded inside, created to help revert the male gaze. The HeartCam documents how many times a day women get their breasts ogled. 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 defence suit which called an Aposematic Suit. In addition, this suit also has an invisibility feature that when you wear it the cloak becomes transparent, helping to protect the wearer from potential predators. In the aposematic mode, the suit becomes reflective and acts as a two sided video mirror. The potential attacker sees themselves rather than a victim and the mode is activated as one gets in close proximity. “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).” 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.