In the Camera's Eye

From USA TODAY:

Traffic cameras zoom in enough to capture your dangling cigarette. Crime cameras "see" in the dark. Satellite images show whether your car is in the driveway. Most Americans realize ubiquitous monitoring is the price of living in a high-tech world.

These days, surveillance cameras aren't just mounted on buildings and satellites, controlled by government and businesses. Now they're carried by a nation obsessed with its own image.

Kids snap cellphone pictures at parties and instantly put them on the Web; fans who nab photos of unsuspecting celebrities share them on celebrity-watch sites. The guy in the car next to you is leaning out of his window, taking a video that he later uploads to a video site where it could be seen by dozens or hundreds of people — maybe even millions.

"Our computers are about to become unblinking paparazzi," says Paul Saffo of the Institute for the Future in Menlo Park, California.

As envisioned by Jamais Cascio (a member of CRN's Global Task Force), a Participatory Panopticon will be the emergent result of myriad independent rational decisions, a bottom-up version of the constantly watched society, with constant surveillance done by the citizens themselves --and done by choice, not imposed on us by a malevolent bureaucracy or faceless corporations.

We wrote an extended entry about Privacy and Security on this blog a year ago. Now it appears the story is getting a lot more notice, as the reality of it draws ever closer.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Daniel E]

This is just a new aspect of life. Everybody can record everybody. I think it will lead to a softer and relaxed attitude to recorded things. People will be more forgiving about other people taking things back once they've been recorded.

Traditionally it has been such a weird attitude to recorded materials. Things has gotten so much credibility and serious just because it "is on tape". We all know that we fortunately constantly change our mind - more or less.

[George Elvin]

This is already happening with Peter Gabriel's Witness organization. Witness partners with human rights defenders, training them to use video to document abuse and create change. As Gabriel says, it turns Orwell's Big Brother scenario on its head, allowing the little guys to keep watch on the big guys.

[Rik]

I'm uncertain about the participatory panopticon. What if it's based on "life = truth" or the idea that people want the truth? What if that's wrong? What if life equals lying and illusion? A PP society might well go mad.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Rik, people are very good at ignoring what they don't want to know about. Rather than going mad, I suspect that participation would simply drop off. After all, most people would have their screens focused on J.Lo and Britney rather than Cheney and Rove anyway. Pretty soon there'd be automatic filters that blocked unsightly images and unpleasant situations.

[Tom Craver]

While the Participatory Panoptican could work as long as it persisted, I have grave doubts that it could come into being, let alone survive.

The PP creates a paradox - society must both trust the guardians of society to keep them safe, but be suspicious enough to be eternally vigilant against the tendency of guardians to make the PP into a one-way scrying system, claiming to be doing it for reasons of safety (sometimes honestly, sometimes simply because transparency is inconvenient for them).

It just looks too unstable to persist.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

"The PP creates a paradox - society must both trust the guardians of society to keep them safe, but be suspicious enough to be eternally vigilant against the tendency of guardians to make the PP into a one-way scrying system,..."

Hm, I wonder--if we had a PP (with archiving), would we actually still need guardians? We'd still need laws/conventions, but if it became clear when someone was inclined to violate them, and that person's whereabouts and activities could be tracked at all times, how much damage would they still be able to do? (Hat tip to Philippe Van Nedervelde for arguing this point until I finally started to grok it.)

Chris

[Tom Craver]

Guardians aren't just to detect crime, but to apply force where warranted.

Suppose someone steals a million dollars, cash. Or there's a bully who shakes people down for money, and doesn't care who knows. Through the wonders of the PP, you find out - now what do you do?

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Depending on the laws and conventions of society:

1) For the thief, any citizen could walk into his home, pick up the cash, and return it to its owner. Meanwhile, no one would accept his money, knowing it was stolen.

2) For the bully, you could implement a "citizen's house arrest" where any time the bully appeared on the street, he could be legitimately pelted with rotten tomatoes. (I'm sure this one would be popular with kids.) If the bully actually hurt people, he could be considered insane/sociopathic and physically restrained and treated.

Part of the makeup of modern Guardian systems is that they shouldn't apply *too much* force. This is especially important because some fraction of Guardian members will join because they like using force. But with PP, the use of too much force will be quickly spotted and stopped; at that point, anyone capable of being a vigilante without losing of control of him/herself or the situation can assist in enforcing the laws.

Chris

[Tom Craver]

So your solution is vigilantism? Or "citizen action", if you prefer...

Criminals will simply lay in lots of weapons, and with PP, everyone who considers "walking in" will know they're likely to be killed. Criminals can also form gangs, making them much harder targets. If people won't take their money, they'll simply take what they want, by force.

Then there'll be the criminal gangs employed by the local bossman - rich and powerful, no one local stands a chance against him. He hires people to watch for anyone coming to attack - finding the PP very handy. Further, he monitors everyone in the area to spot anyone intending to rise up against him - or leave - and initiates extreme violence to set an example for the rest. Eventually, he even uses force to cut off PP in his area.

Sorry - my last comment for a few weeks - I'll be out of town, so please don't take failure to respond as a slight.