| |
LEONARDO, Volume 31, Issue 2 / April 1998
pp 93-102
"Reflectionism" and "Diffusionism":
New Tactics for
Deconstructing the Video Surveillance
Superhighway
Steve
Mann
Steve Mann, University of
Toronto, 10 King's College Road,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S
3G4. E-mail; mann@eecg.toronto.edu
ABSTRACT
The recent proliferation of video surveillance
cameras interconnected with high-speed computers and central databases
is moving us toward a high-speed "surveillance superhighway," as
cameras are used throughout entire cities to monitor citizens in
public areas. As businesses work alongside governments to build this
superhighway and expand it into private areas as well, there is a
growing need to develop methodologies of questioning these
practices. The goal of this paper is to stimulate inquiry into both
surveillance and the rhetoric used to justify its use. "Reflectionism"
is proposed as a new philosophical and tactical framework that takes
the Situationist tradition of appropriating the methodology of the
oppressor one step further by targeting that methodology directly
against the oppressor. The oppressor then becomes the audience of a
performance resulting from this new use of his or her own
methodology.
Those who desire to give up
Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve,
either one. ---Thomas Jefferson
There is
no place for the privacy factor when public safety is
concerned. ---John Fitzgerald, Supervisor,
Transportation Operations, U.S. Postal Service, New York [1]
Safe and Secure, But at
What Price?
The perceived "success" of video cameras in
banks has led to their use in department stores, first at the cash
register and then throughout the store, monitoring the general
activities of shoppers. "Success" there has led to governments using
ubiquitous surveillance throughout entire cities to monitor the
general activities of citizens. (In Baltimore, throughout the downtown
area, the government installed 200 cameras as part of an experiment [2] that, if "successful," would mean other
cities would also be so equipped.) Businesses such as the Sheraton
hotel have used hidden video cameras in their employee locker rooms [3], and the use of hidden cameras by both
businesses and governments is increasing dramatically. Other forms of
visual surveillance and environmental intelligence also include the
following:
- Automatic face recognition:
"A
computer system being installed at welfare offices will compare each
applicant's face to a database of thousands of other recipients' faces
... exposing fraud faster and more efficiently than other methods such
as fingerprinting.... Viisage Technology, in Acton, bought the rights
. . . and produced the fraud-detection system for the welfare
department. Under its $112,500 state contract, Viisage will provide
facial-recognition and fingerprinting services to welfare offices in
Springfield and Lawrence as part of a six-month pilot program" [4].
Meanwhile, Privacy
International is calling for a ban on Computerised Face Recognition [5] and ordinary citizens are arming themselves
with ink pads and demanding that politicians and other officials
submit to fingerprinting.
- Television set top-boxes,
designed for deployment in people's homes, with built-in cameras that
allow the cable-TV company, or the like, to track the number of people
watching, along with their identities (e.g. keep records of who is/has
been watching what and when): "Arbitron, Nielsen's competitor in
measuring television-viewing habits, asked him [Alexander Pentland,
inventor of the automatic face recognition technology] to develop a
'people meter' to recognize which family members were watching a show,
so that the company would no longer have to depend on viewers' diaries
for demographic information" [6].
- "Smart spaces," general workspaces equipped with
cameras and microphones to "constantly watch" those in the spaces and
"try to be helpful at all times" [7]. The
designers of these so-called "smart spaces," "smart rooms" and
"interactive video environments" based their work on earlier work by
artist David Rokeby [8] but have taken his
concept of an artistic performance tool [9]
into the domain of ordinary day-to-day living
spaces.
- An experimental bedroom ("the room is also
equipped with a microphone . . . and hidden video cameras" [10]), used as an interactive space: it can
"see" when occupant(s) awaken in the morning in order to automatically
start a coffee maker [11].
- A proposed (not yet
built) shower, or bathroom mirror, with built-in camera to examine
skin condition and report any abnormalities (such as moles and the
like), as well as to sense when the occupant is almost finished
showering in order to send a message to the coffee maker, causing it
to start brewing [12].
-
Pressure-based imaging sensors inside office chairs that provide a
so-called "butt print" in real-time video [13]. (The terms "butt print" and
"seat-of-the-pants impression" appear to originate from a study of car
seats using butt measurement technology [14].) The stated goals of the smart-chair
project are "to build a smart chair by making it aware of the user's
activities (posture, movement, and sitting habits)" [15].
- A synthetic aperture
camera capable of seeing through clothing, with applications such as
"securing buildings from employee theft" or "for police to covertly
monitor crowds for weapons" [16]. Although
proponents envision recorded images "being viewed only by same-sex
security officers" [17], the situation begs
the question "would a security guard be willing to pose naked with a
promise that images would only be viewed by same-sex citizens"---the
concern has already arisen [18].
Although all of the
above uses of surveillance are associated with claims toward a better
future, an object of this paper is to ask the question "at what
price?" and to stimulate further inquiry into some of these
issues.
Embodied in the work presented in this paper is my
assertion of "acquisitional privacy," a concept that challenges the
right of organizations to capture/record images of an individual,
regardless of what promises are given regarding end use. Tacit in my
assertion is the notion of self-ownership [19]. (Some self-ownership pieces are
illustrated in (Fig. 1.)
A
further goal of this paper is to call into question totalitarian
visual surveillance. Totalitarian visual surveillance refers to a
state of being in which individuals are "seen" by a remote and
unobservable entity (human or machine) but do not "see" each other
through the apparatus. (This situation calls to mind Jeremy Bentham's
Panopticon [20], a structure he proposed
for prisons, schools, workplaces and the like, where prisoners,
students, employees, etc., could not see or interact with one another,
but could be seen by a potential guard in a specially designed guard
tower. The tower was designed so that individuals would not know
whether the guard was watching them or even whether there actually was
a guard in the tower.)
One example of totalitarian video
surveillance is found in department stores where extensive video
surveillance is used, yet photography is prohibited. Of all forms of
surveillance, totalitarian surveillance is particularly disturbing, as
representatives of the video surveillance superhighway refuse to
accept the accountability they demand---furthering us toward a
Panopticon society in which we are treated more like prisoners than
members of a community.
Important to the thesis of this
paper are the following ways in which agents and representatives of
the video surveillance superhighway defend their infrastructure: (1)
Secrecy: the field is often not subject to open debate or peer-review;
(2) Rhetoric: "public safety," "loss prevention," "For YOUR protection
you are being videotaped"; (3) Constancy: department store clerks do
not follow shoppers around with camcorders, but, rather, video
surveillance is present in a "matter-of-fact" manner, as part of the
architecture's prosthetic territory; (4) Higher and unquestionable
authority: "I trust you and know you would never shoplift, but my
manager installed the cameras," or "We trust you, but our insurance
company requires the cameras"; (5) Criminalization of the critic: "Why
are you so paranoid; you're not trying to steal something are
you?"
Reflectionism
I propose "Reflectionism"
as a new philosophical framework for questioning social values. The
Reflectionist philosophy borrows from the Situationist [21,22] movement in
art and, in particular, an aspect of the Situationist movement called
détournement [23], in which artists
often appropriate tools of the "oppressor" and then resituate these
tools in a disturbing and disorienting fashion. Reflectionism attempts
to take this tradition one step further, not only by appropriating the
tools of the oppressor, but by turning those same tools against the
oppressor as well. I coined the term "Reflectionism" because of the
"mirrorlike" symmetry that is its end goal and because the goal is
also to induce deep thought ("reflection") through the construction of
this mirror. Reflectionism allows society to confront itself or to see
its own absurdity.
One of my goals in applying Reflectionism
to the surveillance problem is to allow representatives of the
surveillance superhighway to see its absurdity and to confront the
reality of what they are doing through direct action or through
inaction (blind obedience to a higher and unquestionable
authority).
WearCam as Mirror
My WearComp
invention (wearable computer with visual display means) [24--26], (Fig. 2)
formed the basis upon which I built a prosthetic camera called
WearCam, which was worn rather than carried and could be operated with
both hands free---and thus while doing other things [27].
In this sense, the video
recording/transmission functionality of the apparatus appeared as
incidental rather than intentional. When I wore the WearCam into an
establishment, I did not give the impression that my purpose was to
record video, partly because the apparatus was less visible than a
traditional camera, but, more importantly, because the apparatus did
not have the appearance of intentionality. In this way, the apparatus
provided a mirrorlike symmetry between myself and those placing me
under surveillance (e.g. shopkeepers' security guards): I was in a
position to violate the privacy of representatives of an organization
that was placing me under surveillance (e.g. representatives of a
department store or the like) without violating their solitude
(i.e. without an unusual form of interaction, as might be the case
when using a hand-held video camera, where intentionality is very
obvious), hence achieving the Reflectionist goal of apparent
nonselectivity.
In particular, the apparatus provided a means of
taking pictures of representatives of establishments that place
customers under surveillance, in such a way that those representatives
could not determine whether or not such pictures were being taken
(just as we never know whether or not a department store surveillance
camera is actually capturing an image of us at any given
time).
WearCam comprised a computer system that was worn on
the body, rather than carried, and a display means that left both
hands free. A wireless connection to the Internet provided offsite
backup of all image data, facilitating another aspect of the
Reflectionist philosophy---namely, as far as destruction is concerned,
to put the pictures beyond the reach of totalitarianist
officials. Just as an individual cannot rob a bank and then destroy
the video record (because the video is recorded or backed up offsite,
or is otherwise beyond the bank robber's reach), my apparatus of
détournement (see Fig. 2) put the
images beyond the destructive reach of members of the establishment,
because of the Internet connection, which allowed for offsite backup
of all images at various sites around the world.
An
advantage of transmitting images to remote locations is the
possibility of having multiple processors work together at various
remote sites to enhance the images by regarding each image as a
collection of photometric measurements and combining these
measurements together to reduce noise, extend dynamic range and tonal
resolution, and increase spatial resolution and extent. In one such
enhancement, I programmed the computers to use my algorithm to combine
images together into a seamless photometric composite (Fig. 3), which provided a still image as a
visual record of my gaze pattern.
(Note
the irregularly shaped image boundary as well as the exceptionally
high definition, often in excess of that attainable by photographic
means.) My mathematical framework for this processing [28] has been successfully implemented on a
large number of computers working in parallel, with a negligible
amount of inter-processor communication.
More recently, the
advent of the World Wide Web (WWW) facilitated my Wearable Wireless
Webcam (1994) and the principle of offsite (off-body) backup was
further enhanced. Once the image is distributed via the WWW, it is
further beyond the destructive powers of department store security
guards and the like, as I no longer know how many copies of my
transmitted pictures might have been made. Evidence that might, for
example, show that a department store has illegally chained shut its
fire exits is not only beyond the store's ability to seize or destroy,
but is also within easy reach of the fire marshall, who, following my
directions via cellular phone from the department store, need only
have a standard desktop computer with WWW browser in order to see
first-hand what my call pertains to.
WearCam-on-the-WWW thus
extends this "personal safety" infrastructure and further deters
representatives of an otherwise totalitarian regime from being
abusive: on one hand, I have collected the indestructible evidence of
hostile totalitarian actions, and on the other, my friends and
relatives are quite likely to be watching, in real time, at any given
moment.
This process is a form of "personal documentary" or
"personal video diary." Wearable Wireless Webcam challenges the
"editing" tradition of cinematography by transmitting, in real time,
life as it happens, from the perspective of the surveilled (Fig. 4). Furthermore, because I am merely
capturing measurements of light (based on the photometric image
composite [29], which represents the
quantity of light arriving from any angle to a particular point in
space), which are then yet to be "rendered" into a picture, I may
choose to leave it up to a remote viewer operating a telematic virtual
camera to make the choices of framing the picture (spatial extent),
camera orientation, shutter speed, exposure, etc. (Fig. 4b).
In
this way I may absolve myself of responsibility for taking pictures in
establishments (such as department stores) where photography is
prohibited, for I am merely a robot at the mercy of a remote operator
who is the actual photographer (the one to make the judgment calls and
actually push the virtual shutter release button). In this manner, an
image results, but I have chosen not to know who the photographer
is. Indeed, the purpose of these personal documentaries has been to
challenge representatives of the video surveillance superhighway who
at the same time prohibit photography and video.
These
personal documentaries, such as one I call ShootingBack [30], typically had two audiences---the
audience to which I performed and another, remote, audience. Members
of the remote audience knew they were an audience because they were
entering a traditional "gallery." (Even though it was virtual in the
sense that it was on the Internet, it was still traditional in the
sense that the interaction was analogous to a real-world gallery or
museum.) The other audience comprised those who were physically
present in front of the WearCam apparatus (e.g. representatives of the
surveillance superhighway and customers/patrons of their
establishments).
Members of the physically present audience,
at first, do not realize that
they are an audience. On one level,
they might be regarded as "enemy" (they
are being "shot at" in the
sense of "shooting back"), while on another
level, the performance is
directed at them---to educate them, teaching being
an act of love and
human compassion.
ShootingBack was a meta-documentary (a
documentary about making a
documentary). Since I am a camera, in some
sense, I do not need to carry a
camera, but in ShootingBack, I did
anyway. This second camera, an ordinary
hand-held video camera, which
I carried in a satchel, served as a prop with
which to confront
members of organizations that place us under surveillance.
First,
before pulling the camera out of my satchel, I would ask
store
representatives why they had cameras pointing at me, to which
they would
typically reply "Why are you so paranoid?" or "Only
criminals are afraid of
the cameras." All this, of course, was
recorded by my WearComp/WearCam
apparatus concealed in an ordinary
pair of sunglasses. Then I would open up
my satchel and pull out the
hand-held video camera and point it at them in a
very obvious
manner. Suddenly they had to swallow their own words. In some
sense,
ShootingBack caught "the pot calling the kettle
black."
Personal Anecdotes.
To further the
Reflectionist symmetry, I also experimented with wearing some
older,
more obtrusive versions of WearComp/WearCam, which I described
to
paranoid department store security guards as "personal safety
devices for
reducing crime." Their reactions to various forms of the
apparatus were most
remarkable. On one occasion, an individual came
running over to me, asking
me what the device I was wearing was
for. I told him that it was a personal
safety device for reducing
crime---that, for example, if someone were to
attack me with a gun or
knife, it would record the incident and transmit
video to various
remote sites around the world. I found that by taking
charge of the
situation and throwing the same rhetoric back at them, even
though
photography was strictly prohibited I could overtly take pictures
in
their establishment, while telling them in plain wording that I
was doing
so. I found that there was a big difference in the way that
they responded
to a hand-held video camera as opposed to a device
that was presented to
them as a machine "for purposes of personal
safety and reducing crime." In
particular, my approach, which
essentially forced them to swallow either
their words or their
policy, left them tongue-tied, unable to apply their
"photography
prohibited" policy, confused, bewildered, in what I believed
was a
state of deep thought---at least they finally began to think about
the
consequences of their blind obedience.
WearCam
Concept.
A problem with Wearable Wireless Webcam was that
people were often too
enamored of the technology itself to see the
underlying philosophical
concept of Reflectionism, so I felt I needed
a "low-tech" embodiment of the
new philosophy to isolate the concept
from its physical realization.
The following are experiments
that I have conducted and purposely taken to
the extreme in order to
(1) illustrate a point and (2) experience reactions
and observations
first hand. It is not likely that the average reader would
go to
these extremes but some more subtle variations of these
experiments
will still provide similar insights or reactions. In the
tradition of
conceptual art, they are presented in the form of
"recipes," or lists of
instructions. Some of them are simple enough
to allow motivated readers to
repeat these
performances.
"Maybe Camera": A mere "idea" cannot be
patented, but, rather, the idea must
first be "reduced to practice."
Similarly, an idea cannot be copyrighted; it
must first be manifested
in some "tangible" form. Conceptual art, however,
provides us with a
means whereby the idea itself is the contribution.
Accordingly, I
propose the following:
- Take one rectangular piece of
1/8-in black or dark acrylic, cut to
measure 3 x 4 in.
- Obtain a bulky sweatshirt.
- Print the words "For YOUR
protection, a video record of you and your
establishment may be
transmitted and recorded at remote locations. ALL
CRIMINAL ACTS
PROSECUTED!" in large letters, on the front of the shirt.
Lay out
the lettering so as to leave room for the acrylic between the
two
sentences (see Fig. 5).
- Affix
the acrylic securely to the shirt.
- Wear the completed
shirt into a department store or other location
where video
surveillance is used but photography is strictly prohibited
(this
criterion can be determined experimentally even before the shirt
is
made, by entering the proposed establishment with a camera and
taking pictures within said establishment in a somewhat obvious
manner).
This particular piece (see also Fig. 6) is called Maybe
Camera---Who's Paranoid?
Another variation of "Maybe
Camera" involved making a large number
of these shirts, but putting a
real camera and transmitter into one of the
shirts (I had someone
with a repeater in a backpack provide an uplink to my
car parked
outside the shop, which in turn wirelessly uplinked to the
Internet)
and having a large group wear the shirts on the
surveillance
superhighway. Figure 7 depicts
me with some family members wearing
"Maybe
Cameras."
"Probably Camera": Depending on the level
of paranoia, if "Maybe Camera" is
not "understood" by your audience,
then perhaps the following
conceptual/performance/Reflectionist piece
would be:
- Obtain one miniature (12 inches in
diameter or smaller) ceiling dome of
wine-dark opacity, together
with a camera and pan-tilt-zoom mechanism
suitable for that
dome.
- Affix dome to backpack, facing backwards, cutting
appropriate mounting
hole in backpack, leaving sufficient space, and
installing appropriate
housing for camera and pan-tilt-zoom
mechanism. Leave the camera out
for the time being.
-
Insert a small battery-powered computer equipped with video-capture
hardware and means of controlling the function of the pan-tilt-zoom
controls automatically.
- Into the pack insert means of
wireless communication to/from the
Internet or to/from an Internet
gateway/server.
- Prepare software to allow the function
of the apparatus to be
controlled remotely via a WWW page, with
ability to capture and display
images from the camera if the camera
is present. Make this WWW page
world-accessible and known to various
people around the world.
- Leave the work area and have
someone else do the final assembly in your
absence, according to the
following instructions: Roll two dice. (1) If
the dice total comes
to two or three, insert into the dome a small
lightbulb, affixed to
the pan-tilt-zoom sensor but connected to it in
no way; add
sufficient ballast into the pack to make up the difference
in weight
between the bulb and the camera, so that the wearer cannot
determine
this difference by weight. (2) If the dice total exceeds
three,
insert the camera, properly mounting it and connecting it to
video
digitizer. Verify its operation using a Web browser of your
choice.
- Wear backpack together with shirt ("Maybe
Camera"), into a record
store, preferably Tower Records, where
ceiling domes of wine-dark
opacity are used. If asked if it is a
camera, or what it is, indicate
that you are not certain, but point
out the domes upon their ceiling
and indicate the similarity, so
that perhaps it could be a light
fixture. (Security guards at Tower
Records have informed me that their
ceiling domes of wine-dark
opacity are "light fixtures.")
This particular piece is
called Probably Camera---Who's Paranoid?
"Probably
Camera" and "Maybe Camera" can be worn together of course, since
one
uses the front of the body, while the other uses the back.
"No
Camera": This conceptual piece involves video time-delay [31], to
symbolize the disjointedness between
cause and effect that video recording
creates:
-
Place pinhole camera and microphone into baseball cap, and record
video
from an establishment where photography, filming and the like
are
strictly prohibited, but where video surveillance is used and
there are
documented cases of hidden cameras having been used. While
recording
video, talk to members of establishment, including
manager. Ask whether
or not they use video surveillance, and if so,
why they are videotaping
you without your permission. Ask what their
ceiling domes of wine-dark
opacity are, if any are present.
- Leave this establishment, and return with the following, but
without
the camera: (1) flat-panel television screen affixed to
shirt; (2)
source of previously recorded video material; (3) means
of switching
between previously recorded material and standard
broadcast television
channels.
- Play the previously
recorded video on the television screen, and if you
are informed
that photography, filming or the like is prohibited,
indicate that
there is NO CAMERA, and that what you are wearing is
merely a
television. Switch through the various channels, indicating
that one
of them (the one playing the previously recorded material)
looks
like it "must be a local channel---a VERY local channel."
This piece is called No Camera---Who's
Paranoid?
My Manager
My Manager borrows from
the Stelarc/Elsenaar tradition in performance art
[32]. My Manager allows participants, via
Radio TeleTYpe (RTTY), to become
managers and remotely contribute to
the creation of a documentary video in
an environment under
totalitarian surveillance (where photography, video,
etc.---other
than by the totalitarian regime---is prohibited).
In My
Manager, I am metaphorically merely a puppet on a "string" (to
be
precise, a puppet on a wireless data connection). I might, for
example,
dutifully march into the establishment in question, go over
to the
stationery department, select a pencil for purchase, and march
past the
magazine rack without stopping to browse through the
magazines, because I am
not permitted by "my manager" to stop and
browse. In this example, I have
been sent on an errand to purchase a
pencil for a higher and unquestionable
authority. When challenged by
the department store's clerks or security
guards as to the purpose of
the cameras I am wearing, I indicate that what I
am wearing is a
company uniform and that my manager requires me to wear the
apparatus
(the uniform) so that she can make sure that I do not stop and
read
magazines while I am performing errands on company time. Sometimes
I
remark: "I trust you, and I know you would never falsely accuse me
of
shoplifting, but my manager is really paranoid, and she thinks
shopkeepers
are out to get her employees by falsely accusing them of
shoplifting" [33].
Just as
representatives in an organization absolve themselves
of
responsibility for their surveillance systems by blaming
surveillance on
managers or others higher up their official
hierarchy, I absolve myself of
responsibility for taking pictures of
these representatives without their
permission because it is the
remote manager(s) together with the thousands
of viewers on the World
Wide Web who are taking the pictures.
The subjects of the
pictures---for example, department store managers, who
had previously
stated that "only criminals are afraid of video cameras" or
that the
use of video surveillance is beyond their control---either
implicate
themselves of their own accusations by showing fear in the face of
a
camera or acknowledge the undesirable state of affairs that can arise
from
cameras that function as an extension of a higher and
unquestionable
authority.
If their response is one of fear
and paranoia, I hand them a form, entitled
RFD (Request for Deletion)
which they may use to make a request to have
their pictures deleted
from my manager's database (I inform them that the
images have
already been transmitted to my manager and cannot be deleted
by
me). The form asks them for name, social security number and why
they would
like to have their images deleted. The form also requests
that they sign a
section certifying that the reason is not one of
concealing criminal
activity, such as hiding the fact that their fire
exits are illegally
chained shut.
It is my hope that the
department store attendant/representative sees
himself/herself in the
bureaucratic "mirror" that I have created by being a
puppet on a
(wireless) "string." My Manager
forces
attendants/maintainers/supporters of the video surveillance
superhighway,
with all of its rhetoric and bureaucracy, to realize or
admit for a brief
instant that they are puppets and to confront the
reality of what their
blind obedience leads to.
WearCam
as Cyborgian Primitive
In the following experiments, I have
purposefully taken a principle to its
extreme to show just how far
out of balance the surveillance superhighway
has gone. In particular,
I have constructed a camera as a permanent body
fixture in order to
challenge, balance and reflect the elements of the video
surveillance
superhighway and the way that they are protected from
being
questioned by becoming permanent fixtures of our architecture
and
urban-planning infrastructure.
An early version of
Cyborgian Primitive involved my growing my hair through
fine mesh in
a skull cap and then "locking" it on the other side (hair
locking may
be accelerated by teasing in bee's wax to cause the hair to
tangle
together permanently). After I used conductive/metallic hair dyes
(to
help make my hair form part of a ground-plane for a transmitter),
my hair
was sufficiently "damaged" to lock quite easily. The skull
cap formed a
substrate upon which other devices could be mounted. In
this manner, I could
not reasonably be asked to remove the apparatus,
because that would require
shaving off my hair. This necessary
subversion of the body provided a
reasonable barrier to requests by
others that the apparatus be removed.
A more recent variant
of Cyborgian Primitive depended on modifying the brain
rather than
the body. I based these experiments on something I have
called
"mediated reality" and proposed as a method of conducting
scientific
experiments in visual perception, as well as for
prosthetic purposes [34].
As a prosthetic,
the apparatus I describe in Fig. 2 of an MIT technical
report [35] allowed me to computationally augment,
diminish or otherwise
alter the perception of reality for the
purposes of attaining a heightened
sense of awareness, seeing better
or compensating for a visual deficiency
that cannot be corrected with
ordinary (pure-refractive optical) eyeglasses.
Other researchers
have experimented with the re-configuring of visual
reality (Stratton
experimented with optical upside-down glasses [36] and
Kohler [37] and Dolezal [38] with left-right reversing prism glasses),
but
what is unique about my mediated-reality approach is that it is
based on
computational apparatus rather than optics (e.g. lenses,
prisms and
mirrors). Thus, my visual experience can be recorded and
transmitted to
remote locations, thus allowing others to augment,
diminish or otherwise
alter my perception of visual
reality.
As have other scientists, I found that an
adaptation to the apparatus
occurred and that, after some time, I
developed a dependence on the
apparatus. Removal of the apparatus
would result in my inability to see
properly, as well as sensations
of nausea, dizziness and disorientation.
With this deliberate
modification of the visual system, involving the
development of
alternate neural pathways through the process of certain
kinds of
very long-term visual adaptation, one may attain a permanent
or
semi-permanent bonding with the apparatus, in the sense that
others cannot
reasonably ask that it be removed. In the spirit of
Reflectionism, WearCam
was made to function as a true extension of
the mind and body, as a third
eye (or second pair of eyes, in the
case of some two-camera systems I have
described in my MIT technical
report [39]).
Beyond the fact
that a totalitarianist asking that the device be removed is
asking
the wearer to violate or subvert his or her own body, there is
also
the obvious legal responsibility the totalitarianist must accept
for the
prospect of the wearer's abrupt exposure to his or her
original, or natural,
neural pathways and the possibility of any
brain damage or onset of
flashbacks that might result from a sudden
re-instantiation of the old
(temporarily or semi-permanently
weakened) neural paths.
Thus, when asked to remove the
apparatus, if in fact it even could be
removed (e.g. if it were not
permanent or semi-permanent), one might merely
present the
totalitarianist attendant with a form to sign accepting
all
responsibility for any damage. This use of forms (e.g. an
individual
presenting officials with forms) is itself a Reflectionist
gesture.
I recently used a joint mental and physical bonding
(permanent/semipermanent
head cap) in a self-ownership piece called
Primitive Identity. In this
piece, I defined myself as self +
prosthetic device in all manner of
official portraiture (e.g. Fig. 8), regardless of any requirements
that
eyeglasses and the like may not be worn during such
portraiture.
"Diffusionism"---A Second
Option If Reflectionism Fails
In the event that my
Reflectionist philosophy should fail to have the
desired impact
(e.g. should it fail to raise sufficient awareness to make
a
meaningful reduction in the inappropriate use of video
surveillance), I
propose an alternative philosophy, "Diffusionism."
The goal of Diffusionism
is to subvert the totalitarian nature of
surveillance through a
proliferation of wearable "Maybe
Cameras."
As Foucault notes, it is not essential that the
guard in the tower be
watching a particular prisoner, or even that
there be a guard in the tower;
it is only necessary that the prisoner
not know whether there is a guard
watching in the tower. Similarly,
to subvert Panopticon, it would not be
essential that the guard be
watched, but just that there be a possibility
that the guard could be
spotted by a "prisoner" at some time.
To this Diffusionist
end, I have created a wireless communications
infrastructure capable
of supporting a networked community of hobbyists
wearing a similar
apparatus. During one performance piece, I, together with
a group of
others willing to participate, went out shopping one day,
wearing
such apparatus (thus, those at the department store needed to
confront not
just one, but many of us). The picture I took of this
group was of such
popularity that we recently re-enacted the event (Fig. 9).
Part of my Diffusionist goal
is enhanced by finding everyday uses for
wearable cameras---for
example, cameras that automatically recognize faces,
for individuals
with visual or memory disability [40] (we
all suffer from
difficulty remembering faces), as well as wearable,
tetherless
computer-mediated reality for the public at
large.
While one might be inclined to think that the
inevitable commercialization
of this invention may mark the
détournement of this détournement,
Diffusionism is put
forth as a détournement of a détournement of
a
détournement (as in the equation Diffusionism =
détournement3).
To this end, my goal is to
turn WearCam into a useful and commercially
viable everyday object
that can help us see better, avoid getting lost
(automatic directions
combined with object recognition, global position
systems [GPS] and
video overlays), and remember names and faces better.
Thus, these
very utilitarian applications of WearCam may serve as
a
détournement of utilitarianism
itself.
Acknowledgments
Krzysztof
Wodiczko, former director of the Center for Advanced Visual
Studies
at MIT, pointed out many of the connections between my work and
the
Situationist movement. Roz Picard, Hiroshe Ishii and Warren Sack,
among
others at MIT, were also instrumental in providing much in the
way of
meaningful discussion. Obed Torres of MIT took a thorough look
at this work,
resulting in a much-improved manuscript. Both Leila
Kinney of MIT and Peter
Anders of NJIT pointed out further important
connections to art history.
More recently, Jennifer Riddell,
Katherine Kline and Jonathan Roll provided
a great deal of input and
help in getting my exhibit at the List Visual Arts
Center (9
October--28 December 1997)
underway.
----------------------------
References
and Notes
1. Mick Hans,
"Cameras Catch Red-Light Runners: Cities Install Photo-Enforcement
Systems at Problem Intersections," Traffic Safety (Jan./Feb. 1997)
pp. 8--12.
2. Michael Schneider, "In
Baltimore, Big Brother Moves In," The Detroit News Home Page (20
Jan. 1996),
http://www.detnews.com/menu/stories/32681.htm
.
3. LynNell Hancock, Claudia Kalb and
William Underhill, "You Don't Have To Smile," Newsweek (17 July 1995)
p. 52.
4. Daniel Golden, "The Face of the
Future," The Boston Globe Sunday Magazine, (30 June 1996). For related
information see http://wearcam.org/
biometrics_in_human_services.txt
.
5. Simon Davies, "Privacy
International Calls for CCTV Debate," ABC News 20/20 (8 September
1995), http://wearcam.org/
privacy_forum_digest_on_CCTV.html
.
6.
Golden [4].
7.
Ali
Azarbayejani, "Smart Spaces,"
http://www.siggraph.org/conferences/siggraph96/core/conference/bayou/b.html,
1996.
8. David Rokeby, "Camera-Based
Performance Spaces" (1982).
9. In
Rokeby's earlier system the user is in a dance/performance
space---that is, a space where one expects to be observed, as opposed
to a private space where one might have the desire not to be
observed.
10. Andrew Wilson, Aaron
Bobick, Lee Campbell, Elvis the Monster, Jim Davis, Freedom Baird,
Stephen Intille, Arjan Schutte, Claudio Pinhanez, and Yuri Ivanov,
"Kids Room" (1987), http://
www-white.media.mit.edu/vismod/demos/kidsroom/
.
11.
Sr. Consumer Correspondent
Hattie Kauffman, CBS Good Morning (television program), 3 July
1996.
12.
Kauffman [11].
13.
MIT
Media Laboratory, "Augmented Smart Chair,"
http://www-white.media.mit.edu/vismod/demos/smartchair/
14.
Barry Winfield, "Buick Riviera,"
Preview (January 1994) pp. 124--127.
15.
See Ref. [13].
16.
Joe Constance, "Nowhere To Hide: Holographic
Imaging Radar May Soon Be Uncovering Hidden Dangers at U.S. Airports,"
http://www.ingersoll-rand.com/compair/octnov96/radar.htm.
17.
Constance [16].
18.
This
issue was discussed on an E-mail list moderated by Lauren Weinstein,
"Privacy Forum Digest" (28 October 1996).
19. By self ownership, I mean that the same
protections (e.g. copyright) governing the fruits of our labor (that
which we intentionally put forth as a commodity) could also be applied
to aspects of ourselves, such as our physical appearance, and other
information that we generate unintentionally, just through our natural
existence..
20.
Michel Foucault,
"Discipline and Punish," Alan Sheridan, trans.
(New York: Vintage,
1977). Originally published as Surveiller et punir
(Paris:
Gallimard, 1975).
21.
Elisabeth
Sussman, "On the Passage of a Few People through a Rather
Brief
Moment in Time," in The Situationist International 1957--1972,
exh. cat. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991) p. 127. This exhibition
catalog includes essays, illustrations and artistic documents for a
retrospective held at the Pompidou Center, the Inst. of Contemporary
Arts in London and the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston from
1989 to 1990.
22.
Tom Ward, "The
Situationists Reconsidered," in Douglas Kahn and
Diane Neumaier,
eds., Cultures in Contention (Seattle, WA: The Real
Comet Press,
1985.)
23.
"[Détournement]
. . . is the art of appropriating common objects or images from their
usual cultural contexts and resituating them in an incongruous,
disturbing, and disorienting fashion in order to confront, question,
or challenge society's stereotypes or biases." From W. Ted Rogers, in
Sunil Gupta, ed., Disrupted Borders: An Intervention in Definitions of
Boundaries (London: Rivers Oram Press, 1993). Détournement is
short for "détournement of preexisting aesthetic elements."
24. Steve Mann, "Wearable Computing: A
First Step toward Personal Imaging, IEEE Computer, 30, No. 2
(Feb. 1997) pp. 25--32. Also published as the feature article of the
February 1997 entry in
http://computer.org/computer/backissu.htm.
25. Steve Mann, "Existential Technology,"
unpublished manuscript.
26.
I first
developed WearComp in the 1970s as a "photographer's
assistant" for
controlling sources of illumination. This effort evolved
into a new
system of creating expressive images based on the linearity
and
superposition properties of light.
27. S. Mann, "Wearable Wireless Webcam," 1994;
currently at http://wearcam.org.
28. S. Mann and R.W. Picard, "Video Orbits of the
Projective Group: A Simple Approach to Featureless Estimation of
Parameters," IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 6, No. 9
(September 1997). Also publishing as Tech. Report 338, MIT Media Lab,
Perceptual Computing Section (Cambridge, MA: 1995).
29. Steve Mann, "`Pencigraphy' with AGC: Joint
Parameter Estimation in Both Domain and Range of Functions in Same
Orbit of the Projective-Wyckoff Group," IEEE International Conference
on Image Processing (ICIP 96) (Lausanne, Switzerland: September
1996). Also published as Technical Report 384, MIT Media Lab,
(Cambridge, MA: December 1994).
30. Steve Mann, "ShootingBack: Personal Imaging in
Personal Documentary," 1996, unpublished manuscript. See alsohttp://wearcam.org/shootingback.html.
.
31. Other artists have also
experimented with video time-delay but in different contexts. For
example, Dan Graham uses video time-delay together with mirrors, etc.,
to create a delay between cause and effect. His video feedback
involves both senses of the word "feedback": (1) the cameras "sees"
the screen, which is displaying the output from the camera, and (2)
the users who see themselves on the screen adjust their behavior
according to this psychological "feedback."
32. Both Stelarc and Elsenaar explore body control
systems that use electrical stimulation to cause their muscles to move
in response to an external input. See Stelarc's official web site,
Australia, 1997,http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/
http://www.merlin.com.au/stelarc/
; and Arthur Elsenaar, 1997,
http://www.desk.nl/~acsi/WS/artists/elsenaar.htm
and
http://wearcam.org/previous_experiences/arthur_elsenaar/
33. There are well-documented cases where
shopkeepers have falsely accused their customers of shoplifting, so my
assertion is not as absurd as it might seem. It is quite reasonable
that individuals keep their own video records of their experiences in
shops, as a sort of "black box" recorder in case such an accusation
should arise. In some cases, officials have raped or murdered patrons
of their establishments, so it seems reasonable that officials should
not be the only ones to have video records (e.g. that they could
erase). In one well-known murder case: "On March 16th, 1991, 15 year
old Latasha Harlins entered a Korean owned grocery store to purchase a
carton of orange juice. Soon Ja Du, the store owner, accused her of
shoplifting even as Latasha attempted to pay for the juice. After a
struggle in which Du tried to grab her book bag Latasha placed the
juice back on the counter. As Latasha turned to go, Du shot her in the
back of the head, killing her." From documentary video "Hands on the
Verdict: The 1992 L.A. Uprising," produced for Deep Dish
T.V. Coordinating producers: Liz Canner and Juloiea Meltzer. See also
"Korean Grocer Convicted in Shooting," New York Times (12 October
1991).
34. S. Mann, "Mediated Reality,"
Tech. Report 260, MIT Media Lab, Perceptual Computing Section
(Cambridge, MA: 1994).
35. Mann [34].
36. George
M. Stratton, "Some Preliminary Experiments on Vision," Psychological
Review 1896.
37. Ivo Kohler, "The
Formation and Transformation of the Perceptual World," Vol. 3 of
Psychological Issues, (Vienna: International Univ. Press, 1964)
Monograph 12.
38. Hubert Dolezal,
Living in a World Transformed, Cognition and Perception Series
(Chicago, IL: Academic Press, 1982).
39. Mann [34].
40.
Steve
Mann, "Wearable, Tetherless Computer-Mediated Reality: WearCam as a
Wearable Face-Recognizer, and Other Applications for the Disabled,"
Tech. Report 361, MIT Media Lab, Perceptual Computing Section
(Cambridge, MA: 2 February 1996). Also published in AAAI Fall
Symposium on Developing Assistive Technology for People with
Disabilities, 9--11 November 1996, MIT
41. D. Hockney, Hockney on
Photography: Conversations with Paul Joyce (London: London Cape,
1988).
42. S. Mann, "Compositing Multiple
Pictures of the Same Scene," in Proceedings of the 46th Annual IS&T
Conference (Cambridge, MA: Society of Imaging Science and Technology,
1993).
Manuscript received 26 February 1997.
A version with larger figures (better qualitly full size images)
is also available.
A PostScript version of this article is also available.
Other papers
related to interrogative art and cultural criticism of/with technology
|