DOCSLIB.ORG

Sousveillance (Undersight), and Metaveillance (Seeing Sight Itself)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sousveillance (Undersight), and Metaveillance (Seeing Sight Itself) Surveillance (oversight), Sousveillance (undersight), and Metaveillance (seeing sight itself) Steve Mann Humanistic Intelligence Institute, Veillance Foundation 330 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5T 1G5 http://www.eyetap.org Abstract Surveillance is an established practice that generally involves fixed cameras attached to fixed inanimate ob- jects, or PTZ (Pan Tilt Zoom) cameras at a fixed po- sition. Sur-veillance only provides part of the veillance story, and often only captures a partial truth. Fur- ther advances in miniaturization, together with wireless communication technologies, are giving rise to kine- matic veillance (“kineveillance”): wearable, portable, and mobile cameras, as well as unpersoned aerial ve- hicles (UAVs). These additional veillances give us a more complete picture: multiple viewpoints from mul- Figure 1. “Stealth” streetlight camera by Apollo, and tiple entities bring us closer to the truth. In contrast “Embedded Invisible PTZ IP Camera” by OWLS AG. to the extensive mathematical and conceptual frame- Here surveillance cameras are concealed inside ordinary ob- work developed around surveillance (e.g. background jects like streetlights, which can be placed throughout en- subtraction, frame-differencing, etc.), now that surveil- tire neighbourhoods or cities, for complete surveillance, lance is no longer the only veillance, we need new math- while themselves remaining hidden. ematical and conceptual understandings of imaging and image processing. More importantly we need new tools cealment. In addition to camera domes, concealment for understanding the many veillances and how they is also achieved by hiding cameras inside other objects interact. Therefore this paper introduces metaveillance such as streetlights (Fig. 1), which are placed through- and the veillance wavefunction for metasensing: the out entire cities while remaining hidden in the light sensing of sensors and the sensing of their capacity to fixtures. There is a kind of irony or hypocrisy in the sense. extensive efforts to keep the all-seeing eye concealed from sight. In addition to physical concealment, there 1. Surveillance is not the only Veillance is intellectual concealment (secrecy), as in the example of the microwave motion sensor of Fig. 2. Surveillance is an established field of research and practice[62, 61, 15, 21, 34] in which sensors are affixed 1.1. Truth and the need for a scientific to stationary objects. “Surveillance” is a French word understaning of Veillance that means “oversight” (“sur” means “over”, and “veil- lance” means “sight”), and suggests an omniscient au- The opposite of hypocrisy is integrity. In Greek thority’s “God’s eye view” from above [19, 40]. mythology, Aletheia is the goddess of truth and the A common surveillance camera housing is the dome, Greek word “alethia” means “disclosure”, “not con- in which the camera is concealed behind a transpar- cealed”, “truth”, or “sincerity”. Alethia’s opposites ent but darkly smoked plastic hemisphere. Inside the are Apate (deception), pseudologoi (lies), and Dolos hemisphere there is also usually an additional opaque (trickery)[57, 56]. black shroud to further conceal the camera. A com- Science is a human endeavour in which we attempt mon design objective in surveillance systems is con- to go wherever the truth may lead us, in pursuit of new 1 1 Metaveillance Metaveillance Univeillance Equiveillance Society Society Veillance Surveillance (oversight) Countersurveillance Sousveillance (undersight) Coveillance Counter- McVeillance veillance Figure 2. Microwave motion sensor concealed behind plas- Stativeillance society Autoveillance Society tic grille. When we look inside to see how it works, we Kineveillance find that the numbers have been ground off all the chips. Dataveillance This is another example of the hypocrisy of “smart things” Figure 3. We can no longer look only at surveillance (over- watching us while revealing very little about themselves. sight). We must also consider other veillances like sousveil- lance (undersight) and coveillance (lateral watching as hap- discoveries[31]. The term OpenScience was coined by pens when people watch each other). We live in a “Par- ticipatory Panopticon” [14] where we’re watched and also S. Mann in 1998 to emphasize this need for truth and sur watch back! The extent to which these veillances are per- open disclosure [48], and if veillance cannot deliver mitted or prohibited, relative to one-another, defines the on that promise, we need to look at other veillances! kind of society we create, in the intercardinals of the “Veil- lance Compass” [41], (Right) shown simplified [17]. This 1.2. The many Veillances broader intellectual landscape requires new tools to help us Recent advances in miniaturization and wireless understand it. One such new tool is Metaveillance, which is the sensing of sensing: sensing sensors and sensing their communication have made mobile sensing practical, capacity to sense. Metaveillance gives us new ways to un- giving rise to a transition from static veillances to kine- derstand all the veillances and the extents of their bound- matic veillance (“kineveillance”), i.e. sensing from a aries, as well as that which falls beyond their boundaries. moving/kinematic frame-of-reference. More generally, surveillance (oversight) is no longer the only veillance. We also have sousveillance ten involves surveillance. Some surveillance is harmful (undersight)[30, 60, 7, 39, 4, 25, 63, 51, 6, 22, 59, 13, (“malveillance”). Some is beneficial (“bienveillance”), 5, 55, 3, 65, 54, 58, 35], in the form of wearable com- like when a machine senses our presence to automate a puting and self-sensing [38, 49] (now known as “Quan- task (flushing a toilet, turning on a light, or adjusting tified Self”), and the wearable face-recognizer [64, 37], the position of a video game avatar). and computer vision systems to help people see and HI (Humanistic Intelligence) is a new form of intelli- remember. gence that harnesses beneficial veillance. HI is defined Surveillance happens when we’re being watched by Kurzweil, Minsky, and Mann as follows: and sousveillance happens when we do the watching. “Humanistic Intelligence [HI] is intelligence that And with social networking, we now have co-veillance arises because of a human being in the feedback (side-to-side watching, e.g. when people watch each loop of a computational process, where the hu- other) [50]. Thus we must think of Veillance in a man and computer are inextricably intertwined. broader sense beyond merely Surveillance. (See Fig. .) When a wearable computer embodies HI and be- comes so technologically advanced that its intel- ligence matches our own biological brain, some- 1.3. Surveillance and AI (Artificial Intelligence) thing much more powerful emerges from this syn- ergy that gives rise to superhuman intelligence Surveillance is a broad concept. It goes beyond vi- within the single ‘cyborg’ being.” [52] sual (camera-based) sensing, to include audio surveil- lance, data surveillance, and many other forms of HI involves an intertwining of human and machine in surveillance. When we say “we’re being watched” we a way that the human can sense the machine and vice- often mean it in a broader sense than just the visual. versa, as illustrated in Fig. 4. When police are listening in on our phone conversa- HI is based on modern control-theory and cyber- tions, that is still surveillance. So, more generally, netics, and as such, requires both controllability (be- “surveillance” refers to the condition of being sensed. ing watched) and observability (watching), in order We often don’t know who or what is doing the sens- to complete the feedback loop of any kind of HI. In ing. When a machine learning algorithm is sensing us, this way, surveillance (being watched) and sousveil- that is also surveillance. AI (Artificial Intelligence) of- lance (watching) are both required in proper balance 2 Senses Effectors Senses Effectors 1 Human 2 1 Human 2 Random 3 4 Delay 4 Observability (Sousveillance) Controllability (Surveillance) Machine Machine Controllability (Surveillance) 5 Sensors Actuators 6 5 Sensors Actuators 6 Humanistic Intelligence Machines of Malice (HI) ("Digital Lightswitch") S. Mann, 1998 S. Mann, 2013 Figure 4. The Six Signal Flow Paths of HI: A human Figure 6. Systems that fail to facilitate sousveillance are (denoted symbolically by the circle) has senses and effects machines of malice. Example: an art installation by au- (informatic inputs and outputs). A machine (denoted by thor S. Mann, consists of a pushbutton (push-on/push-off) the square) has sensors and effectors as its informatic in- light switch where a random 3 to 5 second delay is inserted puts and outputs. But most importantly, HI involves in- along with a 10 percent packet loss. The parameters were tertwining of human and machine by the signal flow paths adjusted to maximize frustration in order to show a neg- that they share in common. Therefore, these two special ative example of what happens when we fail to properly paths of information flow are separated out, giving implement a balanced veillance. a total of six signal flow paths. works 90 percent of the time, and, combined with the delay, users would often press it once, see no immediate Veillance is the core of Humanistic Intelligence effect, and then press it again (e.g. turning it back off before it had time to come on). See Fig. 6. Senses Effectors ) Human ) 2. Sequential Wave Imprinting Machine This section describes some unpublished aspects of veillance veillance a wearable computing and augmented reality invention Controllability (Sur Observability (Sous by author S. Mann for making visible various other- Machine Sensors Actuators wise invisible physical phenomena, and displaying the phenomena in near-perfect alignment with the reality Humanistic Intelligence to which they pertain. As an embodiment of HI (Hu- (HI) manistic Intelligence), the alignment between displayed Figure 5. HI requires both Veillances: machines must content and physical reality occurs in the feedback loop be able to sense us, and we must be able to sense them! of a computational or electric process.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mutual Watching and Resistance to Mass Surveillance After Snowden
    Media and Communication (ISSN: 2183-2439) 2015, Volume 3, Issue 3, Pages 12-25 Doi: 10.17645/mac.v3i3.277 Article “Veillant Panoptic Assemblage”: Mutual Watching and Resistance to Mass Surveillance after Snowden Vian Bakir School of Creative Studies and Media, Bangor University, Bangor, LL57 2DG, UK; E-Mail: [email protected] Submitted: 9 April 2015 | In Revised Form: 16 July 2015 | Accepted: 4 August 2015 | Published: 20 October 2015 Abstract The Snowden leaks indicate the extent, nature, and means of contemporary mass digital surveillance of citizens by their intelligence agencies and the role of public oversight mechanisms in holding intelligence agencies to account. As such, they form a rich case study on the interactions of “veillance” (mutual watching) involving citizens, journalists, intelli- gence agencies and corporations. While Surveillance Studies, Intelligence Studies and Journalism Studies have little to say on surveillance of citizens’ data by intelligence agencies (and complicit surveillant corporations), they offer insights into the role of citizens and the press in holding power, and specifically the political-intelligence elite, to account. Atten- tion to such public oversight mechanisms facilitates critical interrogation of issues of surveillant power, resistance and intelligence accountability. It directs attention to the veillant panoptic assemblage (an arrangement of profoundly une- qual mutual watching, where citizens’ watching of self and others is, through corporate channels of data flow, fed back into state surveillance of citizens). Finally, it enables evaluation of post-Snowden steps taken towards achieving an equiveillant panoptic assemblage (where, alongside state and corporate surveillance of citizens, the intelligence-power elite, to ensure its accountability, faces robust scrutiny and action from wider civil society).
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Smartglasses in Everyday Life
    University of Erfurt Faculty of Philosophy The Use of Smartglasses in Everyday Life A Grounded Theory Study Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Dr. phil.) at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Erfurt submitted by Timothy Christoph Kessler from Munich November 2015 URN: urn:nbn:de:gbv:547-201600175 First Assessment: Prof. Dr. Joachim R. Höflich Second Assessment: Prof. Dr. Dr. Castulus Kolo Date of publication: 18th of April 2016 Abstract We live in a mobile world. Laptops, tablets and smartphones have never been as ubiquitous as they have been today. New technologies are invented on a daily basis, lead- ing to the altering of society on a macro level, and to the change of the everyday life on a micro level. Through the introduction of a new category of devices, wearable computers, we might experience a shift away from the traditional smartphone. This dissertation aims to examine the topic of smartglasses, especially Google Glass, and how these wearable devices are embedded into the everyday life and, consequently, into a society at large. The current research models which are concerned with mobile communication are only partly applicable due to the distinctive character of smartglasses. Furthermore, new legal and privacy challenges for smartglasses arise, which are not taken into account by ex- isting theories. Since the literature on smartglasses is close to non-existent, it is argued that new models need to be developed in order to fully understand the impact of smart- glasses on everyday life and society as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Wearables Good Or Bad for Society? an Exploration of Societal Benefits, Risks and Consequences of Augmented Reality Smart Glasses
    Are Wearables Good or Bad for Society? An Exploration of Societal Benefits, Risks and Consequences of Augmented Reality Smart Glasses. Daniel W.E. Hein, University of Bamberg Jennah Jodoin, University of Michigan-Dearborn Philipp A. Rauschnabel, University of Michigan-Dearborn Bjoern S. Ivens, University of Bamberg Abstract: Recent market research forecasts predict that a new form of wearable devices will soon influence the media landscape: Augmented Reality Smart Glasses. While prior research highlights numerous potentials in personal and professional settings of smart glasses, this technology has also triggered several controversies in public discussions, for example, the risk of violating privacy and copyright laws. Yet, little research addresses the questions of whether smart glasses are good or bad for societies, and if yes, why. This study conducts exploratory research to contribute to narrowing this gap. Based on a survey among consumers, we identify several societal benefits and risks that determine consumers’ evaluation of the anticipated and desired success of smart glasses. These findings lead to numerous important implications for consumers, scholars, managers, and policy makers. Introduction A recent study by Goldman Sachs (2016) asserts that Augmented reality (AR) smart glasses are the latest step in an evolution of digitization of reality and a large developing future market. What began with stationary computers that were temporarily online to receive and display information to their mostly business users in the last century turned into a network dominated by user-generated content (UGC), with users being mainly consumers that are permanently online and access the internet through a multitude of devices (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Smart Glasses
    The Future of Smart Glasses Forward-looking areas of research Prepared for Synoptik Foundation May 2014 Brian Due, PhD. Nextwork A/S Contents Smart&Glasses&and&Digitised&Vision&.....................................................................................................&3! 1.0&The&basis&of&the&project&...............................................................................................................................&4! 1.1!Contents!of!the!project!................................................................................................................................................!4! 2.0&The&historic&development&of&smart&glasses&..........................................................................................&5! 3.0&The&technological&conditions&and&functionalities,&and&various&products&..................................&8! 4.0&The&likely&scope&of&smart&glasses&within&the&next&3H5&years&...........................................................&9! 5.0&Likely&applications&of&smart&glasses&.....................................................................................................&12! 5.1!Specific!work6related!applications!......................................................................................................................!12! 5.2!Specific!task6related!applications!........................................................................................................................!12! 5.3!Self6tracking!applications!........................................................................................................................................!13!
    [Show full text]
  • Veillance and Reciprocal Transparency: Surveillance Versus Sousveillance, AR Glass, Lifeglogging, and Wearable Computing
    Veillance and Reciprocal Transparency: Surveillance versus Sousveillance, AR Glass, Lifeglogging, and Wearable Computing Steve Mann SurvVeillanCeNTRETM, 330 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5T 1G5 Abstract—This paper explores the interplay between surveil- lance cameras (cameras affixed to large-entities such as buildings) and sousveillance cameras (cameras affixed to small entities such as individual people), laying contextual groundwork for the social implications of Augmented/Augmediated Reality, Digital Eye Glass, and the wearable camera as a vision and visual memory aid in everyday life. We now live in a society in which we have both “the few watching the many” (surveillance), AND “the many watching the few” (sousveillance). Widespread sousveillance will cause a transition from our one-sided surveillance society back to a situation akin to olden times when the sheriff could see what everyone was doing AND everyone could see what the sheriff was doing. We name this neutral form of watching “veillance” — from the French word “veiller” which means “to watch”. Veillance is a broad concept that includes both surveillance (oversight) and sousveillance (undersight), as well as dataveillance, uberveillance, etc.. Fig. 1. Many business establishments prohibit cameras, e.g.: “NO It follows that: (1) sousveillance (undersight) is necessary CELL PHONES”; “NO CAMERAS”; “NO CELL PHONE IN STORE to a healthy, fair, and balanced society whenever surveillance PLEASE!”; and “No video or photo taking”, while at the same time (oversight) is already being used; and (2) sousveillance has nu- requiring customers to bring and use cameras in order to read QR codes merous moral, ethical, socioeconomic, humanistic/humanitarian, for pre-purchase product information.
    [Show full text]
  • Sousveillance and the Social Implications of Point of View Technologies in the Law Enforcement Sector
    Sixth Workshop on the Social Implications of National Security Sousveillance and the Social Implications of Point of View Technologies in the Law Enforcement Sector By Jesse.macadangdang (Own work) [Public domain] via Wikimedia Commons “...Rather than tolerating terrorism as a feedback means to restore the balance, an alternative framework would be to build a stable system to begin with, e.g. a system that is self-balancing. Such a society may be built with sousveillance (inverse surveillance) as a way to balance the increasing (and increasingly one-sided) surveillance.” Steve Mann (2002) http://wearcam.org/sousveillance.htm 2 Venue The University of Sydney, New Law Building, Level 4, Faculty Common Room, Eastern Avenue, Sydney Australia Date 22nd February 2012 Time 9:15 AM - 5:30 PM Sponsors Sponsored by the Research Network for a Secure Australia (RNSA). Co-sponsored by the Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention (CTCP) and the Institute for Innovation in Business and Social Research (IIBSOR) of the University of Wollongong (UOW). Workshop Description Policing today has become a high-tech affair; especially in the provision of incident event tracking and reporting systems increasingly being used to provide evidence in a court of law. These in-car video (ICV) and body worn recording systems are said to increase convictions and eliminate false claims made by defendants, providing documentary support to police officers and their associated actions in an incident. But today, new technologies such as smart phones equipped with cameras and global positioning system chipsets can also be found in the hands of the everyday citizen, used to capture everyday happenings and distributed to social networks with global reach.
    [Show full text]
  • Sousveillance (Undersight), and Metaveillance (Seeing Sight Itself)
    2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops Surveillance (oversight), Sousveillance (undersight), and Metaveillance (seeing sight itself) Steve Mann Humanistic Intelligence Institute, Veillance Foundation 330 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5T 1G5 http://www.eyetap.org Abstract Surveillance is an established practice that generally involves fixed cameras attached to fixed inanimate ob- jects, or PTZ (Pan Tilt Zoom) cameras at a fixed po- sition. Sur-veillance only provides part of the veillance story, and often only captures a partial truth. Fur- ther advances in miniaturization, together with wireless communication technologies, are giving rise to kine- matic veillance (“kineveillance”): wearable, portable, and mobile cameras, as well as unpersoned aerial ve- hicles (UAVs). These additional veillances give us a more complete picture: multiple viewpoints from mul- Figure 1. “Stealth” streetlight camera by Apollo, and tiple entities bring us closer to the truth. In contrast “Embedded Invisible PTZ IP Camera”byOWLSAG. to the extensive mathematical and conceptual frame- Here surveillance cameras are concealed inside ordinary ob- work developed around surveillance (e.g. background jects like streetlights, which can be placed throughout en- subtraction, frame-differencing, etc.), now that surveil- tire neighbourhoods or cities, for complete surveillance, lance is no longer the only veillance, we need new math- while themselves remaining hidden. ematical and conceptual understandings of imaging and image processing. More importantly we need new tools cealment. In addition to camera domes, concealment for understanding the many veillances and how they is also achieved by hiding cameras inside other objects interact. Therefore this paper introduces metaveillance such as streetlights (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • 395 Privacy, Public Disclosure, Police Body Cameras
    2 FAN - PRIVACY - 395-444 (DO NOT DELETE) 12/8/2016 9:45 AM PRIVACY, PUBLIC DISCLOSURE, POLICE BODY CAMERAS: POLICY SPLITS Mary D. Fan* ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. 396 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 397 I. AFTER THE REVOLUTION: PRIVACY AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE DILEMMAS ...................................................................................... 405 A. The Police-Worn Body Camera Revolution ............................ 407 B. The Clash Between Privacy and Public Disclosure ................ 411 1. Early-Mover States Strike Different Balances ................... 413 a. Nondisclosure .............................................................. 413 b. Filtered Disclosure ...................................................... 415 c. Camera Turn-Off and Turn-On Legislation ................ 417 2. Comparative Perspective: How the U.K. Strikes the Balance .............................................................................. 419 II. THE BALANCES BEING STRUCK IN BODY CAMERA POLICIES .............. 422 A. Collection and Coding Methods .............................................. 423 B. Policy Splits Over Privacy Protection ..................................... 426 III. A PAIR OF PROPOSALS TO ADDRESS TWO DISTURBING TRENDS ........ 430 A. Automated Redaction Rather than Broad or Blanket Exemptions .............................................................................. 431
    [Show full text]
  • The Gendered Engagement of Canadaâ•Žs National Affairs And
    Journal of Professional Communication 1(1):81-97, 2011 Journal of Professional Communication The gendered engagement of Canada’s national affairs and legislative elite, online Denise Brunsdon★ GCI Group, Toronto (Canada) A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Article Type: This paper explores the differences in style and impact of online Research article engagement by gender for Members of Parliament, national affairs journalists and top lawyers. The author assesses the degree to which Article History: men and women in these circles participate in blogging, Twitter, Received: 2011-04-10 LinkedIn and Facebook. The findings demonstrate that, although Revised: 2011-08-04 professional women often participate in all social media platforms Accepted: 2011-10-25 as much as men, and sometimes more, men tend to have larger fol- lowings of fans and readers. Potential reasons for this discrepancy Key Words: are discussed. Blogging Twitter Political Communication Gender ©Journal of Professional Communication, all rights reserved. n unlikely force generated the idea for a paper assessing the role of gender in online engagement among Canada’s national affairs and legislative elites. The motivation behind this research came from a column by Margaret Wente in the Globe and Mail about her refusal toA blog. With less rigorous logic than is displayed in many blog posts, she iron- ically claims that blogging is thoughtless, ergo male, ergo blarney. According to Wente, the main negative to blogging is the lack of time allot- ted by the medium to learn and shape opinions about issues, and that the main benefit is a self-indulgent display of intellectual egoism.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethical Issues
    ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF EMERGING MIXED REALITY TECHNOLOGIES Marcus Carter and Ben Egliston Socio-Tech Futures Lab Published June 2020 by the Socio-Tech Futures Lab and Department of Media and Communication, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, the University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia. © Marcus Carter and Ben Egliston The authors expressly allow reproduction and dissemination of this document for non- commercial purposes pursuant to the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 AU). For further details see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-nd/3.0/au/ The Ethics of Emerging Mixed Realities project is partly funded by the Socio-Tech Futures Lab, a flagship research theme of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. For more information on the Socio-Tech Futures Lab see: https://www.sydney. edu.au/arts/our-research/futurefix/socio-tech- futures-lab.html This report is available via the Sydney eScholarship https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/22485 Repository, and can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.25910/5ee2f9608ec4d (DOI: 10.25910/5ee2f9608ec4d) CONTENTS ABSTRACT 2 NOTES ON AUTHORS 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4 INTRODUCTION 5 Definitions 5 ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS FOR VR AND AR 7 EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY IN PUBLIC SPACE 8 ACCESSIBILITY, INCLUSIVITY AND EXCLUSION 12 SURVEILLANCE AND PLATFORM POWER 17 THE MILITARY-ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX 21 EMPATHY 25 WORK 27 APPENDIX 30 Methodology 30 REFERENCES 31 1 ABSTRACT Virtual and Augmented Reality technologies are increasingly finding foothold in culture and society. As these technologies stake out an increasingly large space in areas like entertainment, work, health and communication, it is important that we are equipped to think lucidly about both their benefits and their drawbacks.
    [Show full text]
  • Encountering Camera Surveillance and Accountability at Work – Case Study of the Swedish Police Marie Eneman [email protected]
    Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) UK Academy for Information Systems Conference UK Academy for Information Systems Proceedings 2018 Spring 3-20-2018 Encountering camera surveillance and accountability at work – case study of the Swedish police Marie Eneman [email protected] Jan Ljungberg [email protected] Bertil Rolsson [email protected] Dick Stenmark [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ukais2018 Recommended Citation Eneman, Marie; Ljungberg, Jan; Rolsson, Bertil; and Stenmark, Dick, "Encountering camera surveillance and accountability at work – case study of the Swedish police" (2018). UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings 2018. 20. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ukais2018/20 This material is brought to you by the UK Academy for Information Systems at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings 2018 by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact [email protected]. Encountering camera surveillance and accountability at work – case study of the Swedish police Research-in-progress Abstract Today’s mobile cameras mean that anyone may easily be filmed and exposed to a wider audience meanwhile conducting their daily work. Police officers belong to an occupation that most frequently have to encounter this development. As state representatives, entitled to make use of violence at work, they end up being held accountable by a variety of actors capturing police initiatives on film. Police authorities around the world therefore have started to use body-worn cameras, aiming to enhance trust and transparency, but also as a means to control their work environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Dialogue Police Bodycams As Equiveillance Tools?: Reflections on the Debate in the Netherlands
    Police Bodycams as Equiveillance Tools?: Dialogue Reflections on the Debate in the Netherlands Lotte Houwing Gerard Jan Ritsema van Eck Bits of Freedom, The Netherlands University of Groningen, The Netherlands [email protected] [email protected] Abstract In the United States of America, police body-worn cameras (bodycams) were introduced to protect civilians against violence by law enforcement authorities. In the Netherlands, however, the same technology has been introduced to record and discipline the behavior of the growing number of citizens using their smartphone cameras to film the (mis)conduct of police. In answer to these citizens sousveilling the police and publishing their images on social media, the bodycam was introduced as an objective referee that also includes the perspective of the police officer. According to this view, the bodycam is a tool of equiveillance: a situation with a diversity of perspectives in which surveillance and sousveillance are in balance (Mann 2005). Various factors, however, hamper the equiveillant usage of bodycams in the Netherlands. Firstly, the attachment of the bodycam to the uniform of the officer leads to an imbalanced representation of perspectives. The police perspective is emphasized by the footage that is literally taken from their perspective, in which others are filmed slightly from below, making them look bigger and more overwhelming. Also, the police officers’ movements create shaky footage with deceptive intensity that invokes the image of a hectic situation that calls for police action. Secondly, it is the officer who decides when to wear a camera and when to start and stop recording.
    [Show full text]