4 ms·
Sousveillance only really counts when it inverts the usual power imbalance inherent in authority-led surveillance systems. The problem is that if wearable syst
by quasque 13y ago
Sousveillance only really counts when it inverts the usual power imbalance inherent in authority-led surveillance systems.
The problem is that if wearable systems like Glass or EyeTap become widespread, this will create a new power imbalance between those who use it and those who don't, raising the same issues brought up by mass surveillance systems but on a more personal scale - which rather spoils the whole ethos of sousveillance that makes it so attractive in the first place.
- rasur 13y agoI don't recall Glass ever being touted as a Sousveillance technology, but I'd be happy to be corrected on this.
- quasque 13y agoGlass is a sousveillance technology according to Steve Mann's definition. But also a surveillance technology due to its link with Google. Edit: found an article where he discusses Glass in this regard, interesting read http://techland.time.com/2012/11/02/eye-am-a-camera-surveillance-and-sousveillance-in-the-glassage/ http://techland.time.com/2012/11/02/eye-am-a-camera-surveill...
- rasur 13y agoThen I stand corrected. Thanks. edit: I do keep harping on about it, but his book "Intelligent Image Processing" is worth a read for more info on how the Eyetap works (amongst other topics).