The article challenges the justification of video surveillance and raises the concern of the increase of surveillance public and private places. The process Steve Mann uses of turning the camera back on the “oppressor” is a unique method of confrontation by using the same technology to demonstrate his point. The types of cameras Mann built for his different purposes were thoughtful and quite brilliant, each one created for a different purpose. While he articulated that he was able to demonstrate his point during his experiments, his choice of using the department stores weakens his argument in my opinion. He does not directly confront the “oppressor”, he confronts the employees, an easier target to make his point, rather than the authority of the stores. The employees are also under surveillance. They do not view the video tapes. His argument would have more impact if he confronted the authorities or government institutions which use surveillance in public places. He also compared department stores to a Panopticon society where people are treated more like prisoners. This seems overly dramatic considering people are not forced into shopping. The use of video surveillance in stores is a method to reduce theft from customers and employees. Mann does not address the right of the private business owner to protect their business. In the abstract, Mann stated that there is a need of methodologies to question the practice of surveillance. It would be interesting to read more about his ideas on what methods would work and the expected impact.
Reflectionism, by artist Steve Mann offers some well thought out art pieces and ‘experiments’ to perform in an increasingly totalitarian society. He first speaks about how the information-highway of monitoring is ever expanding, as more and more companies employ direct monitoring of their customers, while not allowing any photography in return. Mann says this is such a violation of our rights, and depiction of a totalitarian society because of the one-way nature of the road, in which our rights are less than that of organizations. While Mann seems a bit cynical and unrealistic on some points, he has a very good point, and some excellent pieces anyone can perform in one of these monitored environments. I find it particularly interesting that he can simply publish these experiments and propose that anyone do them, as it underlies the degree to which this system has spread. Virtually anyone in the U.S. will know exactly what he is talking about, it has become so embedded in our society. I thought it interesting the different ways in which his pieces played with knowledge of recording or lack-thereof. Depending upon how people viewed the camera or perceived camera, the piece would read differently. Thus, when seeking a more symbolic, high-profile piece, a real camera is not even necessary, as it is the simple threat of what store owners claim to be innocent which creates the piece. In other pieces, the threat of publishing, which is a real threat is enough to perform the actions of the artwork. Mann expertly manipulates the boundaries between private and public space, stretching the comfort zones of people who have blurred our so readily.
In much of Mann's work, technology is an inseparable part of his message. In order to truly "reflect" the unquestionable authority of mass surveillance, he strives to recreate a similarly unassailable authority with cameras remotely operated and linked to the Internet. He is not in direct control of the camera; operators from offsite locations become his "managers," synonymous with the higher authority so many employees plead when questioned about surveillance. As a result, he "reflects" the philosophy of the watchers, forcing them to see the flaws inherent in their arguments for surveillance.
His use of "maybe" and "probably" cameras also serve to reflect the undertones of paranoia that come with heavy surveillance. In surveilled locations where photography and videography is prohibited, these somewhat low-tech options demonstrate the uncertainty and fear hidden surveillance cameras unconsciously engender.
While one can debate the effectiveness or invasive nature of Mann's methods, his drive is unquestionable. He even allows the cameras he wears to alter his normal visual perception through long-term use, just so he can make surveillance managers accountable for demanding their removal. Such dedication, if nothing else, demonstrates that the fight against surveillance is worthy of our attention.
“Reflection” and “Diffusionism”: New Tactics for Deconstructing the Video Surveillance Superhighway by Steve Mann discusses the topic of public surveillance and focuses around the idea of being “safe and secure, but at what price”. He talks about how the people are being constantly monitored by store cameras without their consent. He goes on to talk about how the use of cameras is going over and has become a “superhighway”. One method he uses to convey his message is to turn the camera back at the people using them. He installed a camera to himself and walked around a department store recording for “safety reasons/precautions”. It was literally turning the gun, in this case a camera, back at the ones who had them (managers, store employees, etc.). His creative idea of turning the camera back on the store workers and managers at first seemed brilliant and a bit comical. However, in my opinion, I believe that he is missing the whole point of the use of cameras. I do understand that he is arguing the use and perhaps abuse of the camera in public places. But I believe he’s not telling or at least giving fair credit to the other side. The other side meaning the benefits of the camera. Yes it may seem to invade the privacy of people, but one must understand that the person is in a public place, and it IS for safety reasons. For example, if someone is robbed without the shopper knowing and walks out the store, there is a high probability that the authorities will not catch the thief. But if there are cameras installed to record the shoppers, they can just go back to the cameras and see what the person looks like who robbed from a shopper. I do believe that some parts he is doing is “right”. For example, the situation with the fire exits being locked and Mann recording it is something I think is “right” since that is a serious danger. But ultimately, I think that Mann is going overboard with the camera superhighway concept.
Steve Mann’s article “Reflectionism” and “Diffusionism”, discusses the “inquiry into both surveillance and the rhetoric used to justify its use” within the society. The success of surveillance cameras has been more popular and acceptable within the society than ever before, in Steve Man’s article he asserts that individuals are being monitored for the sake of their safety, as well as to ensure that the “general activities” of the population are not committing any crimes. Video cameras are virtually found everywhere, monitoring every movement and breath the citizens make. Even the most private areas such as home, are monitored by companies, such as television set-top boxes, that has “built-in cameras that allow the cable-TV company, or the like, to track the number or people watching, along with their identities”. Everywhere that we go we are constantly monitored by video-surveillance cameras, and interestingly, majority of the population are in-cognizant how their rights to privacy have been fringed and violated, such that they are under the impression that their are safe in their own homes or in solititude. While reading this article, I never realized how much we are monitored even if we are not in the general public areas, and I question whether or not we truly have our own “privacy” and to what extent? The government officials and department store owners asserts that “surveillance are associated with claims toward a better future”, but if we are constantly monitored, like the totalitarian visual surveillance, where “individuals are seen by a remote and unobservable entity but do not see each other through the apparatus”, and treated more like a “prisoner than a member within the community”, and that "only criminals are afraid of video cameras". However, in my personal opinion, although I have nothing to hide, I would still feel a bit uneasy knowing that I am constantly watched.
In his article ""Reflectionism" and "Diffusionism":New Tactics for Deconstructing the Video Surveillance Superhighway, Steve Mann brings up the disputed topic of surveillance cameras and the steps to fight back against the cameras.I personally do not see anything wrong with surveillance cameras in areas such as stores. It is because of human beings that people feel the need to put them up. So if people just stopped doing stupid stuff that involves harming others there would be no need for the cameras. Stores, airports, and other private areas just want to protect their business and may actually aid in the catching of criminals or search for someone with their cameras. However, I do not support the idea of recording people in their private homes, which Mann brought up. That truly is an invasion of space and freedom. I also do agree that not allowing the use of one's camera in stores or similar areas is not fair. If the security cameras are filming our every move without our consent, then why are we not allowed to film in the same area without their consent? For example, I was in the UCSD bookstore with a friend and she was called to attention for filming inside the store without permission. Permission from who is required? The school? So I can also understand the author's call for reflectionism even though I empathize with store owners. Mann introduced some devices used to turn the camera back on the "oppressor" that would be very interesting to use.
While surveillance has been an ongoing issue, new technology (and their ubiquity) has made this controversial phenomenon even more concerning. I certainly found Steve Mann's article to be very interesting and eye-opening. I have never found surveillance cameras to be overtly intrusive, but reading this article has made me reconsider my "blind" willingness to go with the flow of things.
The fact that managers or workers at stores don't even seem to realize the hypocrisy in their surveillance and "no photography allowed" rules is rather troubling and definitely raises some red flags. Although I understand the need for hidden (or unhidden) cameras--since people are less likely to do wrong if they feel that they are being checked on, in the same manner drivers on the road slow down when they see a cop car--it could most certainly become a threat to one's privacy as well.
I'm not entirely sure I would adopt so radical an approach as Mann suggested in his article, since the issue is not a hard-hitting one with myself, but perhaps the ethnicity and rules for surveillance should go under some thoughtful scrutiny....
Steve Mann’s article uses techniques of ‘Reflectionism’ and ‘Diffusionism’ to deconstruct idea of video surveillance. Through his paper, he challenges the scial and political basis that require video surveillance to be conducted on common people by authorities. Reading this article was quite an appeal as he devised ways to break the unilateral wall of directed surveillance and step into the realm of universal surveillance. Though how trivial unidirectional surveillance may be, Steve took the initiative to break the wall and bring authorities before the lens who reserve the power to commit civil atrocities on common man.
Steve Mann’s article explores the topic of surveillance by discussing totalitarian visual surveillances in which people do not know and can not see that they are being watched. Mann’s example of watch towers point out that the design specifically puts guards out of sight so individual do know whether a guard is watching them or if there even if a guard in the structure. Video surveillance is similar in the sense that they’re out of sight but always watching for “for [our] protection.” The big concern is asking at what price do we trade privacy for public safety. Mann proposes instilling reflectionism “as a new philosophical framework for questioning social values” by resituating the tools of the “oppressor” and make the oppressor “[become] the audience of a performance resulting from this new use of his or her own methodology.”
This text reminds me of the u-city concept that is spreading in South Korea, but with a different approach on surveillance and the tools for a more “comfortable” lifestyle (the shower and coffee maker). It seems to be a development of the Society of Control theory where you would be constantly watched. This raises the question about dichotomy public – privacy, where is the line? I started to think of J. Thompson’s theory about visibility and how there are different kinds of mediated publicity, where the open one is uncontrolled which forms consequences. As for an art project, the idea is very controversial, it all comes down to the question about interfering with people’s privacy. On the other hand, people are getting used to show and be more visible since the new social media. We now constantly update locations, pictures, videos, vlogs etc on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and so on. Posting our lives in public spaces open for anyone to watch (depending on the settings). The difference is that then you have the option, you make the decision yourself to be visible.
In the article, “Reflectionism” and “Diffusionism”: New Tactics for Deconstruction the Video Surveillance Superhighway, Steve Mann discusses the modern-day activities of societies view on surveillance cameras. In the beginning of the article, he begins to question the uses of our modern surveillance cameras. From either security to commercial uses, he clearly states this sense of violation and obliviousness to the camera. As he lists the number of uses of surveillance cameras, they move from the practical to the mundane. He states, although, these cameras are used in department stores, societies’ nature to allow this filming creates this sense of comfort when the camera is rolling. He also discusses this imbalance between the watcher and watched because within these “contracts”, the watcher cannot be filmed by the watched. Here comes the “WearCam”, he states that because the camera is worn, he feels like he himself is being watched even though his body is never present within the frame.
Steve Mann's article discusses the extent of public surveillance in virtually all public space. His descriptions of face-recognition technology makes it sound like a very futuristic technology, and that with it, we would soon be living in a world not unlike the ones we have seen in the countless number of movies we have seen set in the future. Although some parts of this idea seem to be interesting and convenient, other facets are a bit of an intrusion of our personal space. To counteract this intrusion, the author proposes his technique of "reflectionism," or essentially the surveilling those who are constantly surveilling us in public space without permission. The main goal here is to get those "surveilling overlords" to understand the kind of boundaries that public surveillance cameras are crossing in terms of the peoples' privacy in public and to get them to reduce their arsenal of surveillance technologies. The article is mostly about how to mess with those who believe they have the right to surveil us, when in fact, they feel uncomfortable being watched intently. I believe this strategy effectively teaches those power-hungry and controlling figures in our society a lesson, and is ultimately beneficial to public society as a whole.
Steve Mann’s article on his ideas on “reflectionism” and “diffusionism” bring awareness to how the government and companies are using surveillance cameras. Mann states that the “proliferation of video surveillance cameras interconnected with high speed computers and databases is moving us toward a high speed ‘super surveillance.’” Since the article was written in 1998, I believe that what Mann states is true. Everywhere we go; there are shadowing cameras in every corner. Recently, the school has installed cameras in Warren College facing apartment balconies to monitor illicit actions. Those who are in favor or work for those who are for the cameras say that if there is nothing we’re doing wrong, then the placement of the cameras shouldn’t be an issue. The authoritarians say that the cameras are there for our safety. Mann brings up the Panopticon society, where those under government facilities are regulated through a “man in the tower” style security system. We never know if the “oppressors” are actually watching or not. Mann proposes the idea of “Reflectionism,” where the artist appropriates tolls of the authoritarians, and then use these tools back on them. The symmetry of the camera versus camera has the end goal to encourage deep thought the edifice of this mirror that allows the public to challenge itself or see its own incongruity. The ideas that Mann reveals in this article can be used in both the utilitarian and totalitarian sense.
Steve Mann attempts to educate about how public surveillance cameras are an intrusion to personal privacy in his article "Reflectionism" and "Diffusionism". At the beginning of the article, Mann implicitly questions the usefulness of these cameras in reducing crime rates. He does not seem to understand that the surveillance camera was never created to reduce crime rates, only to reduce a criminal's chance of success. Furthermore, the places which he considers "public", retail stores, are actually private property, and it is solely the store owner's decision to record in his own store. This is a basic right for the owners, so surveillance is therefore not a violation of privacy because the customers have willingly forfeited certain privileges by entering the store. To "combat the growing threat", Mann purposefully records within stores to show to the store owners that the security cameras are an invasion of privacy. In this case, however, he is the only one violating anyone's right to privacy because Mann has no right to record if the owner of the store does not wish it. Mann clearly has no concept of ownership. The customers in a store do not have any power over the running of the store, and therefore, they have no say in the matter of being recorded. Surveillance is a perfectly acceptable security measure, and honestly there is no reason to fear or denounce this practice unless one actually has illegal activities to hide. The owner of the property should have total control over the happenings within the property.
At a first glance one may see Mann's pieces as a way to fight fire with fire; not solving the issue but creating more dispute. But I think this is a necessary step on the way to reveal and diminish the power of the surveillance camera. Without this more confronatational act of reflecting the feeling of being watched "for your own protection", those who are in charge won't consider or understand its effects. Once experiencing their rights being violated, then they may begin to understand what seems to have creeped in without anyone noticing. The conversation won't be over when people realize the consequences of the camera. Everyone will have to decide whether or not they want to have their rights violated for their own "protection".
Steve Mann exposes the real detail of surveillance and how far it's willing to go in order to keep the public "safe." He talks about several ways that the public is being watched, such as through TV boxes, stores, and so on. As a result, Mann wears several cameras to record a public audience. Mann also talks about "reflectionism" which is where the tools that the oppressor uses are then used by those oppressed to fire back at the oppressors, like reflecting off a mirror. In department stores they record you, however, photography is not allowed. Therefore Mann wears a WearCam, but tries to pull it off that he wasn't trying to intentionally record. The next term he coins up is "diffusionism." Man describes its use to "subvert the totalitarian nature of surveillance through a proliferation of wearable 'Maybe Cameras.'"(Article). What was most striking about this article was the fact that people are already thinking about putting cameras in our showers! That's ridiculous. I can understand that you need surveillance at stores in order to limit shoplifting and crime, however, the fact that we are being watched in our homes is ridiculous.
Steve Mann discusses in his article the different ways in which technology is advancing in order to survey us. The examples that he gives are, while impressive, shocking to me. I can’t imagine wanting to have a detection device that knows when I have woken up or when I am done showering. I already have an aversion to being under surveillance for my protection; I would not want that kind of technology in my personal living space. Mann proposes a way to battle “totalitarian visual surveillance” by turning the cameras back on those who are taping us. This is somewhat like the documentary “War Zone” by Maggie Hadleigh in which she turns the camera on people who harass her. However, the way in which Steve Mann does this is much more subtle. He created a “WearCam” in order to survey others without them knowing, a technique he calls “Reflectionism.” Although his ideas and intentions are well formulated, I do not think that it will change anything. It is true that we live in a world today that is controlled by the “representatives of the video surveillance highway.” The technology in regard to this “highway” is expanding rapidly. Mann cannot halt this progression on his own and if he were to have large numbers wearing his “WearCam” then everyone’s privacy would be invaded constantly and it would defeat the purpose.
In Steve Mann's article, "'Reflectionism' and 'Diffusionism': New Tactics for Deconstructing the Video Surveillance Superhighway," he discusses video surveillance in department stores and provides methods of combatting them. He notes that most businesses say that they implement video surveillance for public safety, and Mann then asks "at what price" should individual privacy be compromised? Mann developed a concept known as "reflectionism," which is a way of publicly questioning the use of video surveillance in public spaces by "appropriating the tools of the oppressor, but by turning those same tools against the oppressor" (article). Basically, it's giving department stores that use video surveillance a taste of their own medicine by surveilling their employees. Mann developed portable camera devices that would store its recorded footage online so other people around the world could watch. Mann would go to department stores and wear these cameras in subtle or more obvious ways, depending on the point he wanted to make, and ask store employees and managers why there were recording his image on surveillance without his permission. Mann also developed the concept of "Diffusionism," just in case Reflectionism fails to make your point. The goal of Diffusionism is "to subvert the totalitarian nature of surveillance through a proliferation of wearable 'Maybe Cameras'" because he notes that it isn't neccessarily important to actually surveill someone, but rather to make them believe that they are being surveilled. I thought Mann's methods were a bit radical, but when I thought about it more, I'm not sure how else others can combat video surveillance in public spaces other than turning it back around on them. When I was reading this article, it reminded me of that video we watched in discussion a few weeks ago when the woman recorded the reactions of men after she confronted them about their wolf calls or degrading comments.
Steve Mann discusses technology and video surveillance; He lists the uses of video surveillance, then inquires about the things we face from having the "luxury" of cameras watching us. I want to put forth comments on his opinion about cameras today. I don't mind surveillance as much as Mann does because I think my privacy in general stores is not as important as it is when I am at home. I don't feel controlled, or being watched, or pointed out; I think that the idea of being scared of revealing yourself on camera is asinine. We cannot escape the fact that we are recorded everywhere, and our only real choice is to embrace surveillance as a means for public safety. I think surveillance has a high chance of becoming more prominent in our future lives, but today, a recording of me going to the store and buying grovceries isn't what I worry about at all.
In the article, "Reflectionism" and "Diffusionism": New Tactics for Deconstructing the Video Surveillance Superhighway" by Steve Mann rises the question of video surveillance. I thought it was very clever of him to do this sort of documentary film experiment about media use in public space. Most video surveillance main purpose is to "protect the company and their customer", yet lately technology has gone so far that it started to raise the question of how far technology can reach into people's privacies. Some of the interesting topics Mann brought up was the concept of "shooting back". The other members of people that are shot from the camera that Mann is wearing are considered audiences, yet you can also say they're enemies as well as audience because they are being "shot". In my opinion, I don't think they should be considered as enemies unless they are really guilty in doing something that the camera is captured. However, it does make sense to feel like enemies as people feel uncomfortable and at unease when they're being shot in film. I hope that Mann's documentary experiment did raise some question about the video surveillance to companies and the public. I am sure we can all learn from watching his film about this controversial topic.
I liked Steve Manns' piece but towards the end when he would talk about his "maybe camera" and the "probably camera" I felt like he was going over board. He had a good idea with wearing the apparatus on his head, but after a while the whole reflectionism thing became too much and too dramatic. His idea regarding surveillance and how we should try and minimize how much we are surveyed is important and a valid concept to be fighting against. Mann is attempting to stop surveillance in its tracks, but his is not getting to to root of the problem. When he goes into the department stores, he is attacking innocent workers, instead of the cooperation' bosses and people actually in charge of implementing the surveillance cameras.
It was interesting how most of the different forms of surveillance came from either art works or other functions that were not originally for surveillance. I also think it was interesting how much Mann stressed that these "experiments" should be in public places were photography was prohibited.
These experiments of surveillance where it's pretty much a lottery if there is a camera or not are a very good way of "reflecting" what the surveillance cameras are like, but I did not agree with his conclusion that his WearCam should be "useful and commercially viable everyday object" because it's more surveillance of people that don't give permission (the innocent bystanders), and would only add to the problem in my opinion.
In this weeks article ""Reflectionism" and "Diffusionism": New Tactics for Deconstructing the Video Surveillance Superhighway,Steve Man stands out some interesting insights on video surveillance.He puts emphasis on justifying the totalitarian visual surveillance and how its design impact on us.In the beginning,he discuss how success the modern usage of video cameras provides safe and secure in public areas without letting people know they are being watch.The department store is just like a Panopticon society,customers are threatened like prisoners under the pressure of the surveillance .The design is so individuals that people would not know whetter guad was watching them or not .However, to confront the "oppressor",Steve Man exampling "Reflectionism" to show how methodology directly against the oppressor.The wearCam make people create a primitive identity combining self and prositietic camera device.It results in showing department store illigallyshut its fire exits. On the other hand,"Diffusionism"subvert the totalitarian nature of surveillance through a proliferation of wearable.It gives a possibility that guard can be spotted by"prisoner" at same time, which can also help us see better.
After reading Reflectionism and Diffusionism, I was pretty shocked and thrown back from what i was reading, to say the least. In the section titled, "Safe and Secure, But at What Price?" Steve Mann lists different types of visual surveillance that are present today. The one that was probably the most shocking to me was the built in cameras in television set top-boxes designed for deployment in people's homes. It's just outrageous that this can even be considered legal, for cable companies to build cameras in their set top-boxes and monitor families in their own homes and basically see everyone and everything that is being watched on a daily basis. Although they may say it's for demographic information, I just don't see how it's any justifiable when they literally have a hidden camera in private homes and have the ability to monitor almost everything that goes on in the living room.
The article " 'Reflectionism' and 'Diffusionism': New tactics for Deconstructing the video Surveillance Superhighway" , brings up a very fundamental problem of what is right and what isn't. Through challenging the so-called common sense, artist Steve Mann's action make us rethink about what we used to think is justice. It just seem to us that it is natural to have a surveillance camera in a department store. But we seldom consider where the video actually went. Steve Mann realized that there are rights that are being ignored, and in order to challenge the authority, he decided to act as a mirror, and become the authority himself. By doing so and arguing with the subject, he reveals the disadvantages in the idea of under surveillance. I agree that some of our privacy right might have been violated, the idea of having a surveillance camera is just an act of taking advantages of the one being taped. But on the other hand, it is also true, that surveillance camera has done a lot of great jobs in helping us to catch criminals and prevent theft. I believe that unless we can have a better technology equipment, this is the price that we, as citizens have to pay in exchange for a city's harmony.
Steve Mann's article "'Reflectionism' and 'Diffusionism': New Tactics for Deconstructing the Video Surveillance Superhighway", brought forth many interesting ideas to give companies and other entities a taste of their own medicine. I have to agree that surveillance is becoming more of a problem rather than a security measure as humans are becoming more like lab rats than human beings. People have lost sight as to what privacy really means and how it ensures that we can control our own lives. These days video of everyday life is recorded everywhere and spread all across the internet, and with the rise in technology, video surveillance will only become more common.
Just as Steve Mann was told by companies representatives "Why are you so paranoid?" or "Only criminals are afraid of the cameras" I have come across these sort of remarks as well. However questions such as these become very one sided when "valued" customers are unable to record inside stores. If our privacy is invaded, and our every action is recorded without consent, then invading theirs should be no problem.
Just like what author says I'm one of people who have been blind about all the surveillance about us. I found his depiction about the WearCam very interesting and clever. I've never thought that my right was violated when I walked into a store that had a motor and a rule of "no photography allowed" at the same time. The WearCam works very well as a counterattack.
On the other hand, I also find the author knowledgeable how he relates the WearCam as detournement, a Situationist movement "in which artists often appropriate tools of the 'oppressor' and then restate these tools in a disturbing and disorienting fashion." It indeed surprises me how art can be so practical in our real life while being used as a weapon.
The Article “Reflectionisim” and “Diffusionsism” New Tactics for deconstructing the Video Survailence super Highway by Steve Mann confronts the issue of a surveillance society and the notion that surveillance is for the security of the general public. To this end I believe Mann is effective in constructing a reflectionist model by which he can subvert the rhetoric and logic used to justify surveillance systems. By mirroring the way in which surveillance systems work he also calls attention to the imbalance of power that exist between the observed and the observers. Those who are observed are held to the highest level of standards while those observing are held to none. He hopes to rectify this imbalance of power through the use of his wearcam equipment which mirrors department story security by being hidden. One of the more interesting aspects of his experiments is the fact that when a presented as a video recording device constructed to prevent crime and increase security he did not receive the same resistance as he did when he had a typical camera. Knowing that one is specifically being observed is more offensive to the public than the notion that one might be observed which may in part have contributed to the acceptance of anonymous video surveillance since one does not feel specifically targeted although inventors of the anonymous video surveillance intended that people felt that they were always being surveyed and therefore would not want to risk robbery. Mann states that he considered two audiences when devising his device. The primary where the people with whom he was confronting and the second where those who would watch the video over the net, thereby making his art part performance and part documentary. His other means of confronting the surveillance society was through the idea of diffusion, that if one where to give everyone a camera it would thus make the need for organized surveillance mute. It would also minimize the power of those surveilling the public and create what Mann suggests to be equivalence a state in which those who observe are also equally observed and thereby do not withhold more power than other members of society.
I forgot to mention that Manns method of making the observers the observed, it reminded me of the video we saw about the woman who recorded men who leered at her and put the spotlight back on them thereby taking away the "power" they held over her. As far as his conclusion on the manner I believe it’s a simple matter of choice if one does not wish to be observed or recorded in the public, then do not engage in the public. Don't shop at places that video tape its customers. Specifically boycott those that do. That’s the only reasonable reaction although his is entertaining to say the least and it is beneficial to enlighten those who are naive to the even increasing presence of video surveillance.
The article is interesting as it highlights the issue of surveillance and sousveillance. However, I would have to disagree with some of the points he makes. I don't believe this concept legitimately addresses but rather attacks an issue outside of the scope. When he camera to turn the surveillance against the store owners, it seems like he is making a point. However, I think he's comparing apples to oranges. When the store owners film the shoppers, they are doing so for the sole purpose of preventing shoplifting and for security. There have been very few cases where these footages have been used for other reasons (dressing room cameras barring). However, when Mann goes up to the store owners and films them, he isn't doing it for the same reason they are. They are in their own store, he doesn't have to worry about theft, and the issue at hand is not the same. Overall, I think Mann's brings up a good point about accountability within public officials and departments. However, I think this "experiment" lets his message lose a little bit of power because of its flaws.
The article challenges the justification of video surveillance and raises the concern of the increase of surveillance public and private places. The process Steve Mann uses of turning the camera back on the “oppressor” is a unique method of confrontation by using the same technology to demonstrate his point. The types of cameras Mann built for his different purposes were thoughtful and quite brilliant, each one created for a different purpose.
ReplyDeleteWhile he articulated that he was able to demonstrate his point during his experiments, his choice of using the department stores weakens his argument in my opinion. He does not directly confront the “oppressor”, he confronts the employees, an easier target to make his point, rather than the authority of the stores. The employees are also under surveillance. They do not view the video tapes.
His argument would have more impact if he confronted the authorities or government institutions which use surveillance in public places. He also compared department stores to a Panopticon society where people are treated more like prisoners. This seems overly dramatic considering people are not forced into shopping.
The use of video surveillance in stores is a method to reduce theft from customers and employees. Mann does not address the right of the private business owner to protect their business.
In the abstract, Mann stated that there is a need of methodologies to question the practice of surveillance. It would be interesting to read more about his ideas on what methods would work and the expected impact.
Reflectionism, by artist Steve Mann offers some well thought out art pieces and ‘experiments’ to perform in an increasingly totalitarian society. He first speaks about how the information-highway of monitoring is ever expanding, as more and more companies employ direct monitoring of their customers, while not allowing any photography in return. Mann says this is such a violation of our rights, and depiction of a totalitarian society because of the one-way nature of the road, in which our rights are less than that of organizations. While Mann seems a bit cynical and unrealistic on some points, he has a very good point, and some excellent pieces anyone can perform in one of these monitored environments. I find it particularly interesting that he can simply publish these experiments and propose that anyone do them, as it underlies the degree to which this system has spread. Virtually anyone in the U.S. will know exactly what he is talking about, it has become so embedded in our society. I thought it interesting the different ways in which his pieces played with knowledge of recording or lack-thereof. Depending upon how people viewed the camera or perceived camera, the piece would read differently. Thus, when seeking a more symbolic, high-profile piece, a real camera is not even necessary, as it is the simple threat of what store owners claim to be innocent which creates the piece. In other pieces, the threat of publishing, which is a real threat is enough to perform the actions of the artwork. Mann expertly manipulates the boundaries between private and public space, stretching the comfort zones of people who have blurred our so readily.
ReplyDeleteSteve Mann's artistic interpretation of video surveillance is almost reminiscent of an exposé news story. Unlike a journalist, however, Mann's work goes beyond the abstract to physically confront his subjects with their own tools and methods. Using modern technology, he acts as a mirror, revealing the true nature of surveillance.
ReplyDeleteIn much of Mann's work, technology is an inseparable part of his message. In order to truly "reflect" the unquestionable authority of mass surveillance, he strives to recreate a similarly unassailable authority with cameras remotely operated and linked to the Internet. He is not in direct control of the camera; operators from offsite locations become his "managers," synonymous with the higher authority so many employees plead when questioned about surveillance. As a result, he "reflects" the philosophy of the watchers, forcing them to see the flaws inherent in their arguments for surveillance.
His use of "maybe" and "probably" cameras also serve to reflect the undertones of paranoia that come with heavy surveillance. In surveilled locations where photography and videography is prohibited, these somewhat low-tech options demonstrate the uncertainty and fear hidden surveillance cameras unconsciously engender.
While one can debate the effectiveness or invasive nature of Mann's methods, his drive is unquestionable. He even allows the cameras he wears to alter his normal visual perception through long-term use, just so he can make surveillance managers accountable for demanding their removal. Such dedication, if nothing else, demonstrates that the fight against surveillance is worthy of our attention.
“Reflection” and “Diffusionism”: New Tactics for Deconstructing the Video Surveillance Superhighway by Steve Mann discusses the topic of public surveillance and focuses around the idea of being “safe and secure, but at what price”. He talks about how the people are being constantly monitored by store cameras without their consent. He goes on to talk about how the use of cameras is going over and has become a “superhighway”. One method he uses to convey his message is to turn the camera back at the people using them. He installed a camera to himself and walked around a department store recording for “safety reasons/precautions”. It was literally turning the gun, in this case a camera, back at the ones who had them (managers, store employees, etc.). His creative idea of turning the camera back on the store workers and managers at first seemed brilliant and a bit comical. However, in my opinion, I believe that he is missing the whole point of the use of cameras. I do understand that he is arguing the use and perhaps abuse of the camera in public places. But I believe he’s not telling or at least giving fair credit to the other side. The other side meaning the benefits of the camera. Yes it may seem to invade the privacy of people, but one must understand that the person is in a public place, and it IS for safety reasons. For example, if someone is robbed without the shopper knowing and walks out the store, there is a high probability that the authorities will not catch the thief. But if there are cameras installed to record the shoppers, they can just go back to the cameras and see what the person looks like who robbed from a shopper. I do believe that some parts he is doing is “right”. For example, the situation with the fire exits being locked and Mann recording it is something I think is “right” since that is a serious danger. But ultimately, I think that Mann is going overboard with the camera superhighway concept.
ReplyDeleteSteve Mann’s article “Reflectionism” and “Diffusionism”, discusses the “inquiry into both surveillance and the rhetoric used to justify its use” within the society. The success of surveillance cameras has been more popular and acceptable within the society than ever before, in Steve Man’s article he asserts that individuals are being monitored for the sake of their safety, as well as to ensure that the “general activities” of the population are not committing any crimes. Video cameras are virtually found everywhere, monitoring every movement and breath the citizens make. Even the most private areas such as home, are monitored by companies, such as television set-top boxes, that has “built-in cameras that allow the cable-TV company, or the like, to track the number or people watching, along with their identities”. Everywhere that we go we are constantly monitored by video-surveillance cameras, and interestingly, majority of the population are in-cognizant how their rights to privacy have been fringed and violated, such that they are under the impression that their are safe in their own homes or in solititude. While reading this article, I never realized how much we are monitored even if we are not in the general public areas, and I question whether or not we truly have our own “privacy” and to what extent? The government officials and department store owners asserts that “surveillance are associated with claims toward a better future”, but if we are constantly monitored, like the totalitarian visual surveillance, where “individuals are seen by a remote and unobservable entity but do not see each other through the apparatus”, and treated more like a “prisoner than a member within the community”, and that "only criminals are afraid of video cameras". However, in my personal opinion, although I have nothing to hide, I would still feel a bit uneasy knowing that I am constantly watched.
ReplyDeleteIn his article ""Reflectionism" and "Diffusionism":New Tactics for Deconstructing the Video Surveillance Superhighway, Steve Mann brings up the disputed topic of surveillance cameras and the steps to fight back against the cameras.I personally do not see anything wrong with surveillance cameras in areas such as stores. It is because of human beings that people feel the need to put them up. So if people just stopped doing stupid stuff that involves harming others there would be no need for the cameras. Stores, airports, and other private areas just want to protect their business and may actually aid in the catching of criminals or search for someone with their cameras. However, I do not support the idea of recording people in their private homes, which Mann brought up. That truly is an invasion of space and freedom. I also do agree that not allowing the use of one's camera in stores or similar areas is not fair. If the security cameras are filming our every move without our consent, then why are we not allowed to film in the same area without their consent? For example, I was in the UCSD bookstore with a friend and she was called to attention for filming inside the store without permission. Permission from who is required? The school? So I can also understand the author's call for reflectionism even though I empathize with store owners. Mann introduced some devices used to turn the camera back on the "oppressor" that would be very interesting to use.
ReplyDeleteWhile surveillance has been an ongoing issue, new technology (and their ubiquity) has made this controversial phenomenon even more concerning. I certainly found Steve Mann's article to be very interesting and eye-opening. I have never found surveillance cameras to be overtly intrusive, but reading this article has made me reconsider my "blind" willingness to go with the flow of things.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that managers or workers at stores don't even seem to realize the hypocrisy in their surveillance and "no photography allowed" rules is rather troubling and definitely raises some red flags. Although I understand the need for hidden (or unhidden) cameras--since people are less likely to do wrong if they feel that they are being checked on, in the same manner drivers on the road slow down when they see a cop car--it could most certainly become a threat to one's privacy as well.
I'm not entirely sure I would adopt so radical an approach as Mann suggested in his article, since the issue is not a hard-hitting one with myself, but perhaps the ethnicity and rules for surveillance should go under some thoughtful scrutiny....
Steve Mann’s article uses techniques of ‘Reflectionism’ and ‘Diffusionism’ to deconstruct idea of video surveillance. Through his paper, he challenges the scial and political basis that require video surveillance to be conducted on common people by authorities. Reading this article was quite an appeal as he devised ways to break the unilateral wall of directed surveillance and step into the realm of universal surveillance. Though how trivial unidirectional surveillance may be, Steve took the initiative to break the wall and bring authorities before the lens who reserve the power to commit civil atrocities on common man.
ReplyDeleteSteve Mann’s article explores the topic of surveillance by discussing totalitarian visual surveillances in which people do not know and can not see that they are being watched. Mann’s example of watch towers point out that the design specifically puts guards out of sight so individual do know whether a guard is watching them or if there even if a guard in the structure. Video surveillance is similar in the sense that they’re out of sight but always watching for “for [our] protection.” The big concern is asking at what price do we trade privacy for public safety. Mann proposes instilling reflectionism “as a new philosophical framework for questioning social values” by resituating the tools of the “oppressor” and make the oppressor “[become] the audience of a performance resulting from this new use of his or her own methodology.”
ReplyDeleteThis text reminds me of the u-city concept that is spreading in South Korea, but with a different approach on surveillance and the tools for a more “comfortable” lifestyle (the shower and coffee maker). It seems to be a development of the Society of Control theory where you would be constantly watched. This raises the question about dichotomy public – privacy, where is the line? I started to think of J. Thompson’s theory about visibility and how there are different kinds of mediated publicity, where the open one is uncontrolled which forms consequences. As for an art project, the idea is very controversial, it all comes down to the question about interfering with people’s privacy. On the other hand, people are getting used to show and be more visible since the new social media. We now constantly update locations, pictures, videos, vlogs etc on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and so on. Posting our lives in public spaces open for anyone to watch (depending on the settings). The difference is that then you have the option, you make the decision yourself to be visible.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, “Reflectionism” and “Diffusionism”: New Tactics for Deconstruction the Video Surveillance Superhighway, Steve Mann discusses the modern-day activities of societies view on surveillance cameras. In the beginning of the article, he begins to question the uses of our modern surveillance cameras. From either security to commercial uses, he clearly states this sense of violation and obliviousness to the camera. As he lists the number of uses of surveillance cameras, they move from the practical to the mundane. He states, although, these cameras are used in department stores, societies’ nature to allow this filming creates this sense of comfort when the camera is rolling. He also discusses this imbalance between the watcher and watched because within these “contracts”, the watcher cannot be filmed by the watched. Here comes the “WearCam”, he states that because the camera is worn, he feels like he himself is being watched even though his body is never present within the frame.
ReplyDeleteSteve Mann's article discusses the extent of public surveillance in virtually all public space. His descriptions of face-recognition technology makes it sound like a very futuristic technology, and that with it, we would soon be living in a world not unlike the ones we have seen in the countless number of movies we have seen set in the future. Although some parts of this idea seem to be interesting and convenient, other facets are a bit of an intrusion of our personal space. To counteract this intrusion, the author proposes his technique of "reflectionism," or essentially the surveilling those who are constantly surveilling us in public space without permission. The main goal here is to get those "surveilling overlords" to understand the kind of boundaries that public surveillance cameras are crossing in terms of the peoples' privacy in public and to get them to reduce their arsenal of surveillance technologies. The article is mostly about how to mess with those who believe they have the right to surveil us, when in fact, they feel uncomfortable being watched intently. I believe this strategy effectively teaches those power-hungry and controlling figures in our society a lesson, and is ultimately beneficial to public society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteSteve Mann’s article on his ideas on “reflectionism” and “diffusionism” bring awareness to how the government and companies are using surveillance cameras. Mann states that the “proliferation of video surveillance cameras interconnected with high speed computers and databases is moving us toward a high speed ‘super surveillance.’” Since the article was written in 1998, I believe that what Mann states is true. Everywhere we go; there are shadowing cameras in every corner. Recently, the school has installed cameras in Warren College facing apartment balconies to monitor illicit actions. Those who are in favor or work for those who are for the cameras say that if there is nothing we’re doing wrong, then the placement of the cameras shouldn’t be an issue. The authoritarians say that the cameras are there for our safety. Mann brings up the Panopticon society, where those under government facilities are regulated through a “man in the tower” style security system. We never know if the “oppressors” are actually watching or not. Mann proposes the idea of “Reflectionism,” where the artist appropriates tolls of the authoritarians, and then use these tools back on them. The symmetry of the camera versus camera has the end goal to encourage deep thought the edifice of this mirror that allows the public to challenge itself or see its own incongruity. The ideas that Mann reveals in this article can be used in both the utilitarian and totalitarian sense.
ReplyDeleteSteve Mann attempts to educate about how public surveillance cameras are an intrusion to personal privacy in his article "Reflectionism" and "Diffusionism". At the beginning of the article, Mann implicitly questions the usefulness of these cameras in reducing crime rates. He does not seem to understand that the surveillance camera was never created to reduce crime rates, only to reduce a criminal's chance of success. Furthermore, the places which he considers "public", retail stores, are actually private property, and it is solely the store owner's decision to record in his own store. This is a basic right for the owners, so surveillance is therefore not a violation of privacy because the customers have willingly forfeited certain privileges by entering the store. To "combat the growing threat", Mann purposefully records within stores to show to the store owners that the security cameras are an invasion of privacy. In this case, however, he is the only one violating anyone's right to privacy because Mann has no right to record if the owner of the store does not wish it. Mann clearly has no concept of ownership. The customers in a store do not have any power over the running of the store, and therefore, they have no say in the matter of being recorded. Surveillance is a perfectly acceptable security measure, and honestly there is no reason to fear or denounce this practice unless one actually has illegal activities to hide. The owner of the property should have total control over the happenings within the property.
ReplyDeleteAt a first glance one may see Mann's pieces as a way to fight fire with fire; not solving the issue but creating more dispute. But I think this is a necessary step on the way to reveal and diminish the power of the surveillance camera. Without this more confronatational act of reflecting the feeling of being watched "for your own protection", those who are in charge won't consider or understand its effects. Once experiencing their rights being violated, then they may begin to understand what seems to have creeped in without anyone noticing. The conversation won't be over when people realize the consequences of the camera. Everyone will have to decide whether or not they want to have their rights violated for their own "protection".
ReplyDeleteSteve Mann exposes the real detail of surveillance and how far it's willing to go in order to keep the public "safe." He talks about several ways that the public is being watched, such as through TV boxes, stores, and so on. As a result, Mann wears several cameras to record a public audience. Mann also talks about "reflectionism" which is where the tools that the oppressor uses are then used by those oppressed to fire back at the oppressors, like reflecting off a mirror. In department stores they record you, however, photography is not allowed. Therefore Mann wears a WearCam, but tries to pull it off that he wasn't trying to intentionally record. The next term he coins up is "diffusionism." Man describes its use to "subvert the totalitarian nature of surveillance through a proliferation of wearable 'Maybe Cameras.'"(Article). What was most striking about this article was the fact that people are already thinking about putting cameras in our showers! That's ridiculous. I can understand that you need surveillance at stores in order to limit shoplifting and crime, however, the fact that we are being watched in our homes is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteSteve Mann discusses in his article the different ways in which technology is advancing in order to survey us. The examples that he gives are, while impressive, shocking to me. I can’t imagine wanting to have a detection device that knows when I have woken up or when I am done showering. I already have an aversion to being under surveillance for my protection; I would not want that kind of technology in my personal living space. Mann proposes a way to battle “totalitarian visual surveillance” by turning the cameras back on those who are taping us. This is somewhat like the documentary “War Zone” by Maggie Hadleigh in which she turns the camera on people who harass her. However, the way in which Steve Mann does this is much more subtle. He created a “WearCam” in order to survey others without them knowing, a technique he calls “Reflectionism.” Although his ideas and intentions are well formulated, I do not think that it will change anything. It is true that we live in a world today that is controlled by the “representatives of the video surveillance highway.” The technology in regard to this “highway” is expanding rapidly. Mann cannot halt this progression on his own and if he were to have large numbers wearing his “WearCam” then everyone’s privacy would be invaded constantly and it would defeat the purpose.
ReplyDeleteIn Steve Mann's article, "'Reflectionism' and 'Diffusionism': New Tactics for Deconstructing the Video Surveillance Superhighway," he discusses video surveillance in department stores and provides methods of combatting them. He notes that most businesses say that they implement video surveillance for public safety, and Mann then asks "at what price" should individual privacy be compromised? Mann developed a concept known as "reflectionism," which is a way of publicly questioning the use of video surveillance in public spaces by "appropriating the tools of the oppressor, but by turning those same tools against the oppressor" (article). Basically, it's giving department stores that use video surveillance a taste of their own medicine by surveilling their employees. Mann developed portable camera devices that would store its recorded footage online so other people around the world could watch. Mann would go to department stores and wear these cameras in subtle or more obvious ways, depending on the point he wanted to make, and ask store employees and managers why there were recording his image on surveillance without his permission. Mann also developed the concept of "Diffusionism," just in case Reflectionism fails to make your point. The goal of Diffusionism is "to subvert the totalitarian nature of surveillance through a proliferation of wearable 'Maybe Cameras'" because he notes that it isn't neccessarily important to actually surveill someone, but rather to make them believe that they are being surveilled. I thought Mann's methods were a bit radical, but when I thought about it more, I'm not sure how else others can combat video surveillance in public spaces other than turning it back around on them. When I was reading this article, it reminded me of that video we watched in discussion a few weeks ago when the woman recorded the reactions of men after she confronted them about their wolf calls or degrading comments.
ReplyDeleteSteve Mann discusses technology and video surveillance; He lists the uses of video surveillance, then inquires about the things we face from having the "luxury" of cameras watching us. I want to put forth comments on his opinion about cameras today. I don't mind surveillance as much as Mann does because I think my privacy in general stores is not as important as it is when I am at home. I don't feel controlled, or being watched, or pointed out; I think that the idea of being scared of revealing yourself on camera is asinine. We cannot escape the fact that we are recorded everywhere, and our only real choice is to embrace surveillance as a means for public safety. I think surveillance has a high chance of becoming more prominent in our future lives, but today, a recording of me going to the store and buying grovceries isn't what I worry about at all.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, "Reflectionism" and "Diffusionism": New Tactics for Deconstructing the Video Surveillance Superhighway" by Steve Mann rises the question of video surveillance. I thought it was very clever of him to do this sort of documentary film experiment about media use in public space. Most video surveillance main purpose is to "protect the company and their customer", yet lately technology has gone so far that it started to raise the question of how far technology can reach into people's privacies.
ReplyDeleteSome of the interesting topics Mann brought up was the concept of "shooting back". The other members of people that are shot from the camera that Mann is wearing are considered audiences, yet you can also say they're enemies as well as audience because they are being "shot". In my opinion, I don't think they should be considered as enemies unless they are really guilty in doing something that the camera is captured. However, it does make sense to feel like enemies as people feel uncomfortable and at unease when they're being shot in film.
I hope that Mann's documentary experiment did raise some question about the video surveillance to companies and the public. I am sure we can all learn from watching his film about this controversial topic.
I liked Steve Manns' piece but towards the end when he would talk about his "maybe camera" and the "probably camera" I felt like he was going over board. He had a good idea with wearing the apparatus on his head, but after a while the whole reflectionism thing became too much and too dramatic. His idea regarding surveillance and how we should try and minimize how much we are surveyed is important and a valid concept to be fighting against. Mann is attempting to stop surveillance in its tracks, but his is not getting to to root of the problem. When he goes into the department stores, he is attacking innocent workers, instead of the cooperation' bosses and people actually in charge of implementing the surveillance cameras.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting how most of the different forms of surveillance came from either art works or other functions that were not originally for surveillance. I also think it was interesting how much Mann stressed that these "experiments" should be in public places were photography was prohibited.
ReplyDeleteThese experiments of surveillance where it's pretty much a lottery if there is a camera or not are a very good way of "reflecting" what the surveillance cameras are like, but I did not agree with his conclusion that his WearCam should be "useful and commercially viable everyday object" because it's more surveillance of people that don't give permission (the innocent bystanders), and would only add to the problem in my opinion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn this weeks article ""Reflectionism" and "Diffusionism": New Tactics for Deconstructing the Video Surveillance Superhighway,Steve Man stands out some interesting insights on video surveillance.He puts emphasis on justifying the totalitarian visual surveillance and how its design impact on us.In the beginning,he discuss how success the modern usage of video cameras provides safe and secure in public areas without letting people know they are being watch.The department store is just like a Panopticon society,customers are threatened like prisoners under the pressure of the surveillance .The design is so individuals that people would not know whetter guad was watching them or not .However, to confront the "oppressor",Steve Man exampling "Reflectionism" to show how methodology directly against the oppressor.The wearCam make people create a primitive identity combining self and prositietic camera device.It results in showing department store illigallyshut its fire exits. On the other hand,"Diffusionism"subvert the totalitarian nature of surveillance through a proliferation of wearable.It gives a possibility that guard can be spotted by"prisoner" at same time, which can also help us see better.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Reflectionism and Diffusionism, I was pretty shocked and thrown back from what i was reading, to say the least. In the section titled, "Safe and Secure, But at What Price?" Steve Mann lists different types of visual surveillance that are present today. The one that was probably the most shocking to me was the built in cameras in television set top-boxes designed for deployment in people's homes. It's just outrageous that this can even be considered legal, for cable companies to build cameras in their set top-boxes and monitor families in their own homes and basically see everyone and everything that is being watched on a daily basis. Although they may say it's for demographic information, I just don't see how it's any justifiable when they literally have a hidden camera in private homes and have the ability to monitor almost everything that goes on in the living room.
ReplyDeleteThe article " 'Reflectionism' and 'Diffusionism': New tactics for Deconstructing the video Surveillance Superhighway" , brings up a very fundamental problem of what is right and what isn't. Through challenging the so-called common sense, artist Steve Mann's action make us rethink about what we used to think is justice.
ReplyDeleteIt just seem to us that it is natural to have a surveillance camera in a department store. But we seldom consider where the video actually went.
Steve Mann realized that there are rights that are being ignored, and in order to challenge the authority, he decided to act as a mirror, and become the authority himself. By doing so and arguing with the subject, he reveals the disadvantages in the idea of under surveillance.
I agree that some of our privacy right might have been violated, the idea of having a surveillance camera is just an act of taking advantages of the one being taped. But on the other hand, it is also true, that surveillance camera has done a lot of great jobs in helping us to catch criminals and prevent theft. I believe that unless we can have a better technology equipment, this is the price that we, as citizens have to pay in exchange for a city's harmony.
Steve Mann's article "'Reflectionism' and 'Diffusionism': New Tactics for Deconstructing the Video Surveillance Superhighway", brought forth many interesting ideas to give companies and other entities a taste of their own medicine. I have to agree that surveillance is becoming more of a problem rather than a security measure as humans are becoming more like lab rats than human beings. People have lost sight as to what privacy really means and how it ensures that we can control our own lives. These days video of everyday life is recorded everywhere and spread all across the internet, and with the rise in technology, video surveillance will only become more common.
ReplyDeleteJust as Steve Mann was told by companies representatives "Why are you so paranoid?" or "Only criminals are afraid of the cameras" I have come across these sort of remarks as well. However questions such as these become very one sided when "valued" customers are unable to record inside stores. If our privacy is invaded, and our every action is recorded without consent, then invading theirs should be no problem.
Just like what author says I'm one of people who have been blind about all the surveillance about us. I found his depiction about the WearCam very interesting and clever. I've never thought that my right was violated when I walked into a store that had a motor and a rule of "no photography allowed" at the same time. The WearCam works very well as a counterattack.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I also find the author knowledgeable how he relates the WearCam as detournement, a Situationist movement "in which artists often appropriate tools of the 'oppressor' and then restate these tools in a disturbing and disorienting fashion." It indeed surprises me how art can be so practical in our real life while being used as a weapon.
The Article “Reflectionisim” and “Diffusionsism” New Tactics for deconstructing the Video Survailence super Highway by Steve Mann confronts the issue of a surveillance society and the notion that surveillance is for the security of the general public. To this end I believe Mann is effective in constructing a reflectionist model by which he can subvert the rhetoric and logic used to justify surveillance systems. By mirroring the way in which surveillance systems work he also calls attention to the imbalance of power that exist between the observed and the observers. Those who are observed are held to the highest level of standards while those observing are held to none. He hopes to rectify this imbalance of power through the use of his wearcam equipment which mirrors department story security by being hidden. One of the more interesting aspects of his experiments is the fact that when a presented as a video recording device constructed to prevent crime and increase security he did not receive the same resistance as he did when he had a typical camera. Knowing that one is specifically being observed is more offensive to the public than the notion that one might be observed which may in part have contributed to the acceptance of anonymous video surveillance since one does not feel specifically targeted although inventors of the anonymous video surveillance intended that people felt that they were always being surveyed and therefore would not want to risk robbery. Mann states that he considered two audiences when devising his device. The primary where the people with whom he was confronting and the second where those who would watch the video over the net, thereby making his art part performance and part documentary. His other means of confronting the surveillance society was through the idea of diffusion, that if one where to give everyone a camera it would thus make the need for organized surveillance mute. It would also minimize the power of those surveilling the public and create what Mann suggests to be equivalence a state in which those who observe are also equally observed and thereby do not withhold more power than other members of society.
ReplyDeleteBy Mike BOulrice
I forgot to mention that Manns method of making the observers the observed, it reminded me of the video we saw about the woman who recorded men who leered at her and put the spotlight back on them thereby taking away the "power" they held over her. As far as his conclusion on the manner I believe it’s a simple matter of choice if one does not wish to be observed or recorded in the public, then do not engage in the public. Don't shop at places that video tape its customers. Specifically boycott those that do. That’s the only reasonable reaction although his is entertaining to say the least and it is beneficial to enlighten those who are naive to the even increasing presence of video surveillance.
ReplyDeleteBy Mike Boulrice
The article is interesting as it highlights the issue of surveillance and sousveillance. However, I would have to disagree with some of the points he makes. I don't believe this concept legitimately addresses but rather attacks an issue outside of the scope. When he camera to turn the surveillance against the store owners, it seems like he is making a point. However, I think he's comparing apples to oranges. When the store owners film the shoppers, they are doing so for the sole purpose of preventing shoplifting and for security. There have been very few cases where these footages have been used for other reasons (dressing room cameras barring). However, when Mann goes up to the store owners and films them, he isn't doing it for the same reason they are. They are in their own store, he doesn't have to worry about theft, and the issue at hand is not the same. Overall, I think Mann's brings up a good point about accountability within public officials and departments. However, I think this "experiment" lets his message lose a little bit of power because of its flaws.
ReplyDelete